be Punishment yet it 's not so by necessity of Nature 7. Hence obligation to Punishment is from the Will of the Law-giver and the Nature of the Law not from the Sinner the Law hath tyed Sin and Punishment together and it 's not Sin to be obliged to Punishment but it is for Sin obligation to Punishment is part of the Wages of Sin and not Sin in it self nor the guilt of Sin a Murderer that is cast he is guilty before Sentence or Execution not because the Law will Sentence him but because he hath committed the Fact which the Law hath forbid and therefore hath annexed a Penalty to it There 's a Privative Nature in Sin which is a contrariety to the Goodness of the Law which is the Fault therefore the Law to avenge it self makes it worthy or deserving such a Punishment and upon Tryal binds over the Sinner to it there 's hardly to be found a difference between reatus culpae poenae as Dr. O. saith but Sin committed or justly charged upon some account or other is in it self by vertue of the Constitution of the Law an obligation to Punishment being the Meritorious Cause thereof Neonom I own Christ was esteemed by Men a Transgressor and Arraigned as such Antinom If it were only so he bore Sin no otherwise than the Saints and Martyrs who also were accounted Transgressors by Men Arraigned and Condemned as such but it seems you will not own him accounted a Transgressor by God and therefore no Sin was laid upon him nor any Punishment and here you fall in roundly with the Socinians Neonom We grant also that Christ's Sufferings were as Effectual to put away Sin as if our very Sins had been transacted on him Antinom I doubt not but you will ascribe as much to your Gospel as Paul did to his there was never any Coyners of new Doctrine Papist Quaker Socinian or Arminian all Well-wishers to your Divinity in some part or other of it but will still each of them cry up your Doctrine and decry the Truth for Error and this Truth of laying Sin on Christ as vehemently as you especially in the Sence that you do Neonom But I say he became obliged as Mediator to bear the Punishment of our Iniquities Antinom If as Mediator then to take up the difference between God and us for it's Sin makes the difference and not punishment this is but the effect of the difference the High-priest the Typical Mediator was to bear the Iniquities of the People and offer a Sacrifice on which they were charged Neonom He did bear those Punishments to the full satisfaction of Justice Antinom Unless Sin be taken away in a Law sence Justice is not satisfied bearing Punishment only doth not satisfie for Sin the Law will have the Sinner or the Sin taken away therefore the Damned must suffer to Eternity because they cannot take away Sin by Suffering but Christ did more than suffer he put an end to Sin by the Sacrifice of himself Neonom Yea and to our Actual Remission when we believe Antinom It seems there 's Fundamental Potential Remission before and I doubt you will not suffer this Remission to take place without a new Law and the Righteousness thereof Neonom The Real difference lyes in these things 1. Whether Sin it self as to its filth and fault was transacted on Christ This you affirm and I deny 2. Whether Christ was made and accounted by the Father the very Transgressor the Adulterer the Blasphemer This you affirm and I deny D. W. p. 10. Antinom You might have put the Questions into one and stated it as it lyes between the Apostle Paul and you Whether God Imputed Sin to Christ at all Neonom I go on to confirm my Positions 1. To transact our Sins on Christ as opposed to Guilt is impossible for it would argue either a mistake in the Divine Mind to account him the Committer of our Sins or a Propagater of our corrupt Qualities to him which is impossible and any other way besides Imputing the guilt there is none Antinom This Argument I judge is to prove both Positions As to the First it runs thus That which is impossible cannot be done but to transact Sin as to it's Fault is impossible Ergo. As to the Major I judge the Impossibility is meant in respect of the Nature of God or the Constitution of God otherwise I know not why a Fault may not be taken away as well as Obligation to Punishment when as Fault is that for which a Man is obliged to bear Punishment For if the Fault remain the Punishment is still due The Minor you prove thus It would argue a mistake in God or suppose him a Propagator of Sin 1. It doth argue a Mistake in you to say that 's transferred from us which was never in us For the Obligation to Punishment in it's active consideration is subjectively in the Law and that cannot be taken from it it 's the Debt which the Law owes to the Sinner by reason of it's Sanction and the Punishment is the Payment 1 Joh. 3.3 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Wages of Sin is Death For Punishment is not the Sinners Debt but the Law 's Debt and the Sinner's Due The Sinner's Debt is doing the Duty the Law requires His Disobedience is an Offence to the Law a Fault blamed by the Preceptive part of the Law and this is Guilt Reatus culpae to which Meritum poenae doth by vertue of the Constitution belong There 's two respects in Sin 1. To the preceptive part of the Law and that is Fault 2. To the Penal part and that is Meritum Now these by reason of the Justice of the Law and the Connexion made by it's Institution between the Accusing and condemning part are inseparable before God and being but two different respects of the same individual Act it is a Fault and a Merit and a Merit because it is a Fault the Merit is a Result from the Fault and are such relata that they cannot be parted in Judgment Now then will not your Argument rebound upon your self Would it not argue a Mistake in God to lay the Merit of Punishment upon a Person that hath not any meritorious Cause of it in no respect If the Fault be not imputed how can the Merit There can be no Merit without a meritorious Cause and this is our Sins and not Christ's by way of Perpretation In laying Sin on Christ there are these things 1. The Spirit of God says it's Sin and doth not confound Sin and Punishment And it 's absurd if it should for Punishment is not Sin 2. It saith It 's our Sins not Christ's 3. That these Sins are Juridically imputed and accounted to Christ The Payments by Christ's Sufferings is his own Money not ours the Debt is imputed not the Payment A Surety is charged with and takes upon him the principal Debt but doth not take Money from him to pay
he there was no Sin in him this doth plainly evince that the Anomy of Sin was accounted to him 3. That the fault of Sin is separable from the Person of the Sinner but can never be separated from the demerit without payment David's Person is freed from the fault of Murder but his Murder cannot be freed from the desert of Death Now that which Christ did especially was to make the Elect without fault before God to take off that relation which they had to the Law lying as to the blame of it God's Reconciliation to the Persons of Sinners is by taking away the fault of Sin before God and this is done by the Person of Christ bearing Sin 4. That in a Sinner which is to be pardoned whenever he receives Christ was â—aid on Christ but the fault of Sin is to be pardoned whenever he receives Christ there 's the least part of pardon that frees only from Punishment but forgives not the Fault or Offence just as a King 's Reprieving a Felon but not Pardoning him To save him from the Gallows but charge him never to see his Face 5. That without the taking away of which the Conscience of a Sinner can never be purified from Guilt was certainly laid upon and taken away by Jesus Christ Heb. 9 14. But the Fault of Sin is such without the taking away of which before God the Conscience can never be purified from Guilt Ergo the fault of Sin was laid upon Jesus Christ to take it away let a Man be sure he should never see Death yet if the fault lye upon him there will still be Guilt his Conscience will accuse he cannot have Peace towards God 6. If the Wages of Sin be in the very Nature of Sin viz. Spiritual Death and it be inseparable from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sin it self then that Death cannot be removed without taking away the Sin before God but the Wages of Sin which is Death is inseparable from the Nature of Sin in the Fault before God c. Ergo he that by Death slays our Death slays and carries away the Sin which is this Death The Apostle to the Rom. 7. calls the Body of Sin the Body of Death 2 Tim. 1.10 7. That which Essentially belongs unto Christ's Office as Mediator must be performed by Christ but bearing our Sins so as to take them away before God is Essentially belonging to Christ's Office as Mediator It 's not the Essential part of a Mediator to bear the Punishment of the wronged Party but to reconcile the Parties at variance he may save one Party from utter Ruine by bearing Punishment yet cannot reconcile them without taking away all matter of offence but it is the fault of Sin that is the cause of variance God hates it and the Sinner loves it God is not offended at the Creature because he must be punished but because it 's he who hath broke his Law therefore he punisheth him 8. If the Creature will never be Reconciled to God till it hath some prospect of God's being reconciled first by Christ taking away the fault of Sin before God then Christ bore it away but the Creature will never be reconciled to God without this prospect Ergo for the Ministry of Reconciliation as to its Efficacy is founded upon this 2 Cor. 5. And it 's there described to be God being in Christ first Reconciling the World to himself and how is he said to be so but by making Christ Sin for us who knew no Sin 9. All the Sin-offerings of the Law hold forth Christ's bearing Sin if you consider their Names the proper Sin-offering was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Levit. 4.3 It was called a Sin because made Sin for us Typically as Christ Really by Imputation the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Trespass or Guilt-offering was for Sin that for the whole Congregation was such Lev. 4.15 So the Burnt-offering was designed to the taking away of Sin by bearing it that Called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Peace-offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in order to the making Peace and Reconciliation for the Sinner therefore in the Consecration of all these there was the charging them with Sin by the laying on of the hands of them that brought them to be Offered up for them Levit. 1.3 The Hebrew Doctors say all Oblations of Beasts which particular Persons Offer of Debt or voluntarily they lay hands on them and so it was on the daily Sacrifice as Mr. A. on Numb 28.2 saith signifying that it was constituted instead of the Sinner and the Sacrifice placed in the Sinners Room thus charged with his Sins the Priest was to offer to make Atonement by to Expiate and make Reconciliation in regard of Man's Sin and God's Wrath for the same That these Sacrifices were Types of Christ our Sacrifice in beating Sin appears abundantly Heb. 9.28 Neither do we say that this bearing of Sin by Christ doth free a Person from being formally a Sinner but because we are formally Sinners therefore our Sins are thus born to bring us to God 1 Pet. 3.18 The Physical Substratum of Sin remains and in us yea the Moral macula in pravity and obliquity to be gradually removed in the Application of Christ's Blood by the Spirit of Holiness but yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before God must be taken away which is the fault blamed by the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. O. of Justification p. 287. proves Sin was laid on Christ as to the Guilt which we have shewed and is either the Sin it self or is so conjoined with it that it cannot be separated where there is a demerit there is a fault if Christ had a demerit to Sufferings it was for Sin though ours and subjective in us which his bearing Sin by Imputation always supposeth His Arguments are these 1. If Guilt of Sin was not Imputed to Christ Sin was not Imputed to him in any sence for the Punishment is not Sin 2. There can be no Punishment but with respect of the Guilt of Sin personally Contracted or Imputed Guilt alone gives what 's materially evil and afflictive the formal Nature of Punishment and what is Guilt but Sin manifest by Conviction whereof the Sinner is charged in foro Dei or in foro Conscientiae The first kind Christ took off by bearing it immediately the other is removed by Application in Believing 3. Christ was made a Curse for us Gal. 3.13 14. but the Curse of the Law respects the Guilt of Sin only i. e. a Person manifestly faulty and a Delinquent to the Law 4. The Express Testimonies of Scripture unto this purpose cannot be avoided Isa 53.6 Psal 32.5 c. 5. This was represented in all the Sacrifices of old especially in the Great Aniversary Expiation with the Ordinance of the Scape-Goat 6. Without supposition of this it cannot be understood how Christ should be our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or suffer
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He likewise vindicates the Imputation of Sin to Christ in the sense of Guilt opposed to Punishment from all these odious Consequences that you would lay upon it such as this That if our Sins be Imputed to Christ then Christ is a Sinner and Child of the Devil A. That which the Scripture affirms is that he was made Sin for us this the Greek Expositors Chrisostom Theophyl Oecumen and many others take for a Sinner but all affirm that denomination to be taken from Imputation only he had Sin Imputed to him and underwent the Punishment 2. This Imputation did not carry with it any thing of Pollution and Filth of Sin to be communicated by Transfusion 3. The Denomination of an Idolater Drunkard belongs not to him upon this account c. In Sin there are three things 1. The Offence of God which is the fault 2. Obligation unto Eternal Punishment which is the Guilt 3. The Stain or Pollution of the Soul the Inherent Vicious Inclination of the Soul Sin doth not remain in those that are Justified in the two first respects of Fault and Guilt both which are taken away by the Death of Christ But Sin doth remain in the Regenerate according to the third respect viz. the Vitious Quality and Corruption thereof inherent in the Soul Pemble of Just p. 183. fol. Pinch saith 2 Cor. 5.21 The meaning of these words is not that he was made Sin for us but as a sacrifice for sin c. Norton against Pinch p. 53. Answ He was made sin for us as we are made Righteousness i. e. by Judicial Imputation without the Violation yea with the Establishing of Justice he was made sin as he was made a Curse Gal. 3.13 the Greek word used here and there are the same But he was made a Curse by Judicial Imputation because he was the sin-offering in truth therefore he was made sin by real Imputation as the Legal Sin-Offering was made sin by Typical Imputation Likewise in Vindication of Isa 53.6 from Pinchon's false Glosses who used this Argument against Imputation Christ's sacrifice was Effectual to procure Atonement therefore sin was not imputed to him p. 4. § 46. Here is a meer non-sequitur nay the contrary consequence is true Christ appeared to put away Sin Heb. 9.26 28. was once Offered to bear the Sins of many ver 28. The Greek word used here by Paul and elsewhere by Peter 1 Pet. 2.24 signifieth to take carry bear up on high and that so as to bear away and in Allusion to the whole Burnt-offering the Person that brought the Sacrifice was to put his Hand upon the Head thereof The Apostle whilst he was speaking of the Antitype chuseth out such a word to express Christ's bearing of sin to teach us thereby that Christ did both carry up and bear the load of our sins Imputed to him on the Cross and also bear them clear away And thus Isaiah Paul and Peter sweetly agree together and Interpret one another as concerning Christ's bearing the Imputation of Guilt and Punishment of sin See more in his Refutation of that Socinian I do not see how he could be said to bear the Punishment of sin that being strictly taken if first he should not take its Guilt We all grant Christ's sufferings to be Penal but how could they have been so without Guilt Therefore having no Guilt of his own he must be lookt upon as assuming ours upon which he might be said properly to undergo Punishment And he also vindicates 2 Cor. 5.21 shewing that his being made sin is his voluntary susception of the sinners Guilt Dr. Jacomb on Rom. 8. p. 490. Etsi Peccatum interdum vocatur Victima ex Hebreor Idiotissimo c. yet the reason of the Antithesis here requires that Christ should rather be said to be made Sin for us i. e. the sinner not in himself but from the Guilt of all our sins Imputed to him of which thing that pair of Goats was a Figure Levit. 16. Beza on 2 Cor. 5.21 Quemadmodum Christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coram Deo peccatum nostrum Execrationem sustinuit non fictè sed reverà ita fidelis fiunt Justitia Dei i. e. Justi in conspectu Dei c. i. e. As Christ being Righteousness and Holiness himself bore our Sin and Curse before God not feignedly but really so the Faithful are made the Righteousness of God Camerar upon the same place It is of singular Consolation so to Cloath Christ with our sins and to wrap him in my sins thy sins and the sins of the whole World And so to behold him bearing our Iniquities for the beholding him after this manner shall easily vanquish all the Fantastical Opinions of the Papists concerning Justification by Works for they do imagine by a certain Faith formed and adorned with Charity sins are taken away and Men are justified before God and what is this but to unwrap Christ and strip him quite out of our sins to make him Innocent and to charge and overwhelm our selves with our own sins and to look upon them not in Christ but in our selves yea what is this but to take Christ clean away and to make him unprofitable to us Luth. on Gal. 3.13 Let us receive this most sweet Doctrine and full of Comfort with Thanksgiving and assured Faith which teacheth that Christ being made a Curse for us i. e. a sinner subject to the Wrath of God did put upon him our Person and laid our sins upon his own shoulders saying I have committed the sins which all Men have committed therefore he was made a Curse indeed according to the Law not for himself but for us for unless he had taken upon himself my sins and thine and of the whole World the Law had had no right over him which condemneth none but sinners only and holdeth them under the Curse but because he had taken upon him our sins not by constraint but of his own good will it behoveth him to bear the Punishment and Wrath of God not for his own Person which was Just but for our Person Fol. 140. Spanhem saith Culpam Poenam esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adeoque se mutuo ponere tollere nec illam dari sine abnoxitate ad istam nec istam sine retentione illius absurdum est esse hominum culpae omnis propriae Imputatae expertem poenae ulli addici The sum whereof is It is absurd to say that a Man can be void of his own sin or the sin of another and yet Condemned to any Punishment Spanhem Dub. Evang. pars tert p. 117. DEBATE III. Of the Discharge of the Elect from Sins upon their being laid on Christ Neonom GEntlemen you may remember what Point was discoursed the last time we met in this Conference now Mr. Antinomian is come I pray let us proceed in order and method and if you please I will propound the subject of our Discourse because I
And is it not strange Gentlemen that after he had said this he should affirm a Separation Antinom And is it not strange that you cannot distinguish between Separations I may separate from a thing in one respect and not in another I may separate from another as to Communion but not as to Relation let it be Son Wife Brother c. and it 's strange you cannot understand forsaking to be but of a Relation Neonom The Lord Jesus could not be abhorred or odious to God for in him God was always well-pleased Isa 42.1 Matth. 17.5 Antinom We say the same Christ's Person in his Eternal Sonship was so All the Indignation that was testified towards him in his Humane Nature in which only he was capable of Suffering in that he became a Curse as well as Sin God saith it Neonom Mr. Calvin How horrid a Sound hath it to the Ear to say that Christ is odious to God and abhorred by the Father Calvin Methinks those new Words applyed to Christ do not sound so well and some Ears are offended at them I think it 's better to use the Scripture-Expressions Christ made Sin and Christ made a Curse for us Let us but have the thing Mr. Neonomian we will part with any Word that 's not Scriptural if you give us another that will express it as well Antinom Doth not this make as horrid a Sound in a Christian Ear that God manifested his wrathful Indignation against sin in the Person of Christ in a most awful and dreadful manner Calvin But that 's his way of expressing it he doth not like yours Antinom Then I will abdicate those Words Odious and Abhorrence and use his Words I be not fond of mine Neonom 5. Christ could not be separated from God or abhorred while his Body lay in the Grave his Soul went into Paradise Antinom No his Hypostatical Union was not dissolved nor God's Fatherly Love removed from his Person but yet at the same time he was under the Suffering of Death which was Penal for sin he finished his Soul-sufferings on the Cross but was under the Separation of Body and Soul which was part of the Threatned Indignation against Sin as also the lying of his Body in the Grave Neonom I will shew you your mistakes You do not distinguish between the Affection of Wrath and Effects of Wrath because God forsook Christ as to the usual Degrees of Comfort he thinks Christ was separated from God Antinom Sure this is a soul Mistake if he should mistake his Logick as to take the Cause to be the Effect and the Effect the Cause But I doubt you mistake your Divinity as to ascribe an affection of Wrath to God But I pray where there 's an Effect of Wrath in the Creature is not Wrath the Cause of it He that lies under the Effects of Wrath is he not under Wrath If Christ suffereth the Effects of Wrath he suffereth Wrath. I know not how any one should suffer Wrath any other way As to my Thoughts about Separation from God they are only your Imposition of Thoughts and Meanings upon me as I have told you Neonom Because he that is formally a Sinner is odious to God therefore he thinks Christ was odious to God who had on him the Punishment of Sin with the Guilt or Obligation to bear Punishment by his own Consent neither of which have any thing of the Loathsomness of Sin Antinom I will not use the Word Odious because you love not the smell of it I say therefore because a formal Sinner or Committer of sin unpardoned is the Object of God's threatned Indignation bearing the Effects of Wrath therefore an imputed Sinner is also the Object of God's threatned Indignation bearing the Effects of Wrath. You will be at the old Socinian Notion still That Christ bore but the Punishment for Sin and Guilt is only Obligation to Punishment which is absolutely false unless you mean reatus culpae for nothing is a Demerit of Punishment but reatus culpae Neonom I know not why you think Christ came not near God from the time of his Death to his Resurrection unless because of your Conceit for the Loathsomness of Sin God could not bear the sight of him Antinom Your frequent Banter and Scoffs at the Scripture-Account of the Nature of Christ's Satisfaction and of Sin I am sure is very odious and a horrid Sound to a Christian Ear. I shall not think such reasoning worthy of any thing but a Note of Contempt Calvin Mr. Neonomian you must know we can't part with this Article of our Faith That Christ was made a Curse for us no more than that That he was made Sin That Christ bore the Curse of the Law and was made a Curse for us is such a Gospel-Truth that we need no other Authority for it than what is contained in the Scripture being so expresly declared which all sound Protestants always understood of bearing the Wrath of God in his Soul and Body especially in his Soul undergoing Poena Damni and Sensus the first whereof I look to be the greatest and Cause of the other and also fully enough express'd by our Lord Jesus Christ upon the Cross Take Mr. Calvin in his Harmony on the Evangelists Altho' there appeared more than Humane Courage in Christ's Outcry yet it 's certain it was uttered from Extremity of Grief Verily this was his chiefest Conflict and more grievous than all his other Torments because that in his Anguishes he was not so refreshed with his Fathers Holy Favour that he did in some respect perceive him alienated from him for neither did he offer his Body only as the Price of our Reconciliation with God but in his Soul he bore the Punishment due to us and they are Men of unsavoury Spirits that slighting this part of Redemption do insist only on the external Punishments of the Flesh for as Christ satisfied for us so it was requisite that he should be set as guilty before God's Tribunal For nothing is more horrible than to perceive God as a Judge whose Wrath exceeds all Deaths Neither doth he complain Feignedly or Theatrically that he was deserted of God according to the insipid Cavils of some For the inward Grief of his Soul from the Depth of Anguish compelled him to break forth into this Outcry He did perfectly fulfill the Law endured most grievous Torments immediately in his Soul Conf. Assemb c. 8. § 4. He bore the Weight of God's Wrath and laid down his Life an Offering for sin Large Catceh p. 249. Quest What Death did Christ suffer when he Sacrificed himself Mr. Perkin's Catech. Answ A Death upon the Cross peculiar to himself alone For besides the Separation of Body and Soul he felt also the Pangs of Hell in that the whole Wrath of God due to the Sin of Man was poured forth upon him The Apostle doth not say that Christ was cursed but a Curse Calv. on Gal. 3.13 which is more for
it shews that all Malediction was included in him This may seem hard that it may look like a Reproach to the Cross of Christ in Confession of which we glory But God was not ignorant of what kind of Death his Son should die when he said Cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree But one may here object How comes it to pass that the Son in whom the Father delights should be accursed I answer Two things are here to be considered not only in the Person of Christ but also in his Humanity One is that he was the Lamb of God without spot full of Blessing and Grace The other that he took our Person therefore he was a Sinner and under the Curse not so much in himself as in us but yet it was necessary he should die in our stead which he could not do out of the Grace of God and yet he underwent his Wrath else how could he reconcile the Father to us whom he looked upon as incensed against us therefore the Will of the Father did always rest satisfied in him Again how could he free us from the Wrath of God unless he had translated it from us to him therefore he was wounded for our Sins and experienced God as an angry Judge This is the foolishness of the Cross but admired by Angels and swallows up all the Wisdom of the World We must not imagine Christ to be innocent and as a private Person as do the Schoolmen Luther on Gal. 3.14 and almost all the Fathers have done which is holy and righteous for himself only True it is that Christ is a Person most pure and unspotted but thou must not stay there for thou hast not yet Christ although thou know him to be God and Man But then thou hast him indeed when thou believest that this more pure and innocent Person is freely given unto thee of the Father to be thy Priest and Saviour yea rather thy Servant that he putting off his Innocency and Holiness and taking thy sinful Person upon him might bear thy Sin thy Death and thy Curse and might be made a Sacrifice and Curse for thee that by this means he might deliver thee from the Curse of the Law As Paul applied unto Christ that place of Moses Accursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree so may we apply unto Christ not only that whole 27th of Deut. but also may gather all the Curses of Moses's Law together and expound the same of Christ For as Christ is innocent in this general Law touching his own Person so is he also in all the rest And as he is guilty in this general Law in that he is made a Curse for us and is hanged upon the Cross as a wicked Man a Blasphemer a Murderer a Traytor even so is also guilty in all others For all the Curses of the Law are heaped together and laid upon him and therefore he did bear and suffer them in his own Body for us he was therefore not only accursed but made a Curse for us I will tell you what an Eminent New England Divine Mr. Stone MSS. no Antinomian said to this Point It may appear that Christ was made a Curse for us because he suffered the Perfection of the Second Death which he began in the Garden He began to be sorrowful Matth. 26.27 He drank the first Draught of the Cup of Wrath and afterwards it 's said He was in an Agony There was the Second upon the Cross He drank up the Bottom and Dregs of the Cup of Vengeance and said It is finished John 19.30 He was cursed of God in an eminent manner Deut. 21 22 23. compared with Gal. 3 13. If a Man be guilty of Sin worthy of Death and to be hanged for it then he is accursed otherwise not Christ was accursed hanging on the Tree and therefore it 's certain he was guilty of our Sins charged upon him being the greatest Sinner by Imputation and hence he was really cursed of God and that in an eminent manner and not only cursed but a Curse in the Abstract whereby it is most evident that he suffered the immediate Impressions of the Wrath of God and the Second Death which takes possession of the whole Man and therefore must have suffered while his Soul and Body were united or standing together he was those three Hours in the Darkness of Hell encountring the Powers of Darkness and wrestling with the Wrath of an infinite God Man by Sin having displeased such an infinite God must suffer that infinite Displeasure which Christ suffered in our room The Perfection of which second Death consisted in this that he was uttâ—rly deprived of all the Sweetness of his Fathers Love and Presence and filled with the Sence of all the Bitterness of his Wrath Psal 22.1 2. Isa 53.4 to 11. Matth 27.45 46. Gal. 3.13 in which we may attend 1. The Punishment of Loss a total Privation and Desertion in respect of Sence and Feeling of the Sweetness of his Fathers Love and Presence This Desertion appeared in that the God of Glory forsook him left him destitute and desolate God the Father hid his Face from him God would not send in any Comfort by Sun Angels Saints Psal 16.12 God did not only stand at a distance but lock'd up himself in Anger from him would not be entreated by him Psal 22.1 2. c. 2. There was not only Dereliction but Malediction Gal. 3.13 He was assailed by all the infernal Powers of Hell Luke 22.53 This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Authority of Darkness they might do their worst now they had their full Scope the greatâ—st Battel was fought upon the Cross Col. 2.15 2. He wrestled with the Fierceness of the wrath of an Angry God consuming Fire he was smitten of God Psal 69.27 Isa 50. Zech. 13.3 He was his Executioner 3. A Confluence of Plagues and Evils fell upon him and settled themselves on his Sacred Person and he was filled with them he was in the depth of them Psal 69.1 Quest What did our Saviour suffer in Soul Dr. Vsher's Div. p. 172. Answ He drank the full Cup of God's Wrath filled unto him for our sakes the whole Wrath of God due to the Sin of Man being poured forth upon him therefore in Soul he did abide unspeakable Vexations horrible Griefs painful Troubles Fear of Mind feeling as it were the very Pangs of Hell into which both before and most of all when he hanged upon the Cross he was cast which caused him before his bodily Passion so grievously to complain The Death of Christ is the last Act of his Humiliation whereby he underwent the most extreme Ames c. 22. horrible and greatest Punishments for Man's Sins § 2. It contained the greatest Punishments because it did equalize all that misery which the sins of men did deserve Hence is that Plenty of Words and Phrases whereby that Death is expressed in Scripture For it 's not called
express it better than you do He would have said The Decree was of the Means and the End and he would not have said Willing the first i. e. The Means in order to a Will of the End but willing the End to be brought about by the Means Quod primum est in Intentione uttimum in Executione as to our Conception 4. You say it puts nothing in present being I say it puts the Promise in an Eternal Being And if you mean as to Created Beings and the manner of them it puts them into a determinate Futurition 5. You say it barrs not God of his Government No it 's not fit nor possible his own Pleasure should barr him of it neither is it possible it should barr him of what he would have neither is he the more barred because you are pleased to find Fault and it was his Pleasure to govern as he willed to govern and all the Connexion of Events so as they come to pass in a way of Necessity and Contingency But he determined absolutely and nothing that falls out is contingent to him for he judgeth not of Events as probable by Opinion but as certain to his Knowledge and therefore knows them because he willeth them to come to pass according to his Counsel and Purpose in himself Neonom So if the Dr. had animadverted that Christ's Sufferings were the Foundation of our Pardon but not formally our Pardon For them our Sins are forgiven whenever they be forgiven Without them Sin can't be forgiven and they were endured that the Sins of all the Elect when Believers should be forgiven Antinom There 's no doubt but the Dr. was so Learned and Wise that he animadverted as much as you can tell him and undoubtedly what was the main of his Judgment that he insisted upon was not from Inanimad version Ignorance or Mistake But you have found out it seems some subtile Distinction that he thought not of You say he should have said That Christ's Sufferings were the Foundation of Pardon All that he saith and means is that our Sins were fundamentally pardoned in Christ But your fundamentally is only a remote Causality as Election is to Creation and Redemption for that 's the Foundation of both If you had not intended so why had you not said the Material Cause seeing you deny them to be the Formal but you 'l have them to be neither and you say For them our Sins are forgiven Take heed how you touch there Be careful you come not too near Christ It 's a tender Point For them our Sins are forgiven How For them For them as an End Or how for them As a satisfying Reason to the Law and offended Justice of God Or only as a Benefit procured For them remotely or for them immediately For them alone or for them in conjunction with other things All that we have at present of your Meaning of for them is that without them Sin cannot be forgiven A poor Causa sine qua non As a Judge gives Sentence upon a Malefactor or acquits him Why doth he sentence or acquit him For his coming to the Judgment-Hall For say I unless the Judge had come to Court the Prisoner could not have been condemned or acquitted Christ is beholding to you for what you give to his Sufferings But we shall see more of this hereafter Neonom But yet they are not forgiven immediately upon nor meerly by his enduring those Sufferings Antinom But you mean by something else besides them not by an immediate Application of them but mediate and remote a causa fine qua non but not causa solibitaria suo genere Neonom But there was by Divine Appointment to interpose a Gospel-Promise of Pardon Antinom Now we come to the Nicety of the Point We shall split a Hair here with a Beetle and Wedges There 's the Curiosity of it What! The Promise come after Christ's Sufferings to interpose between us and Christ's Sufferings Was not the Promise the Cause of Christ's Suffering in the hidden State and Mystery of it before the World was Tit. 1. Was not the Promise declared and promulgated before Christ's Sufferings to Adam Abraham c. And was not Christ in all his Sufferings and Triumphs the great Gift of the Promise as well as the Condition of the Covenant But you 'll have Christ to be provided as an Indefinite good Medicine to stand in the Apothecaries Shop for some body or other when the Physician prescribes it Nay it 's not an absolute sick Patient neither that must have this Medicine it 's one that the Apothecary hath in a manner cured before But there 's some ugly Chronical Symptom or other remains which the Physician must be sent to for Before the Person be pardoned he must be in a very sound and safe Condition I suppose you mean Neonom There must be a work of the Spirit for Conformity to the Rule of the Promise in the Person to be pardoned and a Judicial Act of Pardon by that Promise on the Person thus conformed to the Promise Antinom The plain English of this Position is that there must be an Inherent Righteousness in the Person to be pardoned upon the condition whereof he is to be pardoned and that the Use of Christ's Sufferings are to compound with God for Sinners upon the Account of the Old Law and put a Bar upon his Proceedings according to that and procure another Law by the Righteousness whereof we are justified which Righteousness is our own inherent Righteousness and not Christ's This I affirm hath two things in it First the Abrogation of the Old Law That we have nothing to do with it at all it 's altogether out a-doors This is Antinomianism higher than ever Dr. Crisp affirm'd or any of his Abettors as you call them Secondly Here is Erection of a new Law of Works for our Justification which is Neonomianism Neonom To clear this Point consider 1. The Law is sometimes taken for the Perceptive part of God's Will with the Sanction of the Covenant of Works Antinom The preceptive Will of God with the Sanction of Rewards promised upon Performance of the things required and Threats of Punishment upon the Non-performance is always a Law or Covenant of Works Neonom In this Covenant Life was promised to sinless Obedience and Death was threatned against every Sin without admitting Repenance to Forgiveness Antinom To talk of any other Obedience to a Law besides sinless in respect of that Law in it's preceptive part is Nonsence For sinful Obedience which you are going to plead for is Disobedience and whereas you say Life was promised in that Law to Adam's sinless Obedience That 's a Supposition but there was no explicit Promise in the Sanction neither was there any need there should For a Sovereign may command a Duty or make a thing a Duty to a Subject upon a Penalty without promising a Reward And whereas you say Death was threatned without admitting Repentance to