persolveré suppliciis maleficiis metuere Cicero Castigare pro commerita noxia Plaut Pro dictis factis ulscisci Terrent Pro peccatis Passus aut Mortuus Grot. de sat that he thinks Christ became the very Idolater and Blasphemer you heard him again and again deny that he thought so but he said that Christ was charged with and bore the Sins of the Idolater and Blasphemer and I stand to it and I must tell you if a Man bound for Money becomes a Debtor it 's for that Debt which is owing And if Idolatry be a Sin whereby a Sinner is a Debtor to the Law Christ becomes a Debtor in the same sence for Idolatry And I told you a Debtor is a Moral Transgressor if he make not due payment as well as a Thief both Sinners against one Command Neonom Christ paying our Debts was a satisfaction for Criminals not a payment of Money Antinom Not Silver and Gold but a better sort of Money 1 Pet. 1.18 19. You know the Spirit of God alludes to that Metaphor he calls our Redemption Our being bought with a Price or a Ransom c. 1 Cor. 6.20 therefore I think you should not pretend to be wiser than the Spirit of God and Christs paying our Debts was making satisfaction for Criminals and he was a reputed Criminal he was numbred among Transgressors not only by Man as you say but by God Neonom And yet it is plain that if I were bound for Money for one that by Drunkenness wastes his Estate my being bound to pay the Money doth not argue that I was or must by the Creditors be so accounted when I make payment Antinom It is very true Mr. Moderator I think it's time for us to break up our Club at this time for if the Constable should happen to look in and hear such high-flown Reasoning as this is I do not know but we may be in danger of being laid by the Heels the best of it is that we shall not be reckoned Constables for being laid by the Heels Neonom Once more to clinch the last Conviction a little closer because Christ was made Sin i. e. an Offering or Sacrifice for Sin therefore he thinks our very Sins was laid upon him and he made filthy Antinom Because he was made a Sacrifice for Sin therefore I say he was made Sin the Sacrifices were made Sin and bore the Sins of the People Typically as Shadows Christ really and as the Substance and as the Sacrifices became Levitically Unclean by the bearing of Sin so Christ the true Sacrifice was Judicially Unclean when he bore our Sins in his Body on the Tree Neonom To add no more because men wickedly arraigned him as a Blasphemer therefore â—he Doctor thinks he was so indeed and in God's account Calvin What blundering Doctor is this to have so many gross Mistakes in such a plain point of Divinity and of so great concern that ever any Man's Skull should be so thick as to think that Christ Actually Blasphemed God because he bore the Sins upon the Cross of those that reproached him for a Blasphemer and Arraigned him as such Antinom I pray Sir let me ask him one Question for Information now he talks of Blasphemers and he is so good at rectifying Mistakes Tell me the meaning of that place Psal 69.3 applyed to Christ Rom. 15.3 Some take it to mean that the Blasphemies of Blasphemers were charged upon and imputed to Christ and I think the Apostle Paul quotes the place in that sence but it may be the Apostle Paul and I may be both mistaken I pray Sir make it so and add it to the other mistakes Calvin You have been a great while shewing what laying of Sin upon Christ is not and convincing this Dr. of Antinomianism and want of Brains I pray Sir now let us be the better for yours and let us know the Truth in this great matter and that we may not be liable to be led aside by such dark Larthorn Doctors as you make this to be Neonom I came on purpose to be a Guide to you I know you are all at a loss in these Points Truth Though our Sins were Imputed to Christ with respect to the Guilt thereof so that he by the Fathers appointment and his own consent became obliged as a Mediator to bear the Punishment of our Iniquities and he did bear those Punishments to the full satisfaction of Justice and to our Actual Remission when we believe nevertheless the filth of our Sins was not laid on Christ nor can he be called the Transgressor or was he in God's account the Blasphemer Murderer c. D. W. p. 7. That you may not be mistaken I will tell you in several particulars what I hold 1. Christ bare the Punishment of our Sins D. W. p. 9. Antinom Sir I desire to remark upon your Concessions as you Name them Neonom I pray take your liberty as to that Antinom Punishment is such no otherwise than as the Wages of Sin and where Sin is not charged there 's no Wages due and therefore if Punishment be taken only as Suffering for Sin it 's no Punishment but bare Sufferings An Innocent Person may suffer but none can be punished by justice but a nocent Person that is so in the Eye of the Law that inflicts the Suffering Neonom 2. Christ bare the Guilt of our Sins which is that respect of Sin to the threatning of the Law whereby there is an Obligation to bear the Punishment Antinom We have told you the Scripture every where says Christ bore our Sin You say before that our Sins were Imputed to Christ with respect to Guilt as if they were not layed on the guilty 2. We find God's People for whom Christ bore Sin do often labour under Guilt of Sin 3. Guilt of Sin is a result of Sin belongs to the Committer and all the World is found Guilty before God or else it is the Judicial Charge or Accusation by the Law whereby the Sinner is made to deserve Punishment thus it is with Thousands that have no sense of Guilt in Conscience 4. Guilt in Conscience is taken off at the application of the satisfaction of Christ to the Soul by the sence of his bearing Sin 5. Guilt in Judgment is upon proof of the Charge or Confession of it either from Conscience of the Fact in the Person that committed it or from a submitting to the Charge in the place and stead of another whereupon the Person becomes Guilty i. e. blame-worthy and faulty in the Eye of the Law 6. You mistake in saying Guilt is that respect of Sin to the Threatnings of the Law whereby there is an obligation to bear Punishment Guilt is the just Charge of Sin which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Transgression of the Preceptive part it 's Extrinsick to Sin to suffer Punishment for Sin and though they are relata by God's Constitution that where-ever there is Sin there must
Forgiveness It was not expressed no more was the Admittance of a Surety But if God had intended the Salvation of Man by a Law of Works this might have been admitted When once a Transgressor is sentenced by the Law he falls into the Hands of Prerogative and the Prince may do with him what he pleaseth God also might have put Repentance into the Conditions of the Law of Works at first and said If thou dost not eat or repent of thy eating thou shalt have thy Reward But God never intended to accept Repentance as a Foederal Condition of any Covenant whatever nor no other Imperfect Obedience There was never but one Law of Works and to fulfilling it he always stood upon perfect sinless Obedience Neonom Vpon the Fall Life is impossible by the Law with this Sanction Antinom Yea or by any Law whatsoever with this Sanction Neonom And hence to preach it to Sinners as a way to Blessedness is sinful and vain and no saving Benefit is dispensed to any of us by this Rule Antinom To preach any Law to Sinners as a way to Blessedness in this forementioned Sence of a Law is sinful and vain and no saving Benefit is dispensed to any of us by such a Rule Therefore the preaching a new Law is as sinful and vain Neonom The Gospel includes the Moral Preceptive part of the first Law with some additional Precepts which suppose our Apostate State As Faith in an attoning Saviour and Repentance for Sin these could not be injoyned as Duties upon innocent Man by a Rule of Happiness and Misery Nor could they be necessary to his Right to Life because they would suppose him a Sinner Antinom 1. I deny that the Gospel takes in or includes any Moral Preceptive part of the Law as a Rule of Happiness and Misery with Sanction as a Foederal Condition nor any Additional Precepts which suppose our Apostate state as Faith and Repentance For it were vain to set up such a Law seeing a Law of Works proved fruitless to Man in his perfect State it 's much more likely to be of none effect we being now a Thousand times more unable to perform the old Law or a new one with Additional Precepts And it becomes not the Wisdom of God to make a Law to enjoyn new Obedience to dead Men unless he makes them alive first Moreover all the Preceptive Will of God then or afterward to be revealed was enjoyned to Man as his Duty to observe in the Law of Nature imprinted on his Heart As for Faith it was an eminent part of his Perfection and that which the Serpent first wounded him in by Temptation Repentance also is an included Duty required in every Command of God upon a Supposal of a Transgression but that Repentance or any Duties are enjoyned as a Rule of Happiness and Misery if I understand your Rule aright viz. A Foederal Condition giving Right as such since the Fall I utterly deny and the rather because any such Duties suppose him a Sinner as will be very easily made appear when need requires Neonom The Gospel is taken in a large Sence when I say it includes all the Moral Precepts But yet the Gospel doth so and they are the Commands of Christ as Redeemer to whom all Judgment is committed as well as the Law of the Creator Antinom In your Sence it 's taken in so large a Sence as to make it Gospel is Nonsence If it takes in all Moral Precepts as Foederal Conditions that 's your Sence then it sets up the Old Law again only new vamps it with some Additional Precepts You have the Old Law you say and a great deal more the Precepts of Faith and Repentance which are a Thousand Times more hard to perform by Man in his Apostate State than ever a hundred Laws would have been to Adam in his Innocency Now here is in your new Law brought in not only all the Precepts of the Old Law for Condition but the difficult Task of a Blackamore's changing his Skin and a Leopard his Spots before the Sinner hath the Benefit of the Promise so much as in any taste of pardoning Mercy which you make when he hath it the Foederal Reward for so it must be of his Conformity to the Rule 2. Christ our Redeemer gives Commands and exerts a Kingly Power in Government of his Church and hath Judgment committed to him but these are not of the Gospel Conditions of Life unto Sinners propounded in the Gospel God doth not require Obedience to the Laws of Christ in his Church as Foediral Conditions of Eternal Life Such Obedience is part of the Life promised There is the Essence of the Gospel and the Effects of the Gospel The Essence of the Gospel is altogether Promise and Free Gift the Effects of the Gospel is every Priviledge and Blessing and the Production of all Good Fruits in Service and Obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ 3. It 's true all Judgment is committed to Christ as his Reward but all that Judgment is not the Gospel viz. Whenever Christ is found in a way of Judgment to destroy not to save So the Word Preached where it proves a Savour unto Death it 's not Gospel to such in the Event 4. You say they are the Laws of a Redeemer as well as the Laws of a Creator It 's true Christ is Creator But is the Gospel a Revival of his Law as Creator in a way of Redemption If you mean so then the Ministry of the New Testament is the same to us with the Ministry of Death and Condemnation contrary to 2 Cor. 3.7 9. Neonom 3. The Gospel hath another Sanction to the preceptive part of the Law than the Covenant of Works had Antinom This is a strange Assertion For there was never any Law of God with Sanction but it was always the same Suppose that your new Law were a Reality and not a Fiction of Mens Brains as it is can there be any other Sanction than what was annex'd to the old is it not a Promise of Life upon the Condition of performing Obedience and a Denunciation of Death to the Non-performers What other Sanction have you or can you pretend to besides this Neonom Though nothing be abated in the Rule of Sin and Duty yet Blessings are promised to lower Degrees of Duty Antinom The Change you pretend to therefore is not in the Sanction but in the Condition the preceptive part or the Obedience to it required your Sanction still remains of Life or Death as in the first Covenant of Works But see how well your Scheme hangs together You say there 's nothing abated in the Rule of Sin and Duty 1. I never thought God gave a Rule of Sin therefore that 's mighty improper but let it be a Rule to judge of Sin by 2. You say There 's nothing abated of the Rule of Sin and Duty therefore nothing abated in the conditionary preceptive part of the Law And there
D. C. p. 268. by Imputation and so cease to be thine for he was numbred with Transgressors God himself did account him among the number of Transgressors for he himself made him a Transgressor at that time bear with the Expression for the Apostle hath a higher than this though it may seem harsh to you 2 Cor. 5. c. He was made Sin for us there 's a great deal of difference between being made Sin and a Sinner the Expression in the Abstract going beyond the Concrete I know the word may be spoke Hyperbolically not that Christ simply could be made Sin not that his Essence could be turned into Sin but the Apostles meaning was that no Transgressor in the World was such a Transgressor as Christ was But still he was a Transgressor as our Transgressions were laid upon him not that he was the Actor of any Transgressions Now Sir you hearing me say this that Christ was a Transgressor by way of Suretiship only not as the Actor of any Sin in his own Person do not you traduce me slanderously charge me with saying that Christ was really the Blasphemer and Murderer and Idolater And that because I say If thou be a Thief Murderer or Drunkard if thou hast part in the Lord all these Transgressions of thine become Actually the Transgressions of Christ i. e. by Actual Imputation as the Debts of a Bankrupt becomes a Surety that undertakes them Was not Noah's Drunkenness David's Murder and Adultery Rachel's Theft and Idolatry Imputed to Christ How would you have these great foul Sins forgiven I suppose you are not for the taking away so great Sins by the Blood of Christ with you it would redound to the disparagement of Christ Neonom Yes if he should bear the filthiness and loathsomeness of Sin as you say D. C. p. 436. he bears the loathsomness abominableness and hatefulness of Rebellion which is laid on Christs Back he bears the Sin as well as the Shame and Blame Antinom I was opening Psal 68.18 Thou hast received Gifts from Men yea for the Rebellious also an Eminent Prophesie of Christ The Text saith also that thou mightest dwell among them who is that them The Rebellious Beloved you must know that no Evil dwells with God the Lord stands fully off and separated from all Iniquity Therefore seeing God can't dwell with Iniquity there must be a taking away of Iniquity before there be a receiving graciously Hos 14.2 3. As long as there is Iniquity to be charged upon any Person there 's no receiving graciously therefore seeing God cannot dwell with Men where Iniquity is Christ he received Gifts for Men that the Lord might dwell among the Rebellious and inlarging here I spake what he rehearseth by way of Reproach unto me It is easie to misrepresent any Mans words and make them look very odiously if you hang draw and quarter them pluck a Sentence limb from limb But the thing in Dispute betwen us is Whether Christ did not bear the very Sins of the Elect in some sence or other Neonom Yes it is so for you say it's Sin opposed to Guilt and to say that God laid the Guilt of Sin D. W. p. 9. and not Sin it self upon Christ is contrary to Scripture Antinom For the Objection about Guilt that the Lord lays the Guilt and Punishment D. Cr. p. 271. but not simply the Sin it self for ought that I see it is a simple Objection For first you shall never find there is distinction in all the Scriptures That God laid the Guilt of Sin upon Christ and not Sin it self Dr. C. 272. nay to affirm that God laid the Guilt of Sin upon Christ and not Sin it self is contrary to Scripture i. e. to deny that God laid Sin it self by saying he laid Guilt and not Sin must needs be so because the Scriptures affirm positively God laid Sin yea Iniquity upon him and that he bore our Sins c. What presumption then is it for Man to say God laid the Guilt and not the Sin i. e. to assert the laying of Guilt on Christ with a denial of laying Sin 2. That you may have a little Light concerning the Word Guilt for I know many Spirits are troubled at it for my part I do not think as some do that Guilt differs from Sin as that which is an Obligation or Binding over to the Punishment of Sin rather than Sin it self being past and gone for when Sin is committed it leaves behind the Conscience of Sin committed which is the Sin lying upon us But that you may have the true Nature of Guilt Gen. 42.21 When Joseph's Brethren were accused for Spies there it is said they spake one to another We are guilty concerning our Brother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Buxtorf renders it Delinquentes and it 's applyed to being under Levitical Vncleanness actually Levit. 5.2 the Chald. renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Debitores we are Debtors to the Law in breaking of it We have contracted the Debt of Sin an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it s not a little remarkable how the LXXII LXX Isa 53.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Interpret the forementioned word Gen. 42.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are in our Sins or the Sins are upon us which we committed about our Brother What is the meaning of Guilty here D. C. ibid. Reuben Expounds that Ver. 22. Did not I say to you Sin not against the Lad but you would not hearken unto me and therefore behold we are guilty What is that We did Sin against the Child to be guilty then and to commit Sin is all one they are but two words expressing the same thing for further understanding A Malefactor is asked Guilty or Not Guilty He answers Not Guilty he means he hath not done that Fact which was laid to his Chage when the Jury say Guilty what do they mean Do they mean any thing of the Punishment no they enquire only of the Justness of the Charge concerning matter of Fact the Jury have nothing to do with the Punishment but only matter of Fact whether done or not done so that Guilt and Sin are all one And to say Guilt is laid upon Christ but Sin is not laid upon Christ is a contradiction and whereas some say the Punishment of Sin and not the Sin I say that Scripture that warrants the laying Punishment on Christ he was wounded for our Transgressions warrants the laying Sin upon Christ in speaking it thrice plainly in the same Chapter P. 383. 281 288 290. I say here is a real Act and not supposed only God doth really pass over Sin upon him still keeping this fast That Christ Acted no Sin so that in respect of the Act not one Sin of the Believers is Christs But in respect of Transgression i. e. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the relation that Sin hath to the Law as a fault in respect of conveyance as to passing Accounts from one
Head to another in respect of that there is a reality of making Christ to be Sin when one Man becomes a Debtor in another Man's Room Legally and by Consent this Surety that doth become the Debtor is not barely supposed to be the Debtor but by undertaking it and legally having it pass'd upon him he is as really and truely the Debtor yea hath the same Debt upon him as he was who was the principal before I say as really and truely the Debtor So that there is an absolute truth and reality in God's Act of passing over Sins to Christ and laying Sins upon him There must be in Criminal Cases of necessity a present desert upon a Person on whom he inflicts Punishment he must not inflict Punishment upon a meer Supposition Mr. Calvin I do not see but that he hath given a very clear and distinct account of his Notion but I find you will condemn whatever Mr. Antinom saith right or wrong Neonom No no I will lay open his mistakes more plainly before you I will assure you he knows not what he saith I will convince you both immediately The Ground of his Mistakes are these 1. He seems to speak of Sin as a positive material thing and doth not distinguish between God's laying our Sins on Christ as a Physical Act and as a Moral Act and thinks God took our Sins as a material Burden and laid them upon Christ D. W. p. 13. Calvin Sir I must tell you then that you mistake him I doubt wilfully for he no where speaks of Sin as a Physical Act but as a Moral Transgression Doth he not say as plainly as may be the contrary to what you suggest viz. Here is a real Act of God God doth really pass over Sin upon him still keeping this fast that Christ Acted no Sin Doth he not plainly here deny the Physical Act to Christ And doth he speak of Sin as a material Burden when he saith Christ bore it as a Fault Debt Law-Breach c. D. C. p. 283. He speaks of it as a Moral and Judicial Burden and so doth the Spirit of God speak of it Psal 38.4 Mine Iniqui-quities are gone over mine Head as an heavy Burden they are too heavy for me And Christ bore them as a Burden in his Body on the Tree it was not sweet and pleasant naturally to him Neonom He seems not to Apprehend what the true Notion is of Imputing a thing to another in Law in Criminal Cases Calvin Nor do you understand that of Mr. Antinomian I suppose he means you were never used to the Crown Bar you only have been exercised at the Nisi Prius side Antinom I am no Lawyer but yet am fain to use some Law terms that the Scripture useth and most Men are acquainted with in this matter and most Divines hold necessary to explain these Mysteries by though Mr. Neonomian will not understand them nor allow them any otherwise than in his own Sense contrary to all received meanings of them Do not I talk of Sin as a Criminal Case when I say David's Murder and Adultery was Imputed to Christ and the Sin of those and such like Actions Imputation is of the same Nature whether the Default be Debt or Criminal nature both Debts of Money and Fellonies are Moral Transgressions nay both are the breach of one Law Theft and not paying anothers or his own Money due upon Bond or Rent-Charge or the like is breaking the Eighth Commandment Thou shalt not Steal and is not Theft a Criminal Case See Dr. Cr. p. 288 289. Neonom God's laying Sin on Christ is a Moral Act of God as a Rector i. e. he Agreed and Appointed that Christ should in his Person stand obliged to bear the Punishment of our Sins that we might obtain pardon and that Punishment was Actually laid upon him and suffered by him Antinom What do you mean by a Rector do you mean as a Rector under a Law for the Rule of his Moral Obedience or was God bound by his Moral Law to appoint Christ to bear Sin What do we with this diminutive word Rector methinks you might Entitle God our Great King Soveraign Lawgiver who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and doth whatever he pleaseth in Heaven and Earth and you make him little Moral Rector and as such he Covenanted with his Son to bear Sin Did God Act in a way of Government and Dominion over his Son as his Rector when he said If thou shalt make thy Soul an Offering for Sin c Isa 53. Or as with one that counted it no Robbery to be equal with God Phil. 2.6 Was it not when he was with him one brought up with him his Delight his Delight his Fellow And was agreeing with Christ to bear Sin and Actually laying it upon him the same Act whereas one was Immanent and the other Transient God in laying Sin or charging Sin upon Christ or executing the Punishment upon him freely submitting himself to be dealt with in a way of Justice did Act as a Great Judge the Judge of all the World in foro Justitiae Divinae Why must we have this mean Title for God Rector God did not Covenant with his Son in a way of Judicial proceeding though that Covenant was executed in a way of Vindictive and Remunerative Justice And you say the Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ but not Sin it self What Justice is it in a Judge or as a Rector as you call him to punish him for Sin that is not justly charged with Sin its Transgression charged is the only Meritorious Cause of Punishment where there is no Law there 's no Transgression and where there 's no Transgression there can be no Punishment though there may be Sufferings they cannot be Penal Sin and Punishment are Relata in Logick as well as Law And you say he was obliged to bear the Punishment that we might obtain pardon cunningly worded indeed this is an answer to a Bill saving all Advantages that hereafter may be taken You mean Christ hath bore the Punishment of our Sins that we may hereafter by the Righteousness of another Law obtain pardon Neonom Again also because a Man that is bound in a Bond of Money becomes a Debtor therefore he thinks because Christ suffered to save the Idolater or Blasphemer therefore Christ must be the Idolater and Blasphemer D. W. p. 14. Antinom But pray Sir shew first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies propter Rom. 4.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these things comes the Wrath c. Eph. 56. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same force 1 Cor. 15 3. Pro peccatis nostris Gal. 1.9 Et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Sins 1 Pet. 3.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 use to signifie no less the Impulsive Cause than the Final Cause See Rom. 15.9 2 Cor. 1.11 Eph. 1.16 2 Cor. 5.21 Grot. de satisfact Vlciscipio Injuriis Sceleris poenas
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 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
former manner i. e. not between parties bearing a proportion to one another and therefore one bound in Duty or Relation to be subjected to the Will and Pleasure of the other Antecedently or fallen under the Breach of their Duty and Relative Obligation and so lying at his Mercy and such are the Covenants that are made between Parents and Children under Age Masters and Servants while in Service between Soveraign Princes in Actual Dominion and their Subjects Of these Covenants there are two sorts 1. A Covenant by way of Legislation or a Law Covenant And 2. A Covenant by way of Promise or free Obligation without Condition required to Entitle to the Promise the Spirit of God calls the first of these a Law and it 's properly so and the second a Covenant of Promise 6. A Law Covenant 1. Presupposeth these two things 1. Foedus minimè hic intelligitur reciprocum aut equale jus contrahendi propter partium inaequalitatem cum altera sit Deus altera homo creatura non est humani sed divini hujus foederis institutio dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Legislatio Clopenberg de Foed Vet. A Soveraign Legislative Power duly lodged in the Law-giver or else his Law Covenant is but Vsurpation 2. A Power and Ability in the Subject to perform the Conditions his Law requireth or else the said Law is Vnreasonable Vnjust and Tyrannical 2dly It implies 1. That both the Condition and Sanction be at the will and pleasure of the said Soveraign Law-giver 2. That the first and natural end of the Law is Obedience to the preceptive part which Obedience is due first by a Relative Politick or Natural Relation of the Subject to the Legislator so antecedaneous to the Law and secondarily to that particular Law Obligation 3dly Consequently to this Obedience whether it be little or more there is an Entitling to the remunerative part of the Law if any expressed or implied and by vertue of the compact is a Reward and the said Obedience though infinitely disproportionable is meritorious But in case of Transgression the Sanction by way of Penalty takes place and is called the Wages of Sin such a Covenant as this was the Covenant of Works and it 's not to be supposed that this Law Covenant was grievous to Adam having a Concreated Perfection both of Ability to perform it and an absolute Delight in the whole revealed Mind and Will of God from the highest Principle of Love to God with all his Heart and Soul neither could his Obedience be without unwavering stedfast Faith wherein when he began to stagger his Fall began 7. Adam stood under this Law Covenant as under a Covenant of Works wherein he is to be considered and the Law it self 1. He himself under these Considerations 1. As Endowed with a Personal Perfection and lying under a particular obligation to Obedience both previous to and directly by that Law with Sanction which the Soveraign Creator brought him under 2. God brought not him only as a single private Person under this Obligation only but as a publick common Person the Head of all Mankind and he was not only the Covenant Representative but the Natural Fountain the whole Nature being in his Loins and therefore that first Covenant Breach of his threw the whole Nature out of Covenant the Law charging Transgression upon the whole Humane Nature and laying it under the sentence of Death Rom. 5. Hence his Sin is justly Imputed to all his Posterity the whole World becoming guilty before God besides that a Corrupted Nature which is propagated to all his Posterity 2dly The Law it self 1. The particular Command or rather Prohibition that Adam stood under had these things in it 1. It was but a small Branch of that Moral Obedience which God expected from him and put him upon tryal by but his breaking thereof in one point made him guilty of all God shewing thereby unto him and the World that no Condition could be accepted but perfect Obedience 2. He was not required to work out unto himself any further Grace than he had freely received but to persist in that and therefore the Duty incumbent upon him was perseverance in Grace 3. The particular Obedience required of him for his probation was very easie and small next to nothing negative and but with-holding his Hand from an Apple and bore no proportion as a Condition to the Promise of Eternal Life and therefore could never have merited in respect of the Value but would have been Meritorious by reason of Law compact 3. If he had persevered it must have been by Grace as his Ability was of Grace and so it is with the Angels that stand they have nothing but what they have received and therefore they are saved by Grace in a Covenant of Works 8. The Law by reason of the Fall of Man and God's Will to restore him by a Saviour is not Vacated and Abolished but remains the same still in the commanding Part and Sanction It requires Moral Obedience of Man as God's Creature and continues to condemn Man for the first Sin and all Sins derived from it both Original and Actual in Unregenerate and Regenerate the preceptive parts of it are Rules of Obedience to Redeemed Ones and the Sanction remains even to them in Christ Jesus the Law obtaining its compleat end as to Righteousness Active and Passive in the second Adam Besides this the Law that God governs the World by and will Judge it by at the last Day the Works of Wicked Men will be Condemned and their Persons for their Works the Saints shall be also Justified by their Works because their Persons and their Works are perfect in Christ Jesus they being in him shall be found perfect before God and there is no Condemnation belonging to them nor Sin to be laid unto their Charge Of a Covenant of Promise THere is a Covenant by way of free unconditional Obligation and that is where the Principal or Supream Covenanter binds himself to the Covenantee absolutely requiring no condition to be performed by the Covenantee before his performance of the Promise and in a sence this Covenant is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as a Covenant with the Stones of the Field that abide uncapable Subjects of Restipulation but it supposeth the Covenanters to be such as are by the Promise made capable and willing to restipulate and perform all Duties for matter and manner that may answer the design of the Covenant consequential to the bestowing of Promise in which their Obedience is contained 2. That God hath Covenanted thus with the Creature without requiring previous Conditions to the Performance of the Promise is not to be questioned such was that made with Noah Gen. 9.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXXII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will i. e. alone and by my self set up and establish my Covenant with you without calling you forth to restipulate or perform Conditions and the Promise was that all Flesh
Grace is no condition of a Covenant in us or conditionary part if there be any it 's in Christ 3. You do manifestly own that Sinners are not capable of a Covenant condition it must be wrought in them therefore how absurd is it to say a Covenant Promise was made to them upon condition of their own Act when they do not Act nor have Power to Act. 4. The conditions of the Covenant of Innocency as you would have it improperly enough were performed by a strength given freely and that before the condition was imposed you make the New Law harder because it commands Duty as a condition beâ—ore it gives strength to perform and how was it due to our Innocent Nature no more than a distinct Nature from Bruits was due to us it was all of Gracious Bounty and ex beneplacito there 's nothing due to the Creature from the Creator but what he will from his free good Will and Pleasure make due well then hitherto you shew us no more Grace in your New Law than in the Old Law and I am mistaken if not less Neonom 2. The Principal Conditions of the Covenant of Grace express the Guilt and Misery of them that perform them Repentance owns our Filth and Guilt and Faith in a Redeemer expresseth our sinful and lost Estate neither of these could have place in our Legal Righteousness as being utterly inconsistent with an Innocent condition Nor can they have much Room in Heaven where we shall be perfect whereas the Terms of the Covenant of Works implied nothing but Innocency and Happiness Antinom You tell us of Faith and Repentance being the Principal condition I pray which are the rest of the conditions it 's fit we should know them all and when we have performed our part that we make our claim for we can make none till we have performed all 2. If our Repentance only as a condition express Guilt and Filth it expresseth our Condemnation only and thereby not a condition of Salvation it worketh Wrath and thereby belongs to the Law of Works broken Rom. 4.15 If it be a condition of Salvation it must take off Guilt and Filth by Expiation which you dare not say Repentance doth make and so Faith it 's not enough to express a sinful and lost Estate that 's but a Sentence of Death but it must as a condition take off this Sentence by its own Nature 3. Whereas you say neither of these i. e. Faith or Repentance could have place in our Legal Righteousness it 's false for Faith had place in our Legal Righteousness Adam's Legal Righteousness was Faith and Obedience and his Legal unrighteousness was begun in Unbelief which is manifest from the Serpents Temptation Gen. 3.3 which Adam complyed with our First Parents fell first by Unbelief And why could not Repentance have been one of the conditions if the Law-giver had pleased to put it in Why might not the Law run in these Terms In the day thou eatest and dost not repent thereof thou shalt die and so one Law should have done all Why could there not have been as many conditions and the same in the Old Law as you will have in the New therefore there 's nothing hinders in the Nature of the thing that makes it inconsistent as you say with an Innocent condition why may not a provision be made in a state of Innocency for the cure of Nocency if the Legislator pleaseth For he made not his Law by necessity of Nature And know that Repentance â—â—th great consistency with the Law and naturally follows in case of Transgression and there was no need of it but upon that Supposition and upon the Fall Adam naturally fell into Repentance expressing the Guilt and Filth of his Sin 4. Nor you say can they have much room in Heaven it seems they have a little at least so much as to retain the Nature of a condition or else the Covenant is lost in Heaven for the Covenant must always be made up of Condition and Promises or Performance of things promised it is an Everlasting Covenant But bâ— your favour Faith hath place in Heaven and that a higher Faith than we are capable of here 5. You say the Terms of the Covenant of Works implyeth nothing but Innocency and Happiness there was not a Promise of Happiness expressed tho implyed and God never intended to give us Happiness by that Law for the Apostle saith Gal 3.21 If there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law Therefore God never intended to give Life to us bâ— that Law or any other if he had he could have given a Law sufficient for it at first and were there no Terms but Innocency and Happiness was there not Terms of Transgression and Condemnation and those were the exprest Terms the other were but supposed or implyed Neonom 3. The Conditions of the Covenant of Grace make us capable of no Happiness except what Christ hath bought and prepared for us his Blood is the Price of all But the Happiness granted to sinless Obedience was immediately from the Creator and knew no Atonement or Mediator D. W. p. 57. Antinom Doth that make your Covenant the better or the worse Is not a perfect entire Covenant without any flaws in it better than a faulty Covenant The Apostle condemns a faulty Covenant but you chuse to prefer a Covenant that is faulty made up of sinful Obedience and that must have a Mediator to provide against it and to mend the faults of it and hence this Covenant could not be without a Mediator because of its faultiness and you say your Covenant makes us capable of no Happiness but what was bought and prepared for us 1. Then this is a Covenant that capacitates us first for what Christ bought and then when we are capable we shall be partakers of Christ by a previous Covenant where Christ hath nothing to do but Extrinsecally only this capability is by congruity or condignity 2. It 's a kindness to Christ that you will allow him the honour to buy and prepare Happiness for us and have it ready against we have occasion for it 3. What other kind of Happiness can you suppose Is there any but what comes to us in or by Christ Would the Life promised to Adam have differed in specie and be of another kind But is not the Gift of the Son himself a Happiness all Blessings of the Covenant are Happiness to Sinners the Father's Love was not purchased nor the Gift of the Son God so loved the World that he sent his Son c. 4. But his Blood is the Price of all there 's enough for him he bought your whole New Law at a Lump both your Inherent Foederal Righteousness for a condition and the Reward of Debt he capacitated the Law and brought it to so low Terms that you were capable of performing the conditions of it But hath his Blood no
Question if it be not Faith it self that is meant The Context is so far from relieving our Understandings that it contributeth to our unavoidable Deceit and Ignorance Read over the Texts and put but Christ's Righteousness every where instead of the word Faith and see what a Scandalous Paraphrase you will make the Scripture is not so audaciously to be corrected Calvin Now I shall shew you how by the Orthodox Protestants this Doctrine of Neonomanism hath been opposed as Antichristian and Destructive to the Grace of God Pemble's Treat of Justif c. 2. p. 164. fol. The Learned Mr. Pemble gives the Anatomy of this Doctrine after that he had shewed that Faustus Socinus Michael Servetus Christophorus Ostodorus and Arminius were the Forgers next to the Jesuits and Propagators of this Doctrine Armin. saith he branches out his Opinion in three distinct Propositions 1. Justitia Christi Imputata nobis Christ's Righteousness is Imputed to us 2. Justitia Christi non Imputata in Justitiam the Righteousness of Christ is not Imputed for Righteousness 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere Imputatur in Justitiam Believing it self is Imputed for Righteousness We now meddle with the last more roundly expressed Ipsum fidei Actum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere Dito Imputari in Justitiam Armin. Epist ad Hippolitum idque sensu proprio non Metonymecè The same is the Opinion of his Fellows the Remonstrants of Voetius Peter Bertius Episcopius c. with whom Bellarmine agrees in the Interp. of Rom. 4. de Justific c. 17. lib. 1. In summ their Opinion runs thus God in the Legal Covenant required exact Gbedience of his Commandment but now in the Covenant of Grace he requires Faith which in his gracious estimations stands instead of that Obedience to the Moral Law which we ought to perform Which comes to pass by the Merit of Christ for whose sake God accounts our imperfect Faith to be perfect Obedience This Assertion exactly Neonomianism and in place thereof we defend this Proposition God doth not Justifie a Man by Faith properly imputing unto him Faith in Christ for his perfect Obedience to the Law and therefore accounting him Just and Innocent in his sight which we prove by these Reasons I 'll but name them 1. We are not Justified by any Work of our own though given by Grace but believing is an act of our own Ergo not by believing The Major is manifest by Scripture which teach we are saved by Grace Eph. 2.5 Tit. 3.6 Rom. 11.6 The Minor is evident that Faith is a Work of ours for though John 6.29 Christ saith this is the Work of God c. yet our Adversaries will not conclude thence that Faith is God's Work within us and not our Work by his help for they 'l say It 's not God believes and Christ repents c. They have two shifts 1. We are not Justified by any Work of our own done by our own strength but by the Aid of Grace A. This distinction of Works done without Grace and Works done by Grace was devised by one that had neither Wit nor Grace being a trick to elude the force of such Scriptures as exclude them indefinitely to our Justification c. Wherefore it s without all ground in Scripture thus to Interpret these Propositions A Man is not Justified by Works i. e. by Works done by the Power of Nature before and without Grace A Man is Justified by Grace i. e. by Works done by Aid of Grace 2. They say We are not Justified by any Works of our own i. e. by any Works of the Law but by a Work of the Gospel such as Faith is we may be Justified by there 's no ground in Scripture for this distinction nor in reason for both tell us that Works commanded in the Law and in the Gospel are one and the same for the substance of them Luke 10.27 Deut. 6.5 What Sin against the Gospel that is not a Transgression of the Law Is Charity one doth not the Law command it Is Faith one doth not the Law enjoyn the same Obj. But it commands not Faith in Christ A. It doth for that which commands us in general to believe commands us to believe whatever God shall make known to us Arg. 2. God only accounts that perfect Righteousness of the Law which is so in deed and in truth but Faith is not the perfect fulfilling of the Law Ergo Here our Neonomians will except and say They differ from the Arminians in saying That Christ only hath merited that our Imperfect Righteousness shall be accepted instead of perfect which hath worser absurdity in it as shall appear Arg. 3. We are not Justified by two Righteousnesses existing in two divers Subjects but if we are Justified by Christ's Righteousness and the VVork of Faith we are Justified by two Righteousnesses existing in two Subjects Ergo. I shall only leave with you the Opinion of the Orthodox Protestants concerning Justification by Faith who have strenuosly opposed the Papists Socinians Arminians and Neonomians in this Point He is Justified by Faith who excludes the Righteousness of VVorks Calv. Instit lib. 3. c. 111 de Justific fidei and apprehends the Righteousness of Christ wherewith being cloathed in the sight of God he appears not as a Sinner but Justified So that we Interpret Justification simply an Acceptance whereby God doth account us for Righteous Ones who are received into his Favour and we say That it i. e. Acceptio Acceptance is placed in the Remission of Sins and Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ Justification hath two parts Remission of Sins and Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Mr. Perkins in the Order and Causes of Salv. c. 37. p. 81. Remission of Sins is that part of Justification whereby he that believes is freed from the Guilt and Punishment by the Passion of Christ Colos 1.21 22. 1 Pet. 2.24 Imputation of Righteousness is the other part of Justification whereby such as believe having the Guilt of their Sins covered are accounted Just in the fight of God through the Righteousness of Christ 2 Cor. 5.21 Psal 32.1 Rom. 4. tot cap. Phil. 3.8 9. The form of Justification is as it were a kind of Translation of the Believers Sins unto Christ and again Christ's Righteousness unto the Believer by a Reciprocal and Mutual Imputation Justification is the Gracious Sentence of God whereby for the sake of Christ apprehended by Faith Ames Medul c. 27. he absolves a Believer from Sin and Death and counts him Righteous Rom. 3.22 24. § 17 18. Christ is the adequate Object of Faith as it justifies Faith also upon no other account justifies but as it apprehends that Righteousness for which we are justified and that Righteousness is not in the Truth of any Axiom to which we give Assent but in Christ alone who was made Sin for us that we may be the Righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 Hence those Sermons in
from his first Charge I doubt not but that our Sins were all at once laid on Christ Paul's Sins were on Christ in the heighth of his Rebellion and Persecution and Christ came upon him effectually to convert him as the Fruit thereof even in the midst of his Rebellion He saith the grace of laying sin on Christ is applied to sinners while they are departed from God and is the cause of the gift of Converting-grace plain Instances whereof were Saul and the Jaylor whom the Covenant-grace took hold on in the heighth of their Rebellion But all this reacheth not the Proof of your Charge which you call Error here Neonom But he saith God hath not one Sin to charge upon an Elect Person from the first moment of Conception to the last moment of Life no nor Original Sin is not to be laid upon him the Lord hath laid it on Christ already D. W. p. 171. from D. Cr. p. 364. Antinom You have been harping on this string already I shall only repeat my words as spoken D. Cr. p. 364. I said it is true an elect person not called is never able to know individually of himself that he is such an one that God hath nothing to charge upon him because till calling God gives not unto persons to believe and it 's only believing which evidences to men of things not seen Things that are not seen they are hidden and secret and shall not be known I mean the things of God's love to men shall not be known to particular men till they do believe But considering their real condition in foro Dei the Lord hath not one sin to charge an elect person with from the first moment of his life till the last minute of it there is not so much as original sin the ground is the Lord hath said it on Christ already See Rom. 8 1 Joh. 1.7 Heb. 16.14 Was there by one act the expiation of sin and all at once that were committed from the beginning of the World to the end thereof how comes it to pass that this or that sin should be laid upon elect persons when they were laid upon Christ long before I deny not but according to the sense of the Law and in foro conscientiae they are charged and sin is laid to their charge but I speak of their real standing in the Eye of God's Justice their sins were laid on Christ and carried away by him Neonom He saith It 's a Voice of a lying Spirit in your Hearts that saith that you that are believers have yet Sin wasting your Consciences and lying as a Burden too heavy for you to bear c. D. W. p. 171. from Dr. C. p. 298. Antinom The Voice is not of the true Spirit and therefore must be of the lying Spirit 1. If he lye under Conscience walâ—ing Sin it seems to be a lying Spirit that tells him he is a believer 2. If he be a real believer and sin lye so heavily upon his Conscience it 's a sign that his Faith is very weak that it hath not reached the Blood of Christ to the purifying of his Conscience and that he lyes under the Spirit of Bondage quite contrary to the Spirit of Adoption Neonom He saith Was not David a justified Person and did not he bear his own Sin After several things he answers I must tell you all that David speaks here he speaks from himself and all that David speaks from himself was not truth Antinom Why do you not tell those several things My Answer to the Objection as to the sum of it was this I know this Objection seems unanswerable as in several passages Asaph speaks to that purpose and in that particularly where he saith Hath God forgottâ—n to be gracious Hath he shut up his loving-kindness And will he be gracious no more First I would fain know whether now under the times of the Gospel there be not many tender-hearted religious People that cry out of their own Sins and the weight and burden of their own Sins upon their own Spirits as well as David I must tell you all that David said from himself was not truth And is it truth when a sincere-hearted believer through the power of temptation and infidelity â—alls into despairing Expressions Did Asaph speak well in these Passages to charge God that he had forsaken him for ever David might mistake then that God should charge sin upon him and it may be he might charge sin upon himself without any Warrant or Commission from God to do it And doth not Asaph upon recollecting himself in that Psal 77.10 acknowledge that to be his Infirmity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my Sickness or Spiritual Disease that I should think or speak at this rate of God And are you so offended that I say it was Asaph's mistake It was by some mistake that those words were said to be David's when Asaph's Doth not the Spirit of God in Asaph say that it was not only his mistake but sin of infirmity Calv. I think you have given a sufficient Answer to that Allegation of his I pray let 's hasten as much as may be Neonom I must confess I have not much to say against the Answer But he saith Before a believer doth confess his sin he may be as certain of the pardon of it as after confession D. W. p. 172. from Dr. C. p. 213. Antinom Speaking of Christ's free welcom to all comers this Objection among others was spoke to But must not he confess first Dr. C. p 213. and be afflicted in his Soul before he can think he shall be received if he come For answer I said 1. I deny not but acknowledge when a believer sins he must confess his sins and the greatest end and ground of this confession is that which Joshua speaks concerning Achan Josh 7.19 My Son confess thy faults and give glory to God A believer in the confession of sin gives glory to the great God of Heaven and Earth and that must be the glorious end of confession of his sin that God may be owned as the sole and only Saviour Except we do acknowledge Sin we cannot acknowledge Salvation we cannot acknowledge any Vertue in the Works and Sufferings of Christ Christ might have saved his labour and never come into the World all that Christ did couâ—d not be acknowledged to be of worth to us if there had not been sin from which Christ should save us He that doth indeed confess his sin doth indeed confess he had perished if Christ had not died for him nay he confesseth that nothing in the World but Christ could save him 2. I grant that a believer should be sensible of sin i e of the nature of sin But my main design is to shew you that Confession of Sin is not the procuring Cause of the Pardon of Sin A believer i. e. a true believer may certainly conclude even before confession of sin that reconciliation is made
find it otherwise c. Answ There is not one Fit of Sadness in any Believer whatsoever but he is out of the way of Christ to which I add as follows which he mentions not I mean in his Fits of Sadness in respect of his jealousness of his present and future State he is out of the way of Christ he enjoys not him as he ought while he is in such fits therefore the Apostle puts Believers upon rejoycing always Phil. 4.4 There is matter of nothing but joy in him while theâ—e is mournings in Believers there is meltings in those mournings and more joy in mourning of a Believer than in all the mirth of a wicked Man Believers weep for joy according to the Proverb and never mourn more kindly than when they see the joy of the Holy Ghost in the freeness and fulness of the Lord Christ poured out upon them there is never any more kindly mourning for sin than that mourning when the Soul is satisfied of forgiveness of sins I say the Soul is first satiâ—fied with forgiveness of sins i. e. it ought to mourn in the faith of forgiveness if the mourning be kindly and of a Gospel-nature before there is that real kindly mouring in those that are Believers Gentlemen I crave your Pardon that I give you the trouble of hearing me repeat so much of my former Discourses but I am fain to do it for my vindication he having so rent and tore my Sermons in sunder on purpose to expose them and my Name yea I wish that were all that it be not the very Gospel-grace itself that he bears such a spleen to else sure he would never make such a scorn of solemn and serious Truths of Christ Neonom I shall not spare you for your Whining you say God doth no longer stand offended nor displeased though a Believer after he is a Believer sin often Dr. C. p. 15. Antinom I was shewing from John 14.6 that Christ is the way the only and effectual and infallible way from all the wrath of God to all that do receive him 1. From the affection of Wrath Let me tell you would to God you could receive it according to the manifest evidence of Scripture God doth no longer stand offended with a Believer tho' a Believer after he be a Believer doth sin often And where is the Believer that doth not sin often when he hath once received Christ and unto them God saith Anger is not in me Isa 47.4 and Isa 53. He shall see of the travel of his soul and he shall be satisfied i. e. pacified The travel of the Soul of Christ makes God such amends for the sinfulness of all Believers that he can no longer stand offended and displeased with them if God remain offended with them there is yet some of their sinfulness to be taken away Except God will be offended where there is no cause to be offended which is Blasphemy to speâ—k he will not be offended with Believers for I say he hath no cause to be offended with a Believer You must understand always quoad Deum as to God he being satisfied because he doth not find the sin of a Believer to be the Believer's own sin but he finds it the sin of Christ i. e. by way of Imputation so I always mean He was made Sin for us he laid the Iniquities of us all upon him the Blood of Christ cleanseth us from all Sin he bear our Sins in his own Body on the Tree but if he bear our Sins he must bear the displeasure for them nay he did bear the Displeasure the Indignation of the Lord and if he did bear the Indignation of the Lord either he did bear all or but a part if he did not bear all the Indignation of the Lord then he doth not save to the uttermost those that come to God by him Heb. 4. I say not to the uttermost because here is some offence some indignation left behind and for lack of taking of this indignation upon himself it lights and falls upon Believers so that you must say Christ is an imperfect Saviour and hath left some scattering Wrath behind that will light on the head of a Believer c. Calvin I pray Mr. Neonomian what is the Truth in this Point It is you must set us right and shew us all our Mistakes Neonom Truth The Sins of Believers have the loathsomness of Sin adhering to them which God sees and accounts the committers guilty thereby D. W. p. 170. Antinom What do you mean by the loathsomness of Sin Is not Sin in all its respects loathsom and is it not loathsom as it is contrary to the preceptive part of the Holy Law Is there any fine sweet precious part of Sin Did not Christ bear Sin of the deepest die most loathsom Sins Is it any otherwise loathsom than as a Transgression of the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ took away 1 Joh. 3. But how not that they were subjectively removed from us but that the inherency of them in great measure remains in us and God knows it but before the eye of Justice all sin of a Believer as he stands under the Sanction of the Law is taken away i. e. as to the Condemnation and Wrath that belongs unto him he is freed from it by the Blood and Satisfaction of Christ Neonom And they ought to charge themselves with it so as to stir up themselves to repentance and renew their actings of Faith on Christ for forgiveness Antinom They ought to be always sensible of and humbled for the constant indwelling and frequent breaking forth of their Sins and Corruptions but always beginning in the Faith of the Blood and Satisfaction of Christ and therefrom exercise Repentance and Humiliation or else their Humiliation and Repentance will not be of a right nature nor attain a right end and we own such Actings of Faith and Repentance ought often to be renewed by the best of God's Children Neonom Nevertheless they ought not thereby to fear their being out of a justified state Antinom Therefore to believe they are in a justified estate and not to cast off the spirit of adoption and betake themselves to a spirit of bondage and if they ought to believe their justified state then they ought to believe their freedom from condemnation for a justified state and a state of condemnation are the highest in opposition indeed privantia the one totally expels the other Neonom They must not fear their justification further than their faults give them just cause of suspecting that sin hath dominion over them and that their first believing on Christ was not sincere Antinom As to suspicion of the truth of believing our way is not to charge sin upon ourselves as lying under the Wrath of God for it this will work in us the highest despair or such degrees of unbelief as tend thereto but in case of such
is as much as to say all is in Christ and must come from him and that a justified one is Christ's and therefore is emboldned to draw nigh to him in full assurance of Faith as a merciful and faithful High-Priest and this Faith carries him forth to true Sorrow for Sin Repentance Humiliation to exalting Free-Grace and Joy in the Holy Ghost Neonom Now you shall see the Truth confirmed and I have said so much before to clear this Point that I shall only speak now the substance of it D. W. p. 175. Antinom All you have said hath tended to darken any Truth of the Gospel you have taken in hand Neonom God doth see and charge a Believer with his new Enormities as his sins and not Christ's 2 Sam. 12.9 David 's sin is an evil it was in God's sight it 's charged by God on David Antinom I have always told you that imputation of sin in the Gospel sense doth suppose the sin imputed is not his to whom it is imputed by commission David committed it tho' Christ bore it 2. The Lord so far chargeth the best of his People as to reprove them for sin this is an Act of Grace in order to recover them 3. Sin is sin in its true nature still Christ died not to save sin but the sinner that sin should not be judicially charged on him You say God doth not judicially charge a Christian with some sins tho' he may present them to his view for his humbling if God should judicially charge any sin there must be a new sacrifice of atonement before it could be forgiven when the Apostle saith who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect there 's no doubt but there 's enough to lay to the charge of the Elect even before and after Faith both by the word of God and their own Consciences and by Satan and wicked Men but there 's nothing shall be charged upon them so as to affect them in a way of Judicial Proceeding against them nay God is in Christ reconciled to their Persons notwithstanding all his Rebukes in his Word and Providence God's seeing is in a way of Omnisciency so he knows and sees all things his Eyes run through the whole Earth beholding the evil and the good He sees in a way of Grace The Eyes of the Lord are upon the Righteous Psal 34.15 He sees in a way of Justice and Judicial Proceeding and in this sense Seeing and charging Sin are understood by us as opposed to not Seeing Neonom Psal 90.8 Thou hast set our Iniquities before thee I hope Moses was not mistaken Antinom Moses speaks of Man in general in that Chapter in respect of his Fall and the Effects of it in God's Execution of the Sentence of the Law upon him v. 6 7 8. We question not but it's that Scripture's-sense wherein all the World is become guilty before God And that God in a way of Displeasure doth hide his Face or set Mens Sins in the Light of his Countenance especially in his dealing with a Nation or Church or any mixt People God's management of general Government being according to the Law and not according to the Gospel Hence all Gods Rebukes in a way of Anger are vastly different from such as are in a way of Love and Fatherly Affection But all Threats and Denunciation of Judgment Wrath and Indignation belongs to the Law and its Sanction and not to the Gospel tho' it be upon the account of the neglect and despising of it Neonom A Believer ought to charge himself with his own Sin God commands this when he calls to Confession and Humiliation Antinom A Man ought so far to charge himself as to acknowledge his Sin and see his Misery or else he will never prize Mercy and so did David Psal 51.4 But David fled from the Judicial Charge of Sin from the sight or apprehension of God's displeasure he got from that Charge as soon as he could God never made Despair a way of Salvation Confession of Sin and charging a man's self with Sin is marvelously different for the first may be from the Spirit of Grace but the other is from a Spirit bound under the Law Those despairing Fits that Job and Heman sometimes fell into I look upon them to be Instances of the Saints Infirmities the weakness of their Faith and God's dealing with them in a way of Trial and Humiliation in withdrawment of the usual Light of his Countenance and Favour from them besides that the Saints under the old Testament in regard of the Darkness and Legality of that Dispensation might be said to be charged with Sin in a more seeming judicial way than Gospel-grace doth admit God in a sense might be said to remember Sin in regard of the repeated Sacrifices and Execution frequently of external and temporal Calamities modo paenarum of the manner of Punishments for Sin after the tenor of a Law or Covenant of Works Neonom New Transgressions need renewed Pardon all Sins are not pardoned at once To say nothing how impossible it is Christ would never teach his own People to pray daily for Pardon if it did not need it and it could not be repeated Mat. 6.12 D. W. p. 176. Antinom If Pardon of all Sins be not at once then no Man is justified at once for he that is not pardoned for all Sins is not justified but lies under Condemnation besides so often as he Sins he is unjustified and if unjustified fallen from Grace for where there 's no Justification there 's no Sanctification And as to our Saviour's Teaching his Disciples to pray for Pardon daily it 's easily answered That Pardon of Sin in Scripture-sense is to be understood of God's manifesting Pardon and Forgiveness to justified ones it s of the Grace that we receive in Christ from day to day it 's the lifting up of the Light of God's Countenance upon us and the Sun of Righteousness shining with healing in his Wings or Rays of Grace How many other Benefits that a Believer hath in Christ doth he daily pray for As for the Spirit of Adoption Sanctification in Christ Jesus who is as surely made to us Sanctification as Justification All the Blessings that we have in Christ we pray for and its needful that we have them in Christ or else we can't pray in Faith for them You say it 's impossible God should pardon all Sins at once And God saith His Covenant is Heb. 10.16 17. As for their Sins and Iniquities I will remember them no more Doth he say that he will remember against a justified one only his Sins past and present no more What Comfort then is it to a justified one He may say according to you it 's true I am justified till to day but to morrow God will remember my Sins against me I cannot live in the comfort of Forgiveness for any Sins but past and present What you alledge of David Lamentations and Job are nothing
for I have subscribed the Doctrinal Articles as very tolerable Divinity for those former well-meaning times but you know the Opinion of our modern Divines about Subscriptions how far a man may go in those cases with a safe Conscience But to proceed to what I was saying That by the pretence to the Honour of Free Grace Antinomianism so corrupted Germany and in N. E. c. Antinom It was the Pretence of those that abused Free Grace to Licentiousness in St. Paul's time Therefore you might have gone further back than the Antinomians in Germany or New England And do we not know that a Pretence to Holiness and the Exaltation of that in Opposition to the Doctrine of Free Grace is that which hath brooded all the Doctrine of Popery Arminianism Quakerism c. And is it not this that you shelter all your Errours and false Accusations under whereby you endeavour to murther the Name of one who was an holy Man and a Gospel Divine and hereby would deceive the Reader into the Belief of a gross and notorious Falsehood in the Entrance into your Book which is this You say I have in nothing misrepresented Dr. Crisp 's Opinion nor mistaken his Sence This Assertion I shall prove to be as I said Neonom It bid fair to Overthrow Church and State in New England and by its Stroke at the Vitals of Religion it alarum'd most Pulpits in England Pr. p. 1. Antinom It was by reason of some such as you are that beat the Cushion and Kettle-Drums as they do sometimes against the Truth it may be oftner than for it The Pulpit and Press are like the rest of London Roads you 'll meet both Truth and Error upon the Tantivy there and the fewest in number must break the way So he that can make the greatest Cry of Error and Magisterially cry down Truth for Error he is the Man Neonom Many of our ablest Pens were engaged against those Errors as Mr. Gataker Rutherford Burgess Provincial Synod c. Antinom Sir These Persons were worthy Divines but dead and gone I will not rake in their Ashes as you have done in this good Man's and whatever Errors you pretend they were against it may be we shall find their Opinions were no more as you represent them in your Book than Dr. Crisp's was as you represent him Neonom To the Grief of such as perceive the Tendency of those Principles we are engaged in a new Opposition Antinom After a certain zealous Neonomian had taken his leave of us there was a great deal of Probability this Controversie would have fell to the ground But since that you have been the only Bellweather that hath set it on foot thinking to make your self the Head of a Party but do not believe that so many do admire you as you think nor perswade your self you can wind all the Divines in London about your Finger as you think you have done some here and all at Dublin Neonom I believe many Abettors of those Notions have Grace to preserve their Minds and Practices from their Influence But they ought to consider the Generality of Mankind have no such Antidote and themselves need not to fortifie their own Temptations nor lose the Defence which the Wisdom of God hath provided against Remisness in Duty and sinful Back sliding Antinom The great Advantage the World is easily perswaded of that the Opposers of the Doctrine of Free Grace in the Salvation of Sinners â—â—ve had against the Assertors thereof in all Ages is a Suggestion that the said Doctrine tends to the Countenance and Encouragement of Sin And this Accusation the Apostle Paul doth industriously set himself to the wiping off Tit. 1.10 11 12. and divers other places And to affirm that the Grace of God is the oâ—â— Root and Foundation of true Holiness in the freest and fullest Despensation the Truth of which doth not only abundantly appear in the Word but by manifest Experience that your Self-Justiciaries Free-willers Neonomians that seek Justification by a Law they are least observant oâ— any Rules of strict Obedience or conscientious Regards to the Commands of God I will go no further now for an Instance than your self who now come forth into the World in a Vizard of Holiness to the deluding of such as can discern but Skin-deep when your Treatise it self is sufficient Evidence to contradict what you pretend to being stuffed with so many Immoralities Immoralities I say for such are false Accusations Malice Envy Evil Speaking and all shot from the Quiver as it were of a Persecutor at the good Name of one that was upright in heart Psal 11.1 2 3 4. if not at the Name of Christ and other his Faithful Servants And as for the Danger of those Truths to the generality of Mankind which you call Error it is an high Impeachment of the Grace and Wisdom of God because a wicked carnal corrupt World for such is the generality of Mankind do abuse the Grace of God as well as refuse count it Folly yea and stumble at it therefore it is to be blamed and shunned as an Error and such a Doctrine of Life and Salvation is to be set up as may be of better Influence upon the generality of Mankind and more suitable to their Nature i. e. Their Carnal Reason and Corrupt Affections And therefore you would have Antidotes to take off the Poyson that Mankind is apt to suck in from the Doctrine of Free Pardoning Grace and this must be the Doctrine of Neonomianism and likewise a Cure of that which Believers have suck'd in already and are apt to perish under by reason of Temptation Therefore as it may be supposed you have given it the Name of a Remedial Law to cure the Distempers that arise from the Doctrine of Free-Grace Neonom Who can wonder at the Security of Sinners the mistaking the Motions of sensible Passion for Conversion and the general Abatement of exact and humble walking when so many affirm Sins are not to be feared as doing any hurt even when the most flagirious are committed Graces and Holiness can't do us the least Good God hath no more to lay to the Charge of the wickedest Man if he be elected than he hath to lay to the Charge of a Saint in Glory The Elect are not governed by Hope or Fear for the Laws of Christ have no Promises nor Threats to rule them by nor are they under the Impressions of Rewards or Punishments as Motives to Duty or Preservatives against Sin Antinom As for this great Flourish it 's but like Don Quixot 's brandishing his Sword against a Windmill It 's not only a Rule that Calumniators go by and known to be their Practice Fortiter calumniari aliquid adhaerebit But Calumnies go no further than the Ears with wise Men according to a Proverbial Saying apud Aeschium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 At the first light of a black Tongue it 's easie to judge of the Foulness of
Sanctified Vessel to receive Christ which reception of Christ though it be passive yet it is all one with Regeneration as Dr. Ames Medul c. 26. § 21. wherein not Infants only but all Men are passive which gave the Lord Jesus Christ occasion to say That whosoever receiveth the Kingdom of God as a little Child i. e. in respect of the passive reception Luke 18.17 DEBATE II. Of God's laying Sin on Christ Neonôm YOV know at last Conference our Subject we discoursed upon was The State of the Elect before Effectual Calling If you please let us discourse the Point Of Laying Sins on Christ I shall here charge considerable Errours on Mr. Antinomian Calvinist I pray Sir proceed I perceive Mr. Antinomian is very willing to hear you with patience Neonom I charge him with this Errour that he saith D. W. p. 8 9. That God did not only Impute the Guilt and lay the Punishment of the Sins of the Elect upon Christ but he laid all the very Sins of the Elect upon Christ and that as to their real filth and loathsomness yea so that Christ was really the Blasphemer Murderer and Sinner and so accounted by the Father Calvin Mr. Antinom Did you lay down this Position Antinom Sir it 's bad enough if it be as he saith and in his sence and meaning I find his way is to put first a wild Beasts Skin upon me and then fall a Hunting of me I pray Mr. Neonom how do you prove this Charge Neonom You tell us It 's Iniquity it self that the Lord laid upon Christ D. Cr. p. 312. not only our Punishment but our very Sin c. The Transaction of our Sins to Christ is a real Act our Sins so became Christs that he stood the Sinner in our stead and we discharged D. Cr. p. 270. and he is not contented to mean only the Punishment but saith it's Iniquity it self I mean saith he the fault of the Transgression it self c. To speak more plainly Hast thou been an Idolater Hast thou been a Blasphemer Murderer Drunkard c If thou hast part in the Lord all these Transgressions of thine become Actually the Transgressions of Christ D. Cr. p. 26. Nor are we so compleatly sinful but Christ being made Sin was as compleatly sinful as we c. And God himself did account him among the Number of Transgressors Calvin You should first have told us Mr. Neonomian what you mean by Guilt and Punishment of Sin how you distinguish reatus from culpa and how you understand the filth of Sin and should have alledged some Expression of his whereby it might have been evinced that he held Christ to be the very Perpetrator of the Sins of the Elect that he had said Christ was Actually Drunk when Noah was that Christ kill'd Vriah and lay with his Wife and made the Golden Calf in the Wilderness that he denied himself when Peter did yea that he Slew and Murdered himself You should have told us what you mean by Imputation c. Antinom I shall shew you by comparing his Charge and Proof together how fallaciously he deals with you and Invidiously with Dr. C. He saith I said God laid all the very Sins of the Elect upon Christ he should have added by Imputation for his Proof runs thus Our Sins so became Christs that he stood the Sinner in our stead and we discharged Now I pray is it to become the very Person and Actor when I stand in the stead of another Person that did it The Proof makes his Charge false the very Evidence he brings is enough for my Defence against his Charge and when he brings these words of mine to prove that I hold Christ became the real Murderer c. if thou beest a Thief Murderer Lyar c. all these Transgressions if thou hast part in the Lord become Actually the Transgressions of Christ he should have told you how I explain'd my self and he knows I mean no otherwise than what can be Christs by Actual Imputation Here 's a Great Sputter of Real and Actual and very Sins c. He might as well if he had dealt candidly told you all my meaning and not perverted it to serve his own Reproachful Tongue I say thus in handling this Text Isa 53.6 This Iniquity was really laid upon Christ Christ was as really the Bearer of the Sins of Gods People D. C. p. 373. as a Surety is really the Debtor when he willingly puts himself into the Room of the principal Debtor Insomuch that God cannot expect the Debt any where but of Christ Christ gives the Bond and by giving the Bond makes himself the Debtor God accepts of this and upon it dischargeth the poor Sinners themselves and if he will have payment he must have it where himself hath laid the Debt God was in Christ Reconciling the World unto himself not Imputing their Trespasses to them 2 Cor. 5.3 vers Now Sir you have the great prodigious Errour that Mr. Neonomian chargeth me to be guilty of As the Surety gives Bond for the very Debt of the Principal to a Farthing the very Debt of this or that Party by Name Living in such a Place of such a Calling for a Debt contracted at such a time So that it 's that Debt not another that he contracted at another time or the Debt of another Man but the Debt so and so circumstantiated described and subscribed by the Debtors own Hand A Surety enters into the same Bond changing only the Names D. C. p. 330. Sin is called our Debts by Christ himself who is our Surety Did he not bear our very Debts He that bare our very Debts bare our very Sins but Christ bare our very Debts and now for me to pay the very Debts of a Debtor that is become Bankrupt and spent his Estate upon Luxury is it to become the Luxurious Contracter of the Debt Neonom You may think Gentlemen that this Man means only Punishment that was laid on Christ Antinom No no I do not mean only Punishment as you mean I know whatever you say you mean not Punishment in a right sence but only Suffering But you must blot out for Sin then it 's not Punishment for if the Law inflict Suffering it 's for Sin and if for Sin it 's Punishment and if a Punishment Sin was in some sense or other sound upon him or else the Law wronged him in inflicting Sufferings on him Now when I say it is Iniquity it self that the Lord hath laid on Christ D. C. p. 270. I mean as the Prophet doth it is the fault of the Transgression it self and to speak more fully that erring and straying like Sheep that very erring straying and transgressing is passed off from them and is laid upon Christ viz. by Imputation To speak it more plainly Hast thou been an Idolater Blasphemer Murderer c. If thou hast a part in Christ they become Actually the Transgressions of Christ