Conversion of a Sinner Luk. 15. 7 10. if they be pardoned and safe before How much is our Ministry or Concern for Souls debased if all that we can prevail with are actually pardoned Who can reconcile to this Notion the Pleadings of God with Sinners He speaks to them as wounded undone and miserable Look to me and be saved why will you die Turn to me and live Ezek. 33. 11. Least they should be converted and I should heal them and the like These sound strange if Matters are so perfected before they be born Testimonies The Assembly at Westminster Conf. ch 10. a. 1. and the Congregational Elders at the Savoy Chap. 10. a. 1. are both fully of this Mind All those whom God hath predestinated to Life he is pleased in the appointed and accepted time effectually to call by his Word and Spirit out of that State of Sin and Death in which they are by Nature to Grace and Salvation by Jesus Christ by enlightning their Minds and taking away the Heart of Stone c. Both also Ch. 11. a. 4. say God did from Eternity decree to justifie all the Elect and Christ did in the fulness of time die for their sins and rise again for their Justification nevertheless they are not justified untill the Holy Spirit doth in due time actually apply Christ unto them None that have read the Assembles lesser Catechism but will see that the time the Spirit applies Christ is in our effectual Calling The Reverend Dr. Owen is as express Treatise of Justification P. 305. Saith he Notwithstanding the full plenary Satisfaction of Christ yet all Men continue equally to be born by Nature Children of Wrath and whilst they believe not the Wrath of God abideth on them they are obnoxious unto and under the Curse of the Law See more of this Point in Chap. 11. and 12. wherein I speak of Union and Justification The Grounds of the Doctor 's Mistake The Doctor mistakes the Nature of God's Decree because a Decree ascertains a thing shall in time be therefore he thinks it gives a thing a present subjective Being Because Jacob was an elect Person or the Object of Electing Love in the Womb therefore he was then actually a pardoned and adopted Person Because an eldest son is an Heir in the Womb therefore an elect Person who is in time to be adopted is an Heir in the Womb too tho' the Scripture be express that it 's they who receive Christ which only have Power to become the Sons of God Joh. 1. 12. and ye are the children of God by Faith Gal. 3. 26. CHAP. II. Of God's laying Sins on Christ. Truth THough our Sins were imputed to Christ with respect to the Guilt thereof so that he by the Father 's Appointment and his own Consent became obliged as Mediatour 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 upon Christ nor can he be called the Transgressor or was he in God's Account the Blasphemer Murtherer c. Errour 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 Filthiness and Loathsomeness yea so that Christ was really the Blasphemer Murtherer and Sinner and so accounted by the Father Proved that this is Doctor Crisp 's Opinion The Doctor p. 312. tells us It 's Iniquity it self that the Lord laid upon Christ not only our Punishment but our very Sin c. This Transaction of our Sins to Christ is a real Act our Sins so became Christ's that he stood the Sinner in our stead and we discharged Obj. But he may mean no more than the Punishment A. No he chuseth as express Words as possible to shew it 's the Sin it self P. 270. he saith It 's the Iniquity it self that the Lord hath laid upon Christ I mean it is the Fault of the Transgression it self c. To speak more plainly hast thou been an Idolater hast thou been a Blasphemer hast thou been a Murtherer an Adulterer a Thief a Lyer or a Drunkard If thou hast part in the Lord all these Transgressions of thine become actually the Transgressions of Christ. P. 268. 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 P. 286. he spends time to prove that our very Sins were transacted on Christ yea some Sermons have this Title Sins transacted really on Christ. Obj. But may not he mean only that they were imputed as to the Guilt A. No he saith p. 436. the Loathsomness Abominableness and Hatefulness of Rebellion is laid upon Christ's Back He bears the Sin as well as the Shame and Blame He p. 270 271 272 273. 280 281. endeavours to prove it 's the Sin opposed to Guilt and For that Objection That the Lord lays on Christ the Guilt and Punishment but not simply the Sin it self he saith for ought I see it is a simple Objection Yea p. 272. he affirms That to say that God did lay the Guilt of Sin but not the Sin it self is contrary to Scripture And p. 286 292. denies an Imputation that is not a real Transacting of the Sin And p. 289. he represents this by these Similes The bloody Coat of a Deer-stealer is followed by the Blood hound and stollen Goods taken by the Friend of the Thief and found with him and not with the Theif He saith p. 328. God makes Christ as very a Sinner as the Creature himself was P. 409. God lay upon him the Felony of Thieves the Murthers of Murtherers c. Wherein the Difference is not The Difference is not 1. Whether Christ bare the Punishment of our Sins 2. Nor Whether 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 3. Nor whether Christ was esteemed by Men a Transgressor and arraigned as such 4. Nor whether what Christ suffered was not as effectual to put away Sin as if our very Sin had been transacted on him All these I affirm The real Difference The real Difference lies in these things 1. Whether Sin it self as to its Filth and Fault was transacted on Christ. This the Doctor affirms and I deny 2. Whether Christ was made and accounted by the Father the very Transgressor the Adulterer the Blasphemer c. This the Doctor affirms and I deny The Truth confirmed 1. To transact our very 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 propagator of our corrupt Qualities to him which is as impossible and any other way to
of Christ can reach him Because some good Men are some times humbled and awakened by Sin as it 's an Evil therefore to them it is not an Evil. CHAP. XVIII Of God's Displeasure for Sin in the Afflictions of his People TRUTH THough God is not so angry with his People for their Sins as to cast them out of his Covenant-Favour yet by their Sins he is so displeased as for them to correct his Children though he speaks Instructions by his Rebukes ERROUR None of the Afflictions of Believers have in them the least of God's Displeasure against their Persons for their Sins Proved that this is Dr. Crisp 's Opinion He affirmeth P. 15. Except God will be offended where there is no cause to be offended he will not be offended with Believers For I say he hath no cause to be offended with the Believer because he doth not find the Sin of the Believer to be his own Sin but he finds it the Sin of Christ. P. 19 10. But are not the Afflictions of Believers for their Sins I answer No Afflictions are unto Believers from Sin not for Sin that is God doth not intend to punish them as now laying on them the desert of their Sin for that 's laid upon Christ but he doth afflict them to preserve them from sin c. So God afflicting a Believer hath no respect unto sin as if he did afflict for sin c. I say in respect of the sins committed which he thus suspects there is not the least drop of the Displeasure of God nor the fruit of such Displeasure comes near him Which he endeavours to prove The like you 'll oft find P. 170. At that instant God brings Afflictions on thee he doth not remember any Sin of thine they are not in his Thoughts P. 561. Christ being chastized for our sins there is nothing but peace belongs to us c. P. 559. If we tell Believers c. Except they perform such and such Duties Except they walk thus and thus Holily and do these and these good Works they shall come under Wrath at least God will be Angry with them What do we in this but abuse the Scriptures We undo all that Christ hath done we injure Believers we tell God Lies to his Face Wherein the Difference is not 1. It is not Whether God ceaseth to love a Believer when he sinneth 2. Nor whether the Afflictions that befall a Believer proceed from the Vindictive Justice of God as an Enemy These I deny 3. Nor whether God can bless the sorest Judgments for Sins to the future good of a Believer This I affirm though were it not for our Sins God would effect that Good a milder way And I doubt whether every good Man may be said to get profit by all sorts of Affliction for every degree of Good is not equivalent to the Hurt and sometimes God punisheth Sin with Sin 4. Nor whether some sensible Calamities may fall on a good Man not so much in a way of Rebuke for Sin as to try his Graces prevent Sin or bring Glory to God by a Testimony to the Truth This I affirm Yet I believe the very Martyrs did not so glory in the joyful Cause of their Sufferings as always to neglect an humble Reflexion on what Sin of theirs might then Justifie God as a hidden cause of their Hardships The Real Difference 1. Whether God be at all displeased with Believers for their Abominations This I affirm and the Doctor denies 2. Whether God at any time or by any Afflictions expresseth his Displeasure against his People for their Sins This I affirm and the Doctor denies The Truth Confirmed Reader Know that there 's none of all this but Dr. Crisp meaneth it of the Unconverted Elect For their Sins are on Christ and off from themselves as much as Believers Their Sins do them no hurt nor is God angry with them though God saith he is angry with the wicked every day But let us consider the Points as they referr to Believers 1. I affirm God is displeased with Believers for their Abominations If he is displeased at all with them it must be for their Sins And that he is displeased yea and chat for Sin he oft affirms it he forceth his People to own it and they with bitterness bemoan and acknowlege it Psal. 60. 1 3. O God thou hast cast us off thou hast been displeased O turn thy self to us again Thou hast shewed thy people hard things thou hast made us drink the wine of astonishment 2. Sam. 11. 27. That David had done displeased the Lord. And you may read how he threatned and punished him Was not his Anger kindled against Moses Exod. 4. 14. Against his People Isa. 5. 25. 12. 11. Moses saith The Lord was angry with me Deut. 4. 21. The Lord was very angry with Aaron Deut. 9. 21. Christ was oft displeased with his Disciples How oft is God's Anger said to be provoked by his People and kindled against them He is said to turn away from his fierce anger Is it not his Anger against them which is but for a moment and to be turned away I hope the Doctor would own that it never ceaseth against Sin it self Nay his very Fury and Wrath be oft mentioned against his own Servants Read the Sixteenth of Ezekiel a Verse or two whereof is so abused by the Doctor Thou hast fretted me in all these things c. Cannot good Men grieve the Holy Ghost What doth the Church intend when she saith I ll bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him Mic. 7. 9. 2. God doth by many Afflictions express his Displeasure against his People for their Sins I have in the last Chapter proved that Sins do hurt a Believer and all there spoken proves this as far as the Hand of God is in our Rebukes Besides those things Consider God is oft said to rebuke and chastize his People for Sin They are not the less Chastisements of a Father if at present grievous though afterwards they bring forth the peaceable Fruits of Righteousness The Great Promise of the Covenant doth not prevent this Psal. 89. 30 31 32 33 34. If his children for sake my law c. then will I visit their transgressions with a rod and their iniquity with stripes nevertheless my loving-kindness will not I utterly take from them c. Are not these Stripes for Sin Are not these Stripes Corrections Yea and so much from God's Displeasure that it is but a not utterly that God will not take away his Loving-kindness and that it riseth no higher is for the Covenant sake How oft doth God tell us that he punisheth his Church because of their Sins committed and gives this as the Therefore What is God's visiting the transgressions of his people Was it for an innocent thing that Christ rebuked Peter Mark 8. 33. And was it not for luke-warmness that he rebuked and chastned those Laodiceans whom he
transact Sin on him besides imputing the Guilt there is none 2. It is needless to the ends for which our sins were laid on Christ. Sins were laid on Christ that he might make Atonement by suffering for them and so release us who had transgressed Now Christ by submitting to the Guilt as an Obligation to punishment according to the Terms of the Covenant of Redemption was sufficient to this end and all that was needful All that endangered us was the Threatning of the Law that which was destructive to the Offender was the Punishment included in that Threat Hence Christ by the Father 's Appointment obliging himself to suffer and actually suffering what he was obliged to and this upon an Agreement that for his sufferings we should be released where is the need of more The obliquity of the Fact as against the Precept shall not hurt where the Sanction of the Law is answered and he that suffers as Sponsor for another need not sustain in himself the Filthiness of the Crime to make him capable of giving Satisfaction Gen. 44. 33. Philem. 18. 3. This Transacting of the Filthiness of our sins on Christ is blasphemous He that took care his Body should not see Corruption Act. 2. 3. would much more abhor to take in our Pollution to need as the Doctor says a breathing it out He was holy harmless undefiled and separate from Sinners Heb. 7. 26. It was condescension enough that he agreed to be treated as a Sinner but how odious is it to load him with Sin it self To spit that in his Face which the worst of Men abused him with and it would justify his Persecutors who punished him if that he was really the Person the Doctor 's Principle represents him 4. Had he been accounted by the Father the very Transgressor his atonement had been unavailable to us The Person esteemed a Sinner was uncapable of atoneing he that must redeem us was to be the Just for the Unjust 1 Pet. 3. 18. Whilst offering himself a Sacrifice he must be accounted innocent and blameless an Offering without Spot Heb. 9. 14. All the typical Sacrifices were to be clean Let none say he must have no sins of his own for if the Filthiness of our Sins is transferred on him they are as much his own as if they had been originally his and the Doctor saith They made Christodious to the Father and more he had not been if the Sin had been committed by himself 5. Christ then suffered for his own Sins and not for ours this is plain For by the Doctor 's Notion they ceased to be our Sins before he suffered and they became his own for they were laid on him before he suffered for them yea before he was obliged to suffer for them This laying of Sins on him was that without which the Doctor saith p. 294. he could not justly be put to suffer But surely none can doubt but it was the punishment of our sins was laid on Christ and not his own Heb. 7. 27. Testimonies Let us hear the Judgment of the Assembly If you see their Confess Ch. 8. a. 4. They enumerating the Instances of Christ's Humiliation speak nothing of this though it was far the greatest if it were true as Doctor Crisp observes p. 380. And in the Larger Catechism Q. How doth Christ execute the Office of a Priest they answer In his own Offering up himself without Spot to God to be a Reconciliation for the Sins of the People Surely without Spot is very opposite to his having all Sin and Filth Doctor Owen's Tr. of Justif. p. 284 285 287. He vindicates the Reformed from what he calls a horrid Consequence viz. That Christ was a Sinner which was objected p. 283. And he tells us that the Guilt of Sin is an external Respect of it with respect of the Sanction of the Law only this is separable from sin and this alone was imputed to Christ. And he at large proves that this Imputation of Guilt to Christ is the meaning of Christ's being made Sin for us He laid on him the Iniquities of us all And p. 511. he saith The Imputation of Sin unto Christ did not carry along with it any of the Filth or Pollution of Sin to be communicated to him by Transfusion a thing impossible So that no Denomination can thence arise which should include in it any respect to them a Thought hereof is impious and dishonourable to the Son of God And then he next infers that Christ could not be called an Idolater Adulterer c. Reader thou mayst in other places find Doctor Owen as positive against Doctor Crisp in this as VVords can express The Ground of Doctor Crisp 's Mistake 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 seems not to apprehend what the true Notion of imputing a thing to another in Law in criminal Cases is hence because laying a material Burthen on a Shoulder is putting that very Burthen there he thinks God took our very Sins and placed them on Christ whereas God's laying our Sins 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 Hence also because a man bound in a Bond for Money becomes a Debtor therefore he thinks because Christ suffered to save the Idolater or Blasphemer therefore Christ must be the very Idolater and Blasphemer whereas Christ paying our Debts was a Satisfaction for Criminals not a Payment of Money And yet it 's plain that if I were bound for Money for one that by Drunkenness wasts his Estate my being bound to pay the Money doth not argue that I was the Drunkard or must by the Creditors be so accounted when I make the Payment Because Christ was made Sin that is an Offering or Sacrifice for Sin therefore he thinks our very sin was on him and he made filthy To add no more because Men wickedly arraigned him as a Blasphemer therefore the Doctor thinks he was so indeed and in God's Account CHAP. III. Of the Discharge of the Elect from Sins upon their being laid on Christ. Truth THE Atonement made by Christ by the Appointment of God is that for which alone the Elect are pardoned when it is applied to them But the Elect are not immediately pardoned upon Christ's being appointed to suffer for them nor assoon as the Atonement was made nor is that Act of laying sins on Christ God's forgiving-Act by which we are personally discharged Errour The very Act of God's laying Sins on Christ upon the Cross is the very actual Discharge of all the Elect from all their sins Proved that this is Doctor Crisp's Opinion This is so much the declared Opinion of the Doctor