believe with all thy Heart c. that must be a real receiving of Christ He that hath the Son hath Life 1 John 5.11 12. The Sinner first receives Christ after sees and knows he hath received Christ himself V. 13 and 20. And we own there may be presumption where there 's an appearance of believing and knowing only there need not be such sputter as he makes about these matters neither doth it profit his cause Object But while we were Sinners Christ Died for us so saith the Apostle Rom. 5. and others after him Two things thereby signified 1. That Christ Died for us under that Consideration for he came not to Save those that are Righteous but those that were Sinners 2. That it was long ago that Christ Died while we were in the first Adam and in an unregenerate state Sinners of the Gentiles to which he rejoins thus How then must every Sinner believe that Christ Died for him A. Every Sinner under the Call of the Gospel is to believe in Christ for Life and Salvation according to the constant tenor of the Gospel but to know Christ did bear his Sins and die for him results from this Believing He that hath the Son i. e. by believing hath Life Receiving is first before knowing that a Man hath Received and it is Gospel truth that Christ bore the Sins of every one that truly believes and every one is an Elect Person whose Sins Christ bore For if the Apostle spake true he that makes sure his Calling makes sure his Election Then saith the Bp. here is Universal Redemption asserted in its full extent and what is more here is Universal Election too if all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven A. Let us examine the Bp's fallacious Arguing 1. The Gospel is indefinitely preached to all under the Call thereof and directed to all Sinners without any exception he that believes on the Lord Jesus shall be saved is this an Argument that Redemption is Universal or that all are Saved or Elected It 's said as many as were Ordained unto Life believed therefore it cann't be said that every one doth or can believe John 12.39 2. See how foully this Man imposeth by charging his opposites with saying That all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven p. 133. or to charge this as p. 132. That a Man's Sins are forgiven because he believes that they are forgiven being laid on Christ whereas a Man believes because his Sins are forgiven and laid on Christ for Christ bearing our Sin is the Cause of believing and not the Effect At least conditional Election follows upon it he saith We see he suspected his first consequence and therefore poacheth in another This may serve for a Professed Armin. but the Bp. I suppose would not have been accounted so the Argument is because Men are Saved in and by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ therefore Election is upon foresight of Faith but we say Men are as absolutely Elected unto Faith as unto Glory The controversie of Conditional Election is not here to be entered upon but we assert that it follows more upon the Bp's Hypothesis than ours § 26. He adds its ground enough of presumption as to all such as can believe that their Sins are forgiven A. Those that can believe their Sins are forgiven can believe through the Grace of God working it nay they have attained to a great measure of Grace How doth presumption consist with can Believe B. What can hinder any Man more from Repentance and forsaking his Sins than to be told that the first Act of Saving Faith is to believe his Sins is forgiven R. Where is any one that will teach an Unbeliever to Believe his Sins are forgiven in the state of Unbelief But we find the Voice of the Gospel to the Unbeliever is to invite and call him to believe the Gospel which saith that this is a Saying worthy of all acceptation That Christ came into the World to save Sinners that he bore Man's Sin and was made Sin and Curse for them and that the Sinner should come in particular and apply himself to Christ for this Pardon and Forgiveness that is in Christ for with him is Pardon and Plentiful Redemption He is a Fountain opened for Sin and Uncleanness and if a Fountain then not an empty Object of Faith but full of Pardon and of all the Grounds and Reasons of a Sinner's Faith and Hope Now how doth such coming to Christ and closing with him in a free Promise hinder Repentance and embolden them unto Sin For the Apostle saith Sin shall not have Dominion over you because you are under the Grace of God in the Promise and he shews Sin will reign over a Man while he is under the Law But the Gospel Preacheth Repentance in order to Remission R. It Preacheth Repentance and Remission to shew that where there is Repentance to Life there is Remission and where there is Remission received by Faith there will be Repentance in a Believing coming to God through Christ The Soul cann't turn from Sin to God but by a believing Repentance neither can any Repentance be unto Life unless it be a turning from Sin to God thro' Jesus Christ Hence Faith and Repentance are frequently put for one another or in one the other included When the Scripture speaks of the first Act of the Sinners coming unto God yea not only the first act of true Faith but all other are inseparable from Repentance as from other Graces Love Hope c. Though both Repentance Love and Hope are distinct Graces and Fruits of the Spirit from Faith and from each other This lastly I affirm as the truth of the Gospel that there can be no true Repentance antecedent in Nature to true Faith Faith being the first effect of Spiritual Life in one that is effectually called Bp Repentance is commanded and Baptism commanded therefore they are conditions R. The Antecedent is true but the consequence follows not if he meant new Covenant Conditions For all things and Duties Commanded are not therefore foederal Conditions For that Grace which God works by his Word and Spirit is very absurdly called a Condition of a Covenant that God makes with a Sinner But observe he makes Repentance such a condition as Baptism if so what inseparable connection is there as there should be in this Case between the condition and promise for will any say that he that is not Baptized shall be Damn'd The Scripture saith not so besides the Seal of a Bond is not the Condition of the Obligation but only a Ratification Whether Mr. R. B. did Socinianize The Chief thing discussed by the Bp in his third Chapter is whether Mr. B. was a Socinian from which Charge he makes as if he would Vindicate him I shall briefly examine how he acquits himself in this difficult undertaking The sum and substance of Mr. B's Opinion in this Point was That our Sins were no proper
State and so doth the sanctifying Grace of God in Regeneration God doth both justifie and sanctifie the ungodly by his active apprehending Grace Phil. 3.12 As to the second clause I suppose none can deny that therefore we believe that we may be justified Rom. 10.10 and elsewhere and as to the last Word wherein they lay the stress of the Error they might put it in unexceptionable Terms by adding a monosyllable they believe that they may be justified and declaratively they believe that they may receive and have Eternal Life and that they may know they have it according to the express Words of the Apostle 1 John 5.12 13. Er. 4. Union to Christ is before Faith at least by Nature and we partake of the Spirit by virtue of that Union and there 's a compleat Union with Christ before the Act of Faith A. For the first clause of the charge I own it and have defended it as Truth and shall stand by it and am ready to dispute it with the Accusers when they please in the mean time let them tell me whether Faith be not a vital Act of the Soul If so how came the Fruit to grow on the Branch before it was in the Root Christ Jesus Again if Faith be the Effect of Union to Christ then Union is the cause and in Nature antecedent to it There 's no need to enlarge upon so plain a Truth the second clause is as true that by virtue of this Union or in this Union we first partake of the Spirit because the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ Rom. 8. The Spirit is the Bond of this Union for 3. I know not whether it be mine in the terms expressed but if it were there was something said to explain it the Sense I am ready to defend it in is this that whatever Union Christ makes is compleat in it self such is vital Union in Regeneration where the Regenerated is altogether passive and all Regeneration is perfect tho' the regenerated is not every one conceived is perfectly conceived tho' the conceived is not perfectly grown every one born is perfectly born tho' every one born is not perfect so is every one born of the Spirit he hath compleat Life tho' he is not compleat in the Acts of Life compleatness of Life and compleatness in exercising the Acts of Life are to be distinguished Er. 5. It is a great Truth that God sees no Sin in a Believer and Sin can do no Hurt to a Believer God is not displeased with his People and is not angry with the Persons of Believers for their Sins A. Here are the 12 13 14 of the Rebuker's Articles crowded together As to the first I say 1. They are the Words of Scripture let the Exceptors shew and prove that the Spirit of God means quite contrary to what it saith in that Place Num. 21.21 and that all other Places of Scripture that confirm this Truth are false and mean quite contrary as when it saith a Believer is blessed his Sins being covered and not imputed Psal 32.1 2. This is Poyson but the meaning is He is blessed whose Sin is uncovered before God and his Iniquity imputed when God saith he doth not remember our Iniquities you must read it He doth remember our Iniquity Let them give a rational Sense of Jer. 50.20 Mic. 7.19 Jer. 31.34 Heb. 8.12 ch 10.17 But let them not take us to be so stupid as to understand this of the Eye of his Omnisciency but in respect of the Eye of his Justice Psal 51.9 when they give us any probable Interpretation of the forementioned Places of Scripture so to prove the Word of God false Num. 23. In the Sense we take it as I could never see yet the greatest of them ever did we will acknowledge it an Error in the mean time let them give us leave to believe it and receive it as an Article of Faith The second Clause the Rebukers 13 is That Sin can't do any real Hurt to a Believer A. Why is this charged upon the dissenting Brethren Did they ever hear any one of them assert it in Terminis he that uttered it in the Ardency of a popular Discourse was above 50 Years since and is it Blasphemy or Heresie to defend a good Man's Discourse by a charitable Interpretation If they had a Grain of Charity they may easily see that he meant not according to that gross Sense they would put upon the saying that he intended not to countenance Professors living in Sin nor in respect of Grief Sorrow and Darkness occasioned by a Believer's Fall into Sin but his meaning was 1. That their Falls into Sin should not prejudice that State of Union to Christ according to Rom. 8.35 36 37 38. 2. That tho' Sin remain in them yet they shall not have Dominion over them according to Rom. 6.14 15. 3. That tho' they fall they shall arise according to Mic. 7.8 4. That God will over-rule all the Falls of his Children for their Spiritual Good and Advantage according to Rom. 8.28 and therefore he saith real hurt The third thing here which is the Rebuker's 14th God is not displeased with his People i. e. their Persons A. Why do they not explain what they mean by God's displeasure do they mean Paternal or Vindictive If they mean Paternal in a way of Rebuke and Chastisment who denies it If they mean Vindictive we deny it Again why do they not tell us what they mean by God's People do they mean a Collection of Professing People Church or Nation Such may be the general Defection of these from their Profession never real and true that God's Vindictive Wrath may go forth against them as often against his People of Old Lastly God is never pleased with the Sins of his People therefore condemned all their Sins in the Flesh of Christ Rom. 8.3 But God is not displeased with the Persons of his People such as are called according to purpose because he loved them with an Eternal Love and he is a God that changeth not Art 6. Believers are as Righteous as Christ A. Most know who is Charged here it is one that is gone to give up his Account to his Lord and Master I doubt not but it is with Joy and that he hath received a Crown of Glory that fadeth not Tho' the Rebuker hath trampled upon his Bones and Memory in his Pride and Insolency and not only upon his but on those of that other Eminent Servant of God that is at rest with him And why Because both of them in their Life-time served their Generation in bearing faithful Testimony to the Truths of Jesus I need say nothing to this Article That worthy Servant of Christ spake enough to explain himself in that Position in his Printed Sermons which he Preached at Pinner's-Hall The sum of it was that he meant not in respect of Sanctification for there our best Holiness is imperfect therefore he means not in a way of
former Court the Judgment is always according to truth but it s not so here for a man may be acquitted there and condemned here both Persons and Actions nay let me say a person may be acquitted in foro Dei and yet his Actions justly condemned in foro humano i. e. mundi but then I do not say those actions are accepted in foro Dei but are burnt for Hay and Stubble as men do justifie themselves and others in this foro mundi very often so doth God himself justifie his children and their actions that are so condemned by and ungrateful to the World God doth as it were come into it and vindicate his accused Saints where Satan takes it upon him as his Prerogative to accuse the Brethren when his Accusations run high God looks upon his Honour engaged to vindicate such in those eminent unaccountable and condemned Actions which they do for his Names sake Here we read of God's own vindicating and bearing Testimony to the actions of his children that looked strange in the eye of the World God's justifying those Actions before the World is called Justification and their Actions Righteousness not that the persons were justified thereby but that they were approved fruits of Christ's Righteousness received by Faith yea we find when God comes into the Court of the World to declare Persons or Actions to be approved by him it s usually in some extraordinary thing wherein they were Eminent and suffered much thereupon at least in their good Name if not otherwise § 4. In this case God justifies the Act of Phineas in taking upon him to execute Judgment in the case of Zimri and Cosbi the action lay condemnable in Phineas as a rash action which proceeded from an usurped Authority he being not High-Priest nor having any particular Commission from Moses This Action God testifies to as a holy and righteous Act tho it looked so extrajudicial and should be looked upon as a righteous act to all Generations Phineas was a justified person long before Numb 25.12 13. Psal 106.30 31. So Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain was he not in an accepted and justified state before God for God first accepted Abel and then his Offering and because his Offering notwithstanding God's acceptation was condemned by Cain and no doubt by his Posterity he obtained witness that he was righteous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby he was witnessed unto for God witnessed in foro mundi to the righteousness of Abel i. e. to his Justification in that he made it appear by his manifested acceptance undoubtedly Fire came down from Heaven and consumed the Sacrifice here the Apostle saith God testifying of his Gifts and this was a testimony of his Person that he was righteous but this is not the justification of his Person for if he had not been justified in foro Dei yea Conscientiae too he could not by faith have offered a Sacrifice so well pleasing to God wherefore to shew to the World that he was an accepted person God testifies to his Services So Enoch he had some eminent Testimony from God before his Translation against all the calumniating and blaspheming Posterity of Cain So Noah also in his Generation a Preacher of the righteousness of faith he had a Testimony in the Ark and the Salvation that he and his House had to both the Worlds and yet this Testimony was not that Justification which he had before God for he was heir of the righteousness of God by faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was become the heir not upon building the Ark but was so before § 5. God's appearing then to witness to the Ways and Actions of his People in the World which the children of men are still condemning of and their Persons and Profession for is not their Justification before God but an eminent fruit thereof Abraham when he offered up his Son Isaac he exerted the eminent fruit of a tried Faith which the World would be apt to condemn as one of the heinousest and most unnatural in the World therefore God justifies this Action of his and therein recommends him for the most Eminent Believer he not staggering in his faith of the promise notwithstanding believing that God could raise his son from the dead and if he should slay his son that God would do it rather than not fulfil his Promise Now I dare appeal to our most ingenuous Opposers whether they think Abraham was not justified before this great Action of his and what can James his Justification be more than God's declaring in foro mundi that this strange action of his wherein he was a Wonder to the World and for which he stood ready to be condemned by it was highly approv'd by him and an eminent Fruit and Testimony of his Faith It appears by the context that James understood nothing but that a True Faith brings forth Works witnessing in foro mundi to the truth of it and James 2.10 and that the offender of the Law in one point is guilty of all and that he that is saved by faith is saved by a lively faith such as will shew it self by works and such as God will testifie to by his Word or Providence or both that they are wrought of God § 6. The like may be said of Rahab The World would condemn her for a treacherous Harlot in betraying her Native Country to destruction But this action of justified Rahab being a signal fruit of her Eminent Faith is signally owned by God himself and her strange action justified to the World that when the Walls of Jericho fell her house stood only and she saved with the Honour and Renown of an exemplary believer in the Church yea God honoured her so far as to come into the Line of the Messiah Hath not God gloriously justified his Saints i. e. by testifying to their Gifts and Services to the World whence else hath been that eminent Spirit visible and astonishing to the World whereby they have not only rejoiced to suffer for the Name of Jesus in the spoil of their goods but in giving their bodies to death and overcame all the Reproaches and Blasphemies of their cruel enemies by faith in the blood of the Lamb and Word of the Testimony Was not that admirable Presence of God with them not only which we read of Heb. 11. but in other Martyrologies The Witness of God to their Gifts in and to the convincing the World to which they had never come had they not been freely justified by God before I am ashamed to see that Men should think that the Saints in their great Services and Sufferings should be of such servile and base Spirits as to be bargaining with God by their Works when they were frying in the Flames § 7. There is also a Justification in foro Conscientiae which is received by faith and cannot be received but by faith and its a closing in with the judgment of God according to truth
Sins These three ways of Sin 's relation to Christ we will consider 1. The fact of Sin and from it the guilt of it is the proper meritorious cause of Punishment it 's causa proegumena internal always to the punished let the Socin and Mr. B. say what they will the punished is always the guilty Person and he is therefore punished because guilty 2. This Impulsive of ours becomes meritorious he saith how I pray By Christ voluntary undertaking c. This is very absurd that Christ's free undertaking should make Sin meritorious was not Sin meritorious of Punishment of it self What is the Sin of faln Angels that Christ never undertook for But he should have said that Christ's voluntary undertaking brought the guilt and punishment upon himself by his coming under a Law Transaction for he saith it was to satisfie Divine Justice and can Justice be satisfied by the Sufferings of a Person no way guilty in the Eye of Justice That 's strange Justice But still saith the Bp. They are consider'd as our Sins and not his true our Sins originally but his by a Law Transmission else he could not be punished by the Law But now see how the Bp. after his brandishing by way of Opposition is necessitated to fall into rank and file with us They are not Christ's Sins any further than by consent he took upon himself to bear the guilt which relates to Punishment and so they come to be justly charged upon him Now I pray what is it that the Bp. saith in the winding up of the Matter more than what we say for he saith 1. The Sins were ours not his originally and primarily and the guilt remains in all those for which Christ died not 2. These Sins of all saved ones become Christ's in the guilt of them thro' his free and voluntary Intervention 3. That he took upon himself that guilt which relates to punishment i. e. it s proper law relation 4. And so they come to be justly charged upon him here the Bp hath given us the whole Point for 1. He allows guilt to be distinct from Punishment for Relata are contraria affirmantia and it 's a true notion that guilt and punishment are proper relata constantia ex mutua alterius affectione and therefore distinct 2. That Christ took upon him to bear the guilt that relates to punishment it came not from the Sinner that Christ bore the guilt but from God's Ordination and Christ's Submission to law proceding and thence wrote himself Debtor to the Law and Justice of God instead of Sinners and was accepted as plenary Paymaster 3. He owns that Sin came justly chargeable on him the charge of Sin on the Sinner is that whereby he becomes guilty before God Rom. 3.19 for he that 's justly punished is justly charged as he saith charged upon him must be in a way of Law proceeding and tho' God hath made him to confess the Truth in Words yet it fully appears by his after Discourse that he believes not a word of it in sano sensu § 3. The third thing wherein our Sins have relation to the Sufferings of Christ he saith As to the personal Guilt of our Sins which he denies and decries after he had in the same Breath own'd Christ's bearing the guilt of our Sins now he will have Christ to bear the guilt of our Sins but not the personal as if there were or could be any guilt that is not of one person or another or if there were some generical guilt found in individual Persons his Exceptions are 1. The fault of the Sins are not laid on Christ 1. Then its Law Relation was not laid on Christ and Christ being punished for no fault of himself or others was unjustly punished nay he saith he was justly charged Is any justly charged when charged with no fault 2. He excepts against saying that laying Sin upon Christ makes Christ really a Transgressor but how is that said It is in a legal Sense not physical therefore Christ is said to be made Sin viz. Such he was not before nor was in his own Natures but was really accepted instead of the guilty Sinner not Romantickly and Fabulously the Transaction was real according to the nature of it As to the denial of Imputation it 's a gross Error in whoever it is Dr. Crisp or Mr. B. the first mistakingly denies the sense of the word but Mr. B. denies the thing it self the very Doctrine of Imputation of Sin to Christ as the Bp. the Righteousness of Christ to us having these invective Words As the Papists have by no means more alienated the reformed from them irreconcileably than by obtruding as an Article of Faith the Impossibilities and Contradictions of Transubstantiation so some erroneous Protestants have no way Men made the Papists irreconcileable to us than by holding forth the Impossibilities and Absurdities of imputed Righteousness as a most necessary part of the Gospel Meth. Theol. Part iii. Ch. 27. Page 322. The great Argument propounded by Dr. Crisp very unwarily he not seeing how far it would run but sufficiently improved by Mr. B. is this That God hath no other Thoughts of things than as they are So doth he esteem and think of things and consequently of Sin in Knowledge we must distinguish between Things and Relation and between one Relative and another God thinks of things as they are under divers respects God thinks and knows what we are by Nature yea the most eminent Believer is by Nature a Child of Wrath as well as the other but he knows also what he is through Grace what under a Covenant of Works and what under a Covenant of Grace Sinners in the first Adam Righteous in the second God calls things that are not as though they were God calls his Son Sin in a Law-sence who never Sinned and a Sinner Righteous in Christ who never was Righteous in himself He sees him as acceptable in his sight he having cloathed him with his Righteousness as if he were perfectly Righteous in himself God knows and sees all things as he is Omniscient but yet doth not see reconciled Ones in their Sins and Guilt of them by the Eye of his Justice God saw Christ under Sin by the Eye of his Justice when he was under the charge of Sin and his Person absolutely considered most pleasing to him It is no way inconsistent with the Nature of God to know what any thing is in its absolute Being and what it is in this or that relation to know a Creature is a Man and to know him to stand under the relation of a Father or a Son to know what he is Naturally and what Morally for this is not inconsistent with Man's knowledge much less with God's therefore when God knows a thing what it is in one respect and calls it another it is to be supposed that he really puts that respect or relation upon it as when God calls a Man a Sinner in
of our Sins And Procopius he saith expresseth it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not this as a Surety And yet he saith here is nothing like Suretiship to pay our Debts for us Now if the Bp. had pleased to read out the Chapter he might have seen two Verses more wherein this Truth is litterally express V. 11. He shall bear their Iniquities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall take their Iniquities as a Burden on his Shoulders to carry them away as the Scape-Goat did the Iniquities of the Children of Israel And the lxx renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall take up their Iniquities upon him And V. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall bear the Sin of many shall the Spirit of God express it self to one thing so fully and plainly and all fly away at the Puff of a Bp. as Chaff before the Wind What is all that this learned Bp. hath said to refute this Doctrine of Christ's bearing our Sins and satisfying for them as our Debts to Divine Justice but this Here 's nothing like Christ's Suretiship to pay our Debts for us we will not take his Word for it till he proves that Sin is not a Debt to the Law of God when Christ hath told us it is 2. Till he shews any other credible way of bearing another's Faults besides this way of Suretiship till 3dly He shews and proves against the Apostle Peter that there is no other way of paying Debts on purchasing or redeeming than with plain Silver and Gold § 17. He proceeds to shew us the great Harm of Christ's being a Surety to pay our Debts of Sin p. 107. 1. Then Christ hath fully discharged our Debts already This is one Mischief of it but God forbid it should that Christ should do Harm in paying any Man's Debts but to do it by halves is to pay some only and leave others for us to pay How did he satisfie God's Justice if he gave not full Satisfaction God forbid that Christ should leave a Farthing for us to pay 2. The second Mischief is that we have nothing to do towards the Payment of our Debt all that we have to do is to believe and to be thankful for all this Transaction was long since past without Consideration of any Act on our parts A. Is it a Harm that Christ hath done so much for us in way of Satisfaction and Purchase that he hath left nothing of ours to put in for a Share in this Honour no not our believing it self I take it to be the Glory of Christ and the blessed Priviledge of Believers that he hath provided for Believers such a Furniture of Grace that they shall believe on him bear his Image walk in his Steps to the Glory of his Name in all Thankfulness and new Obedience The third Mischief is that it nulls all Faederal Conditions on our part but of this more afterward 4. That we can't suffer for those Sins that are already discharged Is this such a Harm It 's neither Reason or Justice that we should pay a Debt to the Law which is already discharged Christ hath born all the Sins of Believers in the deserved Punishments thereof hence the Sufferings of the Saints are not Penal nor can be but are Blessings for their Good purchased by Christ for them § 18. The Bp. saith There 's but one place of Scripture to be found to favour this Sense of the Suretiship of Christ viz. Heb. 7.22 It is easie to instance in many places that favour it and prove it it being as I may say the very Marrow of the Gospel but as to this place it expresly calls Christ a Surety and it is the more remarkable as to our present purpose that as the Spirit of God hath called Sins Debts and Christ's Suffering a Price paid and expresly excluding Payment by Silver or Gold so Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as Lexicog say doth primarily signifie a Surety for Money Hence it appears the Spirit of God makes much of the Metaphor of Debt and Payment to confirm our Faith in this that there 's no better account of the Nature of Sin than a Debt to God's Justice and no better account of the Sufferings of Christ than that they were a Payment of this Debt to the Justice of God And what if it be but in one place of Scripture When a Truth is so fully and plainly expressed in one Text it is enough there are many Truths of great weight are so besides the marvellous Concurrence of other texts of Scripture to the tenor thereof But he saith this text speaks of a Covenant not of the Surety of a Covenant A. What is it that makes a Debt is not a Covenant or compact But it is of a better Covenant i. e. a Surety to pay the Debts of the old Covenant of Works but brought in by a better Covenant the new Covenant being a Covenant of Grace answering the Ends of God's Grace more than the old doing that which the old could not do to save Sinners by a Righteousness which is not their own but better in that it hath a Surety that it brings in to engage unto God to pay all our Debts due to the Justice of God from us under the old Covenant which had no Surety Heb. 7.19 makes it better in nothing else but the bringing in a better Hope viz. the Surety But he positively denies that Christ was to pay our debts unto God If so what 's the reason the Church prays Forgive us our Debts when God's way of Forgiveness of a Sinner as asserted in Scripture is by bringing in a Surety to pay his debts of Sin Col. 1.14 In whom we have Redemption thro' his Blood even the Forgiveness of Sins But what a Surety is it that he will have Christ to be Sure it is the same the Socinians will have to be only i. e. a Surety to engage for God to us not for us to God but a Surety only for the Truth and Faithfulness of God in his Promises See his Words p. 110. § 18. The Bp. takes notice of some dissenting Brethren he might better said of Protestants dissenting from the Church of Rome who talk much of Surety Righteousness and of Christ's being our Surety as to the Payment of our Debts because the Debtor may be said to pay the Sum the Surety lays down for him and that God doth account that Believers do pay that Debt of Obedience which Christ hath paid in their Stead because they are a legal Person with Christ and all this depends upon this mistaken Notion of Suretiship A. It is very sad that so plain Scripture should corrupt our Minds with mistaken Notions how shall we know we are mistaken or not in any then Or that we do know the Mind of the Spirit in them if when we have a plain text expressing a Truth according to the plain and undeniable Sence of other texts of Scripture not only
agreeing with but essential to the Analogy of Faith If we must look on this received Doctrine to be a mistaken Notion then surely notwithstanding the Revelation that God hath given us in his Word he hath left us under Chymerian Darkness and inextricable Laborinths in the great Points of Life and Salvation but what hath he to say against this received Doctrine by the dissenting Brethren and all true Protestants If once it be supposed that we perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ there can be no room for Remission of Sins for how can Sins be forgiven to them that have obeyed the Law I cannot answer this Argument better than in the very Words of Mr. R. Capel whom none I suppose will call an Antinom in Vindication of Dr. Twiss on this Point There is a double Acception of the Term Remission of Sins 1. There is a meritorious Justification or Remission of Sins this is of Sins before they are committed 2. There 's an actual Justification or Remission of Sin and this is not till after our Sin is committed and we do believe all this none of these Exceptors do or can question Those that lean much to the Doctrine of Arminius and Vortius in this point may see all this expressed in clear terms by Vortius So that it is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Christ for them that was done before we were or our Sins were another thing to be pardoned to them Christ was made a Curse for us by Imputation for that the Father did impute all our Sins as a Judge to Christ as a Surety and did exact all of him as guilty by that Law and this is I conceive all the meaning of Dr. Twiss and is or at least ought to be the meaning of us all and this a learned Man calls a mystical Justification because all the Sins of all the Elect are as laid upon Christ so remitted unto Christ our Head and Husband which Pardon and Absolution he took in our Name and keeps for our Use See Capel of Repentance p. 257 258. For Brevity-sake I shall add nothing further to the Answer of this Argument of the Bp. § 19. He adds It doth not follow because a Debt may be transferred to a Surety that our Sins may be transferred to Christ and his Reasons are 1. Because Sins cannot be transferred as Money A. But doth not the Spirit of God sufficiently acquaint us that it 's a moral Debt Sin is the Debt our owing and not paying Obedience to the Law and that Christ paid not Silver and Gold but his Precious Blood but he saith That altho' the Sinner be said to owe a Debt to the Law yet that Debt lyes in an Obligation to Punishment which he is liable to by the Guilt of the Fact A. Now he owns the Sinner owes a Debt to the Law but that 's not Obedience but Punishment But believe it Punishment is the Debt of the Law to the Sinner the Wages of Sin by the Law is Death But that whereby the Sinner becomes a Debtor to the Law is his Failure in giving due Obedience to the Preceptive Part of the Law for its Obedience the Law doth naturally and primarily enjoin and expect from the Subject Punishment may be transferred by the Legislator's Consent A. Punishment without Merit is but suffering and not legally inflicted and can't be done by a Legislator without Dispensing with his Law Object This Debt ariseth from Guilt of Fact how then can any discharge the Debt without taking the fault I answer That taking the fault can signifie no more than being answerable to the Law for it which must respect the Debt of Punishment Reader But doth not this quite overthrow all the Bp. hath been doing For if Punishment as always it is be answering the Law for Sin this always implies that the punished Person bears the just Demerit of his Sin else why do the Law inflict Punishment It 's not because that Man hath not obeyed but disobeyed wherein the Punished is only passive in suffering tho' active in contracting the Guilt wherein lyes the Demerit of Punishment and makes the Wages due from the Law And he that takes away the Guilt of Punishment doth satisfie the Justice of the Law A. The satisfying the Justice of the Law lyes in inflicting deserved Punishment for Guilt is not in the Law as the Bp. hath said but in a Person whom the Law hath found guilty therefore the Law is not satisfied by afflicting in general but afflicting some Person that is found guilty and faulty by the Law As to the Objection That nothing is the Merit of Punishment but Reatrus culpae he answers so little that it 's not worth our Cognizance and that little is but a Rehearsal of what hath been replied to already § 20. Bp. Suppose the Fault could be transferred as a Debt may how comes it to pass that upon this Translation there must be a present Discharge A. There must be such to him that pays the Debt and this given to him for the Benefit and Use of the Prisoner when he will please to give it Christ must be justified from our Sins and discharged or else not raised from bearing them when he had satisfied Justice all our Sins were pardoned to him but another Act of Grace is shewed in bringing home and applying Pardon to and therefore for discharging us from the Law as Prisoners of Hope thro' what Christ hath fully done and suffered B. This Doctrine tends to incourage Men to neglect or careless Performance of strict Obedience which they owe to God A. This is the Objection against the Doctrine of the Grace of God which Enemies to it made and the Apostle Paul answers Rom. 6. But the Bp. will not take his Answer there he saith it naturally disposeth Men's Minds to a passive careless Temper and wait for Supplies from above A. The Grace of God never enclines the Heart to so ill a Temper but quite contrary Tit. 2.11 12. It is one thing what a Man is by Nature and what by Grace Men by Nature are naturally enclined to abuse the Grace of God but are not so by effectual Grace Bp. They depend upon Gord's working in them to will and to do of his own good Pleasure without setting themselves to work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling A. The Bp. should have known that the Abuse of the Grace of God is no just Argument against it and if some Men do so will he censure all as such God's working in Men to will and to do and their working out their own Salvation are not Contradictions if rightly understood but to shew us that the Grace of God is first in all we do that teacheth and worketh in us to work both to begin and continue to serve God with all our Might but with Fear lest we should give the Glory of all unto our selves in leaning and depending on our own Strength The
all this he will not give up Mr. B. to the Socinians why Because he hath writ of the Doctrine of the Trinity that he might do and yet be a Socin in the Doctrine of Satisfaction But he hath written of the Doctrine of Satisfaction yes he hath retained the word to make his Doctrine go down the better but hath endeavoured to destroy the thing to all intents and purposes Bp. These may be said for his Vindication 1. By laying all the passages together he must mean something more by his promeritous Cause than meerly a remote occasional Cause A. This supposition is very unreasonable when the Bp hath told us from Mr B's own Mouth what he means by his promeritorious Cause It is not hard to conceive what Mr. B. meant by promeritorious it is only that Sin Antecedently to Christ's Death was meritorious of Death but this merit terminated there and never reached as a Cause meritorious of the Sufferings of Christ This merit the Bp saith is antecedent to the Legislator's act in accepting a Sponsor and is but an occasional Cause and what saith he of an occasional Cause It 's really no Cause at all c. just as if a Man said the Fire of London was the occasional Cause of the Monument p. 169. Bp. Now no Man can say the fault antecedently was any more than an occasional cause of the innocent Person 's Suffering A. This is true in Mr B's sense that the fault of the Offender makes him only guilty and deserving of Punishment in general but is not transferred to the Sponsor to be any Guilt or desert of his Punishment which is truly Mr. B's meaning of his term promeritorious And therein Mr. B. is consonant to himself in saying it's but an occasional Cause and that Sin is a remote impulsive Cause viz. remote from Christ tho' immediate and impulsive to Punishment 2. This is true in the Bp's Sense who saith Christ suffered Punishment for Sin and bear the Personal Guilt of none is to make the Sin of Man no more than an occasional Cause But the consistency of the assertion lyes more on Mr. B's side because he knew it to be a great inconsistency to say that Christ bore proper Punishment when he bore the guilt of no Sin Bp. But taking all together when he is admitted to suffer in the place of the Guilty the Law with the Punishment makes the impulsive Cause become meritorious and it is the immediate Reason of his Sufferings R. This the Bp speaks as the truth and intimates as if he would have it Mr. B's Sense but gives no proof that it is so neither is it likely he should being not consonant at all to what Mr. B. every-where maintains and what if the Bp saith so it 's not consonant at all to the Tenet he defends that Christ bore no Personal Guilt For then how can the Guilt of any become the meritorious and immediate reason of his Sufferings Bp. The only question then is whether this can properly be called a meritorious cause A. That may be taken in two Senses 1. In a strict and proper sence so your self deny that Christ merited by his own Sin 2. In the sense of the Law i. e. Sin was legally charged on Christ and so that which was the near impulsive cause the fault of the Transgressor may be truly said to be meritorious as to his sufferings because they made it an act of Justice which otherways had been an act of Power and Dominion R. See now the Bp's clear concession 1. That what is here spoken of Christ it 's in the sense of the Law not in a Physical or Moral sense 2. He makes the near impulsive cause Sin and here Sin in its merits or deserts the immediate reason of Christ's suffering can that be any thing but the Guilt of Men's Persons 3. Sin is such a reason as may distinguish Christ's Punishment from an Act of Dominion and make it an Act of Justice How is it possible that any Man that saith this can say that the guilt of Man's Sin was not charged on Christ as our Representative in a legal Sense i. e. in a way of Judicial proceeding Now doth the Bp lay down this as Mr. B's sense No he dare not for if he did Mr. B. were he living would say he had laid therein the Foundation of Antinomianism Bp. The question between us and the Socinians is not about meritorious and promeritorious Cause R. I wonder the Bp should insinuate so great a falshood when he knows the question between us and the Socinians is whether our Sins were the meritorious cause of Christ's sufferings or occasional And it 's that which hath been at present under hand Promeritorious being a word of Mr. B's bringing in it may be they might not think of it to hide occasional under it as he doth to make Men think he did not deny all merit in this Case Bp. But the question is whether Christ did really undergo the Punishment of our Sins in order to be a Sacrifice of Atonement for them And in this we have Mr. B 's consent express'd on all occasions R. I wonder the Bp can speak thus why doth he not acquaint us then with his consent in one passage if he hath any such passage doth he mean as he speaks No no more than the Bp who could not as long as he held that Christ bore the personal guilt or desert of none It is now evident the Bp hath said nothing to the purpose for vindication of Mr. B. what hath been said hath been for a greater confirmation of the Charge and wounding his own Cause He saith little further but to excuse 1. Liberty must be given to Metaphysick Heads 2. Tells a Story of Lubbertus and Mcacovius 3. He tells us of favourable interpretations that are to be given to Persons that keep to the main point as if this were but a trifling matter between the Socin and us 4. Mr. L. argues that Mr. B. speaks after the Unitarians That Christ did not undergo punishment properly so called but in a popular sense of Punishment The Bp in answer doth fill up p. 162 163 164 165 166. in shewing what slippery Gentlemen the Writers of the Unitarian Doctrine are but nothing to Mr. L's Charge of Mr. B. therefore yields the truth thereof and agrees with Mr. L. in these words Bp. you say Rectoral Justice doth essentially respect the Law in its distributions Whatever a Soveraign may do in acts of Dominion A Rector cannot justly inflict Sufferings on an innocent person as such Here I grant you have come up to the true state of the Case between the Socin and us and therefore we shall leave it and let the Reader judge who is cast at the Bp's Bar. But before I end it 's necessary to consider how the Bp. doth reconcile his two Principles 1. That the Sin of Man was the immediate impulsive and meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferigns This he holds
Similitude to his Personal Holiness and Righteousness but in a way of equality i. e. in respect of a Believer's relation to the Law as Christ hath made full Satisfaction to the Law for a Believer so he is as fully discharged from the Law and condemnation thereof as Christ is i. e. the Law hath no more to do to condemn a Believer than to condemn Christ His full Original Discharge having been in Christ the thing is made plain by an illustration A Rich Alderman pays a Poor Man's Debt of 10 l. and sets him at liberty from the Prosecution of the Law and Imprisonment which done the Poor Man can be no more Prosecuted by the Law than the Rich Alderman being as Righteous in the Eye of the Law as the Alderman But he cann't say he is as Rich as Wise as Valuable in Estate or Person or so Able to pay the Debts of others as the Alderman I know Mr. M. was not the first that insisted on this Notion I have read it in Mr. Shephard of N. E. as I take it in his Sound Believer and I am sure the Rebuker cann't call him an Antinom As for my own part I chuse not to use the Expression tho' it's in Mr. M's Accept a Truth because many that are short in Understanding are apt to abuse it and others to make an advantage thereof to wreak their malice against the great Truths of the Gospel as these Accusers have done But especially because I apprehend the truth therein contained may be delivered in less offensive words The Bp hath pitched upon Ten of the Rebuker's Articles and reduced them to Six there is about Eleven more which he thought had no weight or sence in them As Ac. 1. To talk of a Gospel threat is at best a Catechresis and nothing else can save it from being a Bull I suppose the Bp thought that no Scholar could make an Error of it I am the Man that wrote it and I will stand by it as a very favourable Reflection upon such as talk so improperly and impertinently Ac. As to the Elect there was never any guilt upon them in respect of the Righteous Judgment of God in foro Dei But that which accompanied the Letter of the Law setting in with Conscience This Article it seems the Bp could make nothing of nor I indeed it being one that M. W. hath patcht up For I deny not the Elect are under the Law and Children of Wrath according to it till effectual calling but that God's Vindictive Righteous Judgment is ever executed upon them I do deny Ac. 9. It is denied that God requires Faith as an indispensible Qualification in them whom he will justifie for Christ's Merits A. This smells of Mr. W.'s qualifying Righteousness all is Gospel with the Rebuker which he hears from his Oracle Now to give a brief Answer here because I have disputed this Article with the Gentleman already I do not deny that God requires Faith and will work Faith in all those that God will justifie by Faith but I deny that God requires Faith indispensibly in all that he will justifie by Christ's Merits for he justifies saved Infants by Christ's Merits but who can say Faith is required of them Lastly He doth not require Faith in any as a subordinate qualifying Righteousness to Justification by Christ's for such it is the Gentleman would have which I have formerly refuted but all Men must be Hereticks with the Presbyterians that say not after him Ac. 10. All that a Believer can pray for is the further Manifestation of Pardon for he knows that all his Sins are pardoned A. This is Ejusdem farinae Originis 1. I suppose a Believer may know that all his Sins are pardon'd or else the Scripture speaks much in vain 2. Is it a poysonsome Error to pray for a further Manifestation of pardoning Grace and Confirmation in and Continuance of that Knowledge 3. If a Man do not know his Sins are pardoned or doth doubt of it sure he will pray that he may be Partaker of pardoning Grace and be confirmed in the Knowledge of it I know none of the accused but do pray thus and that daily Forgive us our Trespasses as we pray for daily Bread when we have it in the House for whatever we have of Spiritual or outward good things it is God must give unto us richly to enjoy it Ac. 15. Legal Convictions before Faith are no more than Sin it 's but a filthy Conscience c. A. I believe all that Author and his second can do can't make any better of it So saith the Spirit of God Tit. 1.15 and the Bp. knew that the Articles of the Church of England said so and therefore he inserts it not as an Error Ac. 16. All imperfect Holiness is Sin A. Who said so This is another dab of W.'s Spittle which the Rebuker hath likct up Ac. 17. Turn ye turn ye why will you die Is but the Triumph of the Law over a dead Sinner A. I argued the meaning of that Place with D. W.'s and shew'd that it could be for no other end than to convince the Jews of their Inability in themselves that trusted to their own Strength and Righteousness inherent to work out their justifying Righteousness and Salvation and to bring them to the Grace of God in the Promise the Truth of which I am ready to discuss with any of them Ac. 18. I can't make Head or Tail of he should have told us where he had it or how he came to dream of it Ac. 20. Christ's Incarnation was no part of his Humiliation A. The terms are falsly charged there 's no Man that saith that Christ's Abode in the Flesh was not his Humiliation and what he suffered in it but if he means the Divine Nature's Assumption it self of Flesh this was an Act of Divine Power I say the taking of our Nature for he could not be humbled in the Divine Nature therefore he took Man's that he might be humbled in it after his Assumption This was a wiser and more learned Man's Opinion than they that oppose it If the Rebuker had read Dr. Ames's Medulla one would think he should have been ashamed to put it down as a baneful and poysonsome Error altho' Mr. W.'s did who it may be never heard of it till Mr. M. preached it The Bp. here cast it out and as not consonant to the Rebuker's Form of Prayer Ac. 21. We coaless upon believing into one Mystical Person with Christ which is distinguish'd from Legal Union which is before Faith A. Sure the Rebuker and his learned Master shew'd themselves mighty acute Divines here at last for they seem to take the mystical Body of Christ for a great Error for that the Error lyes in asserting that Believers are Members of the mystical Body of Christ if they mistake not Person for Body 2. If they accuse any for saying Believers make one mystical Person with Christ they should
more apparent in Scripture then that by Grace it is that we are justified and by Grace saved Resp But will Mr. H. affirm that Grace doth justifie us without Justice Doth not the Apostle say a sinner is justifyed by Grace in and through Christs Redemption that God may be just Doth not Mr. H. say Justification is an Act of Justice again and again Doth not this setting up our own righteousness in performance of the Condition of the New Law make his Justification an Act of Justice yea and without Grace What do these Men mean so often and positively to contradict the Scripture and themselves to draw their dirty Inferences upon the Truth with holding it in unrighteousness § 8. If nothing less then a Righteousness as doth Answer and satisfie the Law fully will suffice for the sinners Plea to flee from Condemnation he is not judged by the Law of Grace but by the Law of Works R. The inference hath no danger in it for 1. We know of no Judgment in freeing any from Condemnation but a Discharge in Christ from the Law of Works before which every Believer is discharged here and hereafter through Grace 2. We know of no New Law either to quit or condemn a Law of Grace in that sense is a Bull Grace and a Law are directly opposite 2. He here insinuates as if Christs satisfaction were compleat and imperfect If nothing else will suffice for a Plea 1. What can be better than a perfect satisfaction for a Plea 2. Either Christs is not perfect or else perfect will not do without an imperfect added to it which indeed he means that Christs perfect satisfaction must have our Imperfect added to make our Plea compleat 3. What is freeing from condemnation but Pardon of Sin I pray what righteousness doth a Neonomian flee to for the pardon of Sin Do they tell us its Christs tho' they be justified by their own I would know whether they esteem Christs Righteousness full and compleat for the pardon of Sin Or do they plead for some of their pardon at the Bar of the New Law where they are justifyed and some of their pardon at the Bar of the Old Law where they are condemned But this imputed righteousness is a mistake of the Protestants poor Man I pitty him and he hath found the mistake so it seems indeed by his Writing § 8. Christ came into the World to procure and tender a New Law and in this regard he is called our Law giver not that he hath given any other Moral rules of Life to us but that he hath given the same Precepts with Indulgence Resp Now mark the Neonomian Spirit but Two or Tree Lines off he was for Justification only by Grace without Law that he might dethrone Christ but now again that he may Enthrone Mans Righteousness he is altogether for Law his Language is half Ashdod take him where you will 1. He tells you what he means by Satisfaction which he saith is procurement Christ came into the World not to satisfie the Law of God which we had broken but to procure a Law a remedial Law a better Law to answer Gods Ends than the First it was a great mistake sure in Divine Wisdom to make such a Law at first as would not do 2. It was another oversight at least that Christ did not come to procure a right law at first 3. It s very strange that God would not afford a right law without procurement Laws are not used to be purchased or procured Legislators make Laws according to their pleasure without procurement 4. And whâ—t's the World the better Christ hath procured the putting the World under New-Law Terms and not satisfied the Old Law and now they must perform the condition of the New Law and be pardoned by the old Law unsatisfied else they cannot be saved 5. After all the noise about saving by Grace it s but by a law which requires personal obedience in fulfilling the condition this is the Grace of the Law and Law of Grace a Law of Grace it is such wherein Grace is no more Grace and the Law is no more a Law that indeed a law of Grace is a Contradiction in proprio adjuncto a meer Hobgoblin But how is these mens New Law compounded It is they say of Grace and a Law and it lies In that he hath not given new Moral Laws of life to us other than what was contained in the old law before but that he hath given the same precepts with indulgence Answ Well Christ is not our Lawgiver according to purchase for these Men make Christ to have died for himself to make himself a Lawgiver to devise and constitute any new Moral Precepts but first to pluck down the old house and then to take the broken and scattered pieces and make a new one he takes the Moral Materials of the old Law cuts and hews them pretty much makes the Duties more indifferent the sins forbidden Venial and allowable yea necessary to come into the righteousness of the new law for if the Condition be not mixt of Morality and Immorality its good for nothing it will not serve this turn therefore the old law with indulgence of sin is the New Law I pray let me know from the Wits of our Age whether this be not Antinomianism Now he tells us this is a law of indulgence c. the plain English of it is that its a Law of Dispensation with a Law of Justice i. e. a lawless law that all the Satisfaction he means is Gods Dispensation with Law and Justice and a law to call Sin by one law Sin and righteousness by another the truth is the whole Doctrine tends to deny God in his glorious Properties and to change him into the similitude of an Ox that eateth Hay interpretativè and if God doth not act now and at Judgment by this lay of Dispensation with Law and indulgence of Sin he says the main business of Christ's coming and Redemption is lost that can be no other in his sence than to be Minister of Sin § 10. You shall hear a Protestant i. e. Neonomians they are Papists according to the Profession of this downright Papist in his Prayer appealing from the Tribunal of Gods Justice to the Throne of his Grace yet in his Sermon telling the People that it is nothing else but the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ imputed to them that saves them which is to bring them back from the throne of Grace to the Bar of his Justice to be judged Resp I am ashamed to read such a Banter of Christianity from any man that professeth himself a Christian tho a Papist and Socinian 1. Is it a good Appeal or no for a sinner to make from the Tribunal of Justice i. e. meer Justice where God beholds the Sinner as he is in himself by his most righteous law a condemned transgressor to the Throne of Grace not that God hath two Thrones Rev. 4.
offence of one death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of Grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ § 8. Mr. Cl. Christ is called the Surety of a better Covenant Heb. 7.22 Whence some infer that he hath paid the debt of obedience to God for us Interpreters generally assign two ways wherein Christ is a Surety 1. By undertaking for God to us or his becoming Security for God that he should make good his Covenant to us on his part 2. By undertaking for us to God that we should perform the Condition of the Covenant the first the Polonian Merchants Grotius and Hammond are for the Protestants generally stick to this latter that Christ is our Surety by undertaking for us to God that we shall fulfil the Condition of the Covenant by yielding that obedience that is required of us therein Resp Mr. Cl. tells of the Merchants that they the Neonomians do trade with and indeed most of their Commodities have Polonian stamps not to treat so large as to handle all that might be said of the Suretiship of Christ it being the very Hinge of our Salvation though the Neomonian as well as the Polonian Merchants make very slight of it and Mr. H. in Particular because he saith it s but once used in the New Testament I say it is therefore a Pearl of great Price for I could Instance in several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Spirit of God hath used in the Old and New which do express singular Truths and Mysteries not common I shall only Note some things generally that are Truths I will stand by as 1. That Christ is not a Metaphorical Surety but the most proper Surety that ever was and the Exemplar of all Sureties 2. That the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Surety for Debt 3. That is a Surety of the better Covenant i. e. of the Covenant of Grace not that he was a Surety of the Performance of that Covenant but that he is the Surety in that Covenant that is bound to pay the Debt that we owe to the Justice of God in the Covenant of Works which we have broken and he is not such a Surety as to be bound to the Justice of God that we should pay the Debt the Lord have Mercy on Neonomians but he hath undertaken to pay the whole Debt for us every Farthing if he had been such a Surety as Mr. Cl. speaks of we were in a miserable Condition I know the Neonomians do mostly incline to be with their Polonian Merchants in Mr. Cl. first Point mentioned as to God's Suretiship to us but it 's no great Matter where they be the second Particular being worse than the former for Christ to be engaged to God that we shall pay the Debt that we owe to the Law of God by Adams fall and our Sin i. e. that we shall satisfie Gods Justice for the wrong done and that we shall perform perfect Obedience to the Law thus much Man must pay tho a poor insolvent wretched Creature and Christ hath engaged to see it done but not to pay any thing of the Debt himself And indeed I can prove this to be the true Account of their Doctrine for they say Christ hath procured and merited of God a new Law whereby the old Law is relaxed or repealed not paid or satisfied a new one is set up the Condition whereof we performing we shall be justified but procured not nor merited the Condition to be performed by us Now I would fain know whether Christ was a Surety for that which he never Purchased is Christ a Surety that we shall perform the Condition of the Covenant and never merited Faith and Obedience what a kind of Surety will they have Christ to engage for our Performance and not take care that we should have the cum quo But Mr. Cl. seems not to be quite satisfied with this second Way He adds a Third to mend the Matter a little at least to put a gloss upon it viz. 3. To discharge that Debt of Suffering which we did owe the Law for the Transgressing of it Resp Ay Sir now you say something you bring a Surety with Mony in his Hands we use indeed to say that a Man should never be bound for another unless he resolve to pay the Debt Christ knew well enough how Poor we should be when he undertook this Suretiship Well let us see whether Christ clears the score for us or whether he doth leave a considerable part of the Debt for us to pay our selves It may be that which the Law is primarily and mostly concern'd at and that for a wise Neonomian End viz. That if he should pay all the Sinner would prove an Idle Antinomian and Shabby-fellow having nothing to do himself and nothing to pay therefore Christ indeed paies some of the Debt but laies up the Sinner in a Work-house to pay the rest at his Fingers ends For saith Mr. Cl. Now take it in which of these Three Ways you will yet there 's nothing of his paying the Debt of Active Obedience Resp A very sad Story indeed a great noise of a Surety that would pay the whole Debt of the poor Man in Prison and when the Matter is strictly enquired into he hath only prevailed that he should not be whipt so often in Bridewel though agreed that he should have the Lash too pretty severely sometimes but as for the greatest Part of the Debt he must Work it out at least so far as a new Law of his which he hath procured and made doth require Well when all comes to all here 's nothing done to free the Sinner but he must pay all the good Money by the Sweat of his Brows for Active Obedience to the Law is indeed that which the Law sets a High value upon being the first and main Thing that it designs and aims at and it doth expect not only to be satisfied for Disobedience but must be obeyed yea and it must be paied by perfect Obedience too not by imperfect Now saith our Neonomian Christ was no Surety to pay any of our Debt of Active Obedience how then hath he made no Provision in this Case Yes truly he hath done something that may help a little He hath taken down the old strict Law that kept the Sinner at continual hard-work and brought in a new easie remedying Law then he makes choice of his own Work and business and his own Time and work at leisure only must have the Lash now and then and besure that he Work when he is going to Die and the Condition shall be performed and the Debt paid Now I only briefly argue if Christ was a Surety it was to pay all our Debt in Active and Passive Obedience or none for Christ paid not by halves though the Passive Obedience is hardest yet the active is hardest to do the damned can suffer and shall but can pay