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
thing pungent it is not in relation to your Persons but to such things in your Tenents which I conscienciously take to be very pernicious to the grand Truths of the Gospel that I have thro' the Riches of the Grace of God thankfully receiv'd and not a little experienced the Consolations in Days of great Trial and Temptation and therefore can't see any reason from all that you or your Copartner in this Controversie hath said to part with those great Doctrines which you oppose nor any way approve of the new Scheme which you and others have held forth to the World of late I need not tell you how contrary it is to the Doctrine of our first Reformers to the Experiences of the most eminent Christians and how greedily swallowed by Men of Popish Arminian and Socinian Principles There was two things especially of weight with me that obliged me to this labour 1. The publick Interest and Concern of the Kingdom and Gospel of Christ in the World which I desire to have a most special regard unto insomuch that the least and most favourable that I can say of the Propagators and Promoters of your Opinions in this Neonomian Doctrine is that they have been only applauded Captains by Men of blinded Minds and corrupt Principles for the conducting of the People back again into our Spiritual Egypt which thro' the tender Mercies of the most High they began to be delivered from by the Reformation and if we once come to this that the Doctrine of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is as incredible a thing as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as your great General hath asserted and your self have insinuated we may say Good night to the Protestant Religion and to the Papists or Atheists as now most appears in the Issue take all I need not instance how apt Men of your Principles have been to dispence with all the parts of instituted Worship insomuch that it is a hard thing to know what is Sin by your new Law but I shall not expatiate as I could upon this Point The second thing that had not a little Influence upon me was the Commiseration that I can't but have to your own Soul and the Souls of others looking upon your Deviation from the Truth in these great Points to be by Fundamental Errors and such as endanger the Eternal Life promised in the Gospel if a Man live and die in the Cordial Belief and Embracement of them and may be justly reckoned among the strong Delusions which God doth judicially give up those to who receive not the Truth in the Love of it It may be you may have read a Pamphlet entitled A true Relation of the chief Passages between Mr. Anthony Wotton the first Propagator of Neonom in England so far as I can find and Mr. George Walker An. Dom. 1611. usque ad An. 1615. by George Walker for the vindicating himself from some Imputations laid upon him by Mr. Thomas Gataker Wherein amongst other remarkable Accounts that he gives of the unsound doctrinal Opinions which he faithfully opposed and the most unfair Dealings he met with from Mr. Gataker and some others in countenancing of Wotton's Doctrine and prevaricating in those Controversies P. 25. He hath this Relation One thing I cannot omit which was a strong Motive to move divers godly People in London to abhor Mr. Wotton's Opinions That was the sharp Censure which that holy Man of God Mr. Alexander Richardson gave against them on his Death-bed and which Mr. John Barlow did report to divers from his Mouth Mr. Richardson being ready to leave this World Mr. Barlow who had often before resorted to him for Direction in his Studies as divers young Divines did some of which he mentions P. 6. and Resolution of Doubts in many Points of Divinity was at that time present with him and told him that he had heard me the Sabbath before propounding the Doctrine of Justification to be laid open out of Rom. 5. and to be maintained against Papists Socinians and other Hereticks some of which were of late revived in the City and withal desired to know his Judgment concerning Mr. Wotton's Opinions who denied Christ's fulfilling the Law for Justification of Believers and the Imputation of his Righteousness and held Faith to be imputed in a proper Sense without a Trope Mr. Richardson answered and said Take these Words of me a dying Man I have read and well weighed Mr. Wotton 's Papers and Opinions and I know them to be so pestilent and dangerous that whosoever liveth and dieth in the Belief of them shall never enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Commend me to Mr. Walker and desire him from me as being my last Request to him to be couragious in the Cause of God and for that saving Truth which he hath undertaken to maintain against those dangerous and deadly Errors lately set on foot by Mr. Wotton This Message being delivered unto me before divers Witnesses some of which are alive to testifie it did much encourage me and make me more bold to lay open the Abominations of Mr. Wotton's Opinions publickly in my Sermons without Fear or Regard of the Slanders and Revilings of his factious and furious Disciples This was An. 1613. Now supposing that you will not lay much stress upon the Judgment of one of the most holy serious and learned Divines since the Reformation as it appears such weighs little with you let me be so bold as to ask you one Question Whether upon the maturest Consideration you do believe you shall in your dying Hour dare to venture your Eternal State upon the Bottom that you have laid And Lastly Altho' I am so much dissatisfied in your Doctrine that I must needs acknowledge your plain-heartedness in the Defence of your Doctrine as also Mr. Clerk's yet you do not endeavour to cover and obscure the Meaning and true Design of the Doctrine of Neonom but have given it to us unmask'd in its proper Colours Viz. That the genuine and proper Nature thereof lyes in the setting aside of the Righteousness of Christ and the Imputation thereof to the Justification of a Sinner before God and to advance the inherent Righteousness of Man into the Room and Place thereof Moreover I must acknowledge you have done right to Truth in what you say of the Union that the Nonconformists made between Presbyterians and Independants that they were extreamly out in it And likewise in the plain Proof that you have made that it is most absurd to hold and assert that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed in se and in the Effects too and that there can be no mixed Medium either we must hold that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed in se and per se to us for Justification or the Effects thereof only in our inherent Obedience for the Reasons you give with full Demonstration To say no more of this now but only that I think you have effectually ended Discord upon that Point
Alexipharmacon OR A FRESH ANTIDOTE AGAINST Neonomian Bane and Poyson TO THE Protestant Religion Being a Reply to the late Bishop of Worcester's Discourse of Christ's Satisfaction in Answer to the Appeal of the late Mr. Steph. Lob. And also a Refutation of the Doctrine of Justification by Man's own Works of Obedience delivered and defended by Mr. John Humphrey and Mr. Sane Clark contrary to Scripture and the Doctrine of the first Reformers from Popery If there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness had been by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe Gal. 3.21 22. By ISAAC CHAVNCY M. A. London Printed for and Sold by W. Marshall at the Bible in Newgate-Street 1700. THE PREFACE TO THE READER THE Points Controverted in this small Treatise are not of the least moment to the Christian Religion all Reducible to these two great Questions 1. Whether our Lord Jesus Christ in his Suffering bore the Personal guilt of any or no 2. Whether our Inherent Obedience to the New Law be the Righteousness by which a Believer is Justified before God The first Question comes to be discussed upon the Controversie about change of Persons Mr. Lob asserting That the change of Persons between Christ and Believers consisted in Christ being made sin for us by the Imputation of our sins to him in a legal Sence and a Believers being made the Righteousness of Christ by Imputation and both by transaction of our Personal guilt and punishment due to us for Sin to Christ and of his righteousness in bearing sin and punishment to us This change of Persons the Scripture asserts in plain Words 2 Cor. 5.21 This Mr. Lob asserts Report p. 13. and the Bishop denies and saith That the change was not in respect of the guilt of Sin because Christ bore the Personal guilt of none and whatever Christ did or suffered the personal guilt of sin remains on Believers and can never be taken away But he tells us of a kind of Change that he is for viz. That Christ was punisht that we might not be punisht and this is all our stead that Christ stood in now if Christ stood not in our stead as Sinners and he was not made Sin for us it s to assert that which is Expresly contrary to Scripture and most irrational to men of Vnderstanding as shall be made appear And the Change which is pretended by the Bishop is no change in the sence of the Spirit of God at best it can be but a partial change neither as a Publick person nor in the Room of the Sinner as such It is such a change as when three persons are condemned and they are thro' the mercy of the Legislator to cast Lots for their lives one only to die now be on whom Deaths Lot falls dieth that in the event the other may not die yet this Person dieth but in Relation to his own Sins not upon the account of the others Sins Many Instances might be given of the like Nature where a Man does or suffer for another that the other may not and here is a change of Persons in respect of Punity and Impunity but Note that it s no true Change if Desert remains on the Original Transgressor and the Sufferer suffer under no Desert neither is such Sufferings Punishment in any Law Sence neither can that Person be ever Righteousness that standeth in the Personal Guilt of his Sin unremoved but this is not the Place to enlarge on this Point I shall only Note that in one thing the Bishop got the Weather-gage of Mr. Lob Mr. Lob having in express Terms renounced that Change of Persons which Dr. Crisp Asserts The Bishop very honestly proves that Dr. Crisp asserted no other Change of Persons then what Mr. Lob contends for and therein he hath done Justice both to Dr. Crisp and Mr. Lob and truly its but a sorry Business of any Man of Learning and Ingenuity to inveigh highly against the Opinion of another as erroneous when he himself is necessitated by his Principles to hold the same thing only a little differing in way of Expressions Neither let the Reader think that I appear to Justifie Mr. L's appealing to the Bishop for I was always against it and declared to him how much I and others was offended at it and at his nauseous fawning and flattering of him as if he intended to lay down his Faith at his Feet for he could not but know the Bishops settled Opinion in this Point as I told him by the Letters he wrote to Mr. H. and Mr. W. yea and to himself before his Appeal and then if so what a piece of Pageantry was it in him to Appeal to the Bishop but it must be done it seems the Wind of his Phantasie without any Reason hurrying him this Way the Issue whereof is that were Mr. L. alive he would see he is inevitably run a ground and therefore although I can't get him off as to that matter yet I hope to see the Truth safe the main Thing which the Good Man contended for for I am not to defend Men who will have their Imprudencies and Imperfections but the good Cause he defended The Second great Thing I contend for is the Righteousness of Christ that it is the only Righteousness that a Believer is justified by Mr. Humphr and Mr. Clerk Assert our Justification by a Believers own inherent Righteousness i. e. by their Works of Obedience to the New Law a Tenent that hath an inseparable Connexion unto the former I shall not detain the Reader any longer therein but refer him to the Treatise it self Lastly I finding in the Bishops Treatise a Presentation of the Independants brought in by the Presbyterians for holding several Antinomian Principles which the Rebuker calls Bane and Poyson in that Form of Prayer which he hath taught his Disciples I have thought it requisite to Entitle my Book accordingly Alexipharmacon and though I take the Rebuker to be of too haughty a Constitution abounding in Choler to be my Patient yet I am not discouraged from exposing this Preparation to Publick Advantage not doubting but some may reap Benefit thereby and hence I have endeavoured also to correct the Druggs which the unskilful Rebuker hath cast away with his prophane Faugh for Bane and Poyson and shew that if they be but a little scraped and wip'd from the Dirt and Filth which he and his slovenly Apothecary hath put upon them they will become a Christians wholesome Food and substantial Medicine being the Fruit and Leaves of the Tree of Life for the healing of the Nations Rev. 22.2 A Catalogue of Mr Isaac Chauncy's Books Printed for and Sold by William Marshall at the Bible in Newgate Street 1. NEonomianism Vnmask'd Or the Ancient Gospel pleaded for against the other called a new Law or Gospel in a Theological Debate
same medium be used truly and falsly How is it the same way of Arguing Two Ships may Sail two contrary ways with one and the same Wind but that Answer which overthrows the Socinian must overthrow the Neonom For the Position is true and will be granted on all hands The Question between the Socin and Antinom is whether Christ Died merito No saith the Socin because he was an innocent Person in himself The Antinom as he calls in this all Calvinists saith he Died merito not upon the merits of his own Sins but under the merits of ours in whose stead he Died Now comes in the Neonom and says he was punished but not for any Personal Desert of himself or ours Let the Candid Reader judge now who is the Socinian this is enough to shew his unfairness in this matter and what he talks after to this matter is but repeating over and over what hath been brought to the test and found very weak but tells us still that what he saith is very agreeable to the Natural Sense of Men's Minds he should have said to the Natural Man that knows little of the Spirit if they would allow themselves the liberty of thinking yea of thinking themselves out of Scripture or any rational Understanding and therefore I am aware still that Neon are the most thinking Men in their own conceits in the World though I find none more abusive and unfair in Argumentation § 15. Bp. But do we not by this means take away the proper Punishment of Christ for Sins and so overthrow the Doctrine of Satisfaction A. I say you certainly do For 1. How can you say Christ was properly Punished is it for such thinking Men as you are That any Punishment is proper Punishment which is not deserved Punishment 2. How is it possible that you say that that Punishment is Satisfactory to God's Law which is not for the Sins which break the Law But the Bp saith no ☞ For I take away nothing but the Punishment that follows Personal Guilt and if this be not taken away the Antinom Sense must be allowed A. Say you so stand aside all Protestants your House is coming down on your Heads Well we come upon this Dilemma you must either deny that ever Christ bore any deserved Punishment or be Antinom I am sorry to see that my late esteemed Friend Mr. L. gave occasion to such rebukes which he hath received in the Answer to his Appeal that in a fixed Enmity to Dr. C. he condemned Christ's bearing the Personal Guilt of our Sins as false blasphemous and impossible whereas he declares it as the Opinion he contended for That the Lord Jesus Christ voluntarily on the Father's invitation coming under the Sanction of the violated Law was justly charged with the Guilt of our Sin found Guilty Condemned Sentenc'd and Executed as such even by that God which laid on him the Iniquity of us all Now the words of the Bp are these If I do not misunderstand both Dr. C. and you you say as much in consequence as he And therefore you cannot disown the transferring Personal Guilt upon Christ This he sufficiently proves and I cann't but subscribe to the truth of the Bishop's Judgment in this matter for this is a fault and a great inconsistency which I always disliked to inveigh against some as Erroneous and yet saying those very things which they spake For as the Bp saith What Guilt of our Sins could be charged on Christ if not the Personal Guilt c. See p. 28 99 100. I forbear repeating more in Honour to my Deceased Friend It is good to own and defend truth as truth without respect of Persons § 16. The second proposed by the Bishop for Answer is That without this translation of Personal Guilt no advantage could come to us by Christ's Sufferings because a Man suffers only for his own fault unless the fault of another be laid upon The Argument hath great force in it For 1. Without translation of our Guilt upon another either a guilty Person must Die in his Guilt i. e. in his Sins or he must be absolutely Pardon'd without satisfaction in both these there can be no Benefit by Christ's Sufferings 2. Another Person 's Sufferings will not profit me unless it be in my room or stead and taken upon that Law-defect that belonged unto me In Answer he saith Here is no question but our Iniquities were laid on Christ and that he Suffered in our stead but the Dispute is about the manner how whether our very Transgressions themselves were laid upon him and how it doth appear that we cann't receive the Benefits of Christ's Sufferings unless that were done which is suppos'd to be done It is a great Argument with them our Sins are Debts and they are reckon'd to Christ as our Surety To shew how little force there is in it we need only these Considerations 1. That there is no sufficient ground for it in Scripture as for that of Isa 53.6 there is not the least ground for it in the Text for the words properly signifie that he made our Iniquities meet and to fall upon him i. e. as a Man falls upon his Enemy when he meets him So the Jewish Interpreters But doth this Man say enough to take off the force of this place of Scripture 1. He tells us that the meaning is he made our Sins to meet upon him the words are here Jehovah made the Iniquities of us all to fall upon him the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is that but Iniquity Is it ever taken for Sacrifice for Sin Who made them to meet Jehovah the Legislator God the Judge of all and how can Iniquities of many meet on one Person Can it be any way but judicially As the Person is a Surety chargeable and charged with the guilt of many But see what a Sence he would sham off his Reader with As a Man falls upon his Enemy when he meets him he should have said as many Enemies falls upon a Man when they meet him for it was the Iniquities of many but how could our Iniquities fall upon Christ to hurt him if the Guilt of them fell not upon him And why should Jehovah make many Sins fall upon Christ Was there any reason for it in Christ or us or in the Justice of God to set such Millions of Mastiff Dogs on Jesus Christ on poor innocent Jesus Or what Design of Wisdom was it when those Sins were neither to slay Christ nor Christ to slay them And this he tells us was the Jews and Symachus his Interpretation he knew what Opinion the Jews were of concerning Christ and this so eminent Prophesie of him and he might have told us what his Friend Grotius's Opinion was about this place but he acquaints us how the lxx render He gave him up to our Iniquities and is not that against him How could Christ be given up to our Iniquities But in bearing the deserved Punishments
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
against the Socinians and Mr. B. 2. That Christ bore not the Personal Guilt of any Legally but that all Personal Guilt remains on the Sinner and was not legally transferred to Christ For this he saith P. 167. Bp. 1. We say that Punishment may be justly inslicted where there was a Translation of Guilt by Relaxation of the Law as to personal Offenders and admitting a Mediator to suffer in their stead R. No Guilt is translated by Relaxation of a Law for that dispenceth only 2. If the Law be relaxed as to Personal Offenders the doing of those things aster the relaxation is not Sin which was so before what needs a transferring to another 3. If the Precept be not relaxt which they will be loath to say it is then the Penalty must and if so either to a part only or to the whole If to the whole what need is there of a Translation If to a part only then part of the Sin only is transferred and Christ Died only for some part of our Sin not all Hence one part of our Salvation is owing to the relaxed Law and the other to Christ Hence Christ did not satisfie the Law in the proper and strict Nature of it and Christ's Sufferings were improper Punishments according to Mr. B. And here the Bp runs on ground Bp. He saith 2. Absolute Promises of the New-Covenant on which so much weight is laid without comparing them with other places speak no more of Christ's Sufferings than they do of any Conditions in us Here our own Qualifications and Performances are made to have an equality of conditionality foederally with Christ's Sufferings and if Christ's Sufferings be meritorious so are they too Bp. 3. The notion of Satisfaction lays the Foundation of Antinomianism which attributes unto God such a sort of vindictive Justice which requires an absolute and perfect Satisfaction in the same kind for the Sins of Mankind R. How much this kind of satisfaction borders upon Socinianism in the true meaning of it it 's easie to judge and what little reason the Bp had to reject the Principles that Mr. B. built upon is manifest being a firmer Foundation for his building And after all that he hath said against them as too much favouring Socinianism he is fain to lay hold on them to support his own Fabrick See here the pitiful shifts Men are put to that wander from the way of truth Arguments to prove that Christ bore the Personal Guilt of all them for whom he Suffered THAT the less intelligent Reeader may not be at loss for the truth not so easily finding it among the Controversal Difficulties of a Dispute I have thought good to make plain proof of this great Question in the affirmative And that we may prevent enlargements I premise 1. That by Personal Guilt is meant the Guilt of every particular Person for whom Christ Died as of Noah David and Peter c. 2. I take Guilt and Sin and the merit and desert of Sin to be equivalent terms in the sense of the Spirit of God and though the Scripture use the word Sin and we most commonly say Guilt this is exegetical to shew that we mean not that the Subjective Physical Act of Sin was transferred to Christ nor the inherent Moral Pollution But whatever is in either that is a Transgression of the Law the Law-relation of all Sin so far as the Law condemns the Sinner for it was charged on Christ i. e. Legally and Juridically in the Just God's distribution of Justice Then I argue Arg. 1. He that was punisht for Sin bore Sin in the Personal Guil i. e. the Legal Charge of it as the reason of his Punishment but Christ was punisht for it by the Concession of our opposites Ergo The Major is true 1. Because God is Just 2. Punishment without a Reason is very unjust 3. There was no reason in Christ absolutely considered for his Punishment therefore in some others therefore the Personal Sin of some or other 4. Without a bearing of Sin in the legal desert of some or other he could not be justly punished by the Law Arg. 2. He that was made Sin for us was made so by charging our Sins upon him bare Personal Guilt for he was made that which he was not in himself Now how could he be made so but by an imputation of the Sins of others to him a legal proceeding with him in judicature which could be no other than by Judging and Punishing him for some Guilt that merits the Wages of Death The Answer the Socinians and others make to 2 Cor. 5.21 is that he was made Sin as the Sacrifices were because a Sin-offering is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I answer 1. It was essential to the Sin-offering to have the the Personal Guilt of the Sinner charged upon it 2. When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for a Sin-offering it 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The Prophet Isa doth only use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he speaks of Christ's bearing Sin which last word is never used for Sin-offering 4. He was made Sin as we are made Righteous now we are not made Righteous by being made Sacrifices for Sin but by imputation Arg. 3. He that bore the Curse of the Law to Redeem us from it bore also the Personal Guilt of our Sins but Christ bore the Curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 For the Major it 's as clear as the Sun because Curse is inseparable from Sin the Law curseth no where but where it finds Personal Guilt Let these Men tell me where a Curse falls upon the head of any one but of such wherein there is Sin in some legal sense or other Arg. 4. If the Priests and Sacrifices of old the Types of Christ and his Sufferings had the Personal Guilt of Sin laid upon them then Christ the Antitype in his Sufferings had Personal Guilt laid upon him But the Antecedent is without contradiction yea and the Consequence because the Antitype is to answer the Type in all things wherein it is a Type Arg. 5. If they that were Punished by the Law did bear their Personal Sins by the Law then if Christ was Punished by the Law he also bore Sin by the Law But the Antecedent is true by the Scripture both in them that are recorded to have been Punished in Person for their own Sins Lev. 20.20 and 22.9 and 24.15 Numb 9.13 and 14.34 and 18 22 32. Ezek. 23.49 and in such as are recorded to have been Punished or Suffer for others Isa 53.11 Ezek. 4.4 5 6. The Consequence must be true if Christ was Punished by Law and was one that Suffered for others the proof whereof the Scripture is full of Arg. 6. If Christ bore not Personal Guilt but every one's Personal Guilt still remains then the Spirit of God taught David to pray after his Sin in vain Deliver me from Blood guiltiness O God But David's Prayer was
not in vain but was he delivered from his Personal Guilt of Blood Or else he must at this day be a Blood-guilty Murderer in Heaven Arg. 7. A Surety to God for Sinners bears their Sins in being Punished for them but Christ was a Surety Heb. 7.22 There 's no fence against such a Flail as this one express place 2. The Minor is quarrelled by our Adversaries but not Universally denied yet they would make a seeming Evasion that they will have Christ a Surety for God to us and not for us to God and that Christ was no Money-Surety for us we being Criminals and that Sin must not be lookt on as a Debt the folly of all which hath been made sufficiently manifest Arg. 8. If the Personal guilt of Sin was taken away by Jesus Christ then Christ must bear Personal Guilt But the Guilt of Personal Sins was taken away by Christ as appears by 1 John 3.5 Heb. 9.26 He took away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself Sin cannot be said to be taken away if it be not taken away in the Personal Guilt The Major appears from the Type of the Scape-Goat Levit. 16. Arg. 9. Where there 's no Condemnation there Personal Guilt is taken away nor nothing to be laid to the Charge of a Person but there 's no Condemnation i. e. Reason of Condemnation in the Eye of the Law in a Believer Rom. 8. for there 's no Reason of Condemnation but Guilt of Sin and none takes off the reason of our Charge of Fault to Law Condemnation but Christ by bearing Sin unto Punishment and Satisfaction Rom. 8.33 34. For where there is the Personal Guilt of Sin there 's Condemnation Now this Freedom from Condemnation was fully obtain'd and procured by Christ's Sacrifice but the purchased Right is not received and possessed till Application till then a Sinner is shut up and imprisoned under the Law as to State and Conscience but when he is in Christ Jesus by Faith he is fully instated in the purchased Possession Arg. 10. If Christ's Punishment was without his bearing of our Personal Guilt there was no change of Persons between Christ and us according to 2 Cor. 5.21 for as we were so we remain to be guilty Sinners and so long as we are so we cannot be righteous we can't be made the Righteousness of God in Christ so long as we remain guilty Sinners in our selves Arg. 11. Where Personal Guilt remains there 's no Acceptation with God for all our Acceptation either of Persons or Services is in Christ God professing he will not clear the Guilty Arg. 12. I might argue from all those places of Scripture that speak out this Truth fully and expresly which cannot have any rational Sense put upon them no less than three times in Isa 53. and 1 Pet. 2.24 who his own self bare our Sins in his Body on the Tree There 's no one Truth in the Scripture that is more fully and plainly recorded in the Old Testament and New The Spirit telling us of a Believer's Sin covered not imputed Psal 32. Rom. 4. Of our being made nigh to God and Christ being our Peace Eph. 2.13 14 15. Likewise Christ died the just for the unjust to bring us unto God 1 Pet. 3.18 But this is enough to confirm the weak and to convince Gainsayers and to lead all the Lovers of Truth into the Mind of the Spirit in this great Article of our Faith The Presbyterian Articles against the Dissenting Brethren Answered I Had thought when I began this Task to have passed over the first part altogether for tho' I found it a very false History yet I knowing from whose Hands the Bp. had it I did not think he was chargeable so much with the falshood as with an unjust unwariness and partiality to take up the Report of a Difference and to publish the History of it to the World from one Party only concerned therein I deem'd therefore enough to refer the Reader to the true History of the Union and Breach but upon the review of the said false Historical Account and finding a fresh Presentment brought in against the Dissenting Brethren from the late Union by the grand Rebuker under divers Articles for holding and publishing many poysonsome dangerous Heresies of so mischievous a Nature that he teacheth his tractable Reader a form of Prayer to use still before he reads them to wit that he may not suck in the Bane and Poyson thereof And finding the Bp. received the said Presentment very much like a Gentleman and sends forth his very Christian Summons for our Appearance to the high Charges in these Words The Accusation being now publick and the Nation is concern'd as to the Dishonour done to Religion thereby altho' I had seen the said Reproaches in the Presbyterians Hands and found they had brought the said Brethren under their Censure in their unrighteous way of proceeding without any hearing I thought more expedient to slight than answer their unreasonable Clamours being abundantly conscious of my own Innocency in those Matters my great Mistake was in mistaking them being at my Concurrence with them in the Union for which I have deeply repented but a meer Stranger to their Persons Ways and Actions And before I come to the particular Articles it 's necessary to premise a few things that now 1. I think it necessary for my self to appear to the Accusations and make publick Answer to them but do not undertake that all I say is the Sense of my Brethren in every Particular I suppose they may concur with me so far that some different Apprehensions will make no Breach in our mutual Love and Affections 2. I apprehend it very unreasonable as well as unchristian and ungenteel to charge those things for dangerous Errors upon a whole Party which are pretended to be taken from the Writings or Sayings of one or two only 3. It is very traducing and slanderous 1. Not to prove the Words charged for Error in the Sense they represent them on the Party that wrote or spake them but to make an Accusation at large and at random 2. That they publish these for Errors before they had disputed them with such as they charge and proved them so 4. Let me ask our angry Brethren a few Questions for my Information 1. Whether they think in their Consciences and in the sight of God they have dealt uprightly and sincerely with the Truth and with their Brethren in this Controversie 2. Whether it becomes the Saints to appear such publick bitter Accusers of their Brethren as appears by the foul-mouth'd Rebuker and others whoso have been employ'd and applauded in this dirty Service 3. Whether it be for the Honour of the Nonconformists thus to bewray their own Nests 4. Whether they think not in their Consciences that many things they charge for Errors are great Truths in some Sence or other Therefore is it not very unfair to charge in general and dubious terms without any
God give us this Righteousness What is freer than Gift and what makes a better propriety than Free Gift Is not Gods Judgment according to Truth when he imputes that to us which he hath given It s the Gift of Righteousness Rom. 5. E. gr A poor debtor is sued in Court for an 100 l. and upon Trial he is found insolvent and Verdict is going to be given against him the Judge throws him a Bag of 100 l. in Court and bids him pay the debt shall not the Court impute this to him a lawful Payment and give him a discharge and is not the Judgment according to Truth on the other hand another hath the like Tryal but is found insolvent the Judge or some other gives him a Bag of Counters and bids him to pay his Creditor he refuseth the Money saith its Brass well saith the Judge we will impute it to him for a lawful tender and good Payment we will make that which is no righteousness by our imputation to be a legal righteousness so the Creditor may take the Bags of Counters and go shake his Ears we call it good Money now I appeal to these Men whether this be a Judgment according to Truth And let them weigh it well and make application thereof and if they can't make a rational reply let them lay their Hands on their Mouth and hold their peace for ever hereafter § 3. A second great Argument taken from Mr. B. is That if it be so that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for Justification then should the Elect be immediately freed from punishment and immediately justified before they believed and repented for no Terms could be Imposed on them in order to their Justification and Glory if they be accounted already to have fulfilled the Law of Christ And this is one as he saith of the Antinomian consequences Resp Let it be so we say then First If it be an Antinomian consequence what is the reason Mr. B. and Mr. H. are such Antinomians to say all the World are pardoned before Faith and Repentance yea whether they believe or no Why doth Mr. B. assert two Justifications before Faith 2. We reckon it no Antinomianism to say that Election perfectly freed the Elect from coming under the execution of the Vindictive Wrath of God and Curse of the Law Why else should the Scripture say who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect and whereas it may be said before Conversion the Law will charge for they are under the Law it s replied its Christ that died yea rather is risen having fully satisfied the Law of God that they shall not fall under the Execution of the Curse of it and they are secured before God both by Election and Redemption or else Christ died and rose again in vain and as they have this security so they have an immediate right in Christ to the Life of Grace and Glory They want the application and the receiving of this righteousness and a possession thereof which reception is by Faith that is not their own but purchased and given by Christ which was never purchased and given for their righteousness but as an Organ of Spiritual Life whereby a Man created in Christ Jesus may be sensible and have the comfort of what is freely given to him of God for by Faith a Man takes up the Peace which Christ hath made and hath access into the justifying Grace of God wherein he stands and therefore comes from under the Law in his own Conscience and rejoiceth in the hope of the glory of God 3. As for imposing of Terms its Idle to think that Christ should do what he did for Sinners in his Priestly Office their Justification and Salvation and then to impose an impossibility upon them without the performance of which all that he hath done should be nothing to them and do Men talk Sence when they talk of imposing Terms upon Sinners for Eternal Life the Terms should be put upon them to be performed before they have Spiritual Life in their meer natural Estate and then to make their notion to stand on its right bottom they must be Pelagians its Eternal Life that is begun in Justification applied to the Believer and his Person by the Spirit and it s received Vitally and Sensibly by Faith when the Sinner is made a live by the Sanctifying work of the Spirit his Life of Faith is part of the Eternal Life purchased Can any Terms of Life be imposed on a dead Man what Terms were imposed upon Lazarus if the roling away the Grave-Stone was the Term it was not imposed on him it was on them that stood about the Grave if they say God will give these Terms as they must say to save themselves from Pelagianism then the Term lies upon God and its Idle to say they are imposed upon incapable Subjects neither is that Imposed upon me as a Term that cannot be expected from me unless by the donation of another by any rational Man 4. The clause follows not according to Mr. H.'s Principles who saith Christ satisfied the Law tho I know what the Neonomians talk of they intend no true satisfaction did Christ satisfie the Law in what Sence they will Was it for himself or for us if for himself then he offended it this they will not say then for us if for us our Offence was taken of before God thereby God was in him by reason of his satisfaction not imputing our Trespasses how can it be otherwise but we must be accounted by God to have fulfilled the Law in Christ if Gods judgment be according to Truth and why may not this satisfaction be and our fulfilling in Christ be before we had a being in the World this was actually performed for the Saints before his coming long after most of them were dead why not for those that are to come before they have life and why may they not be called to a fellowship with Christ and participation of the righteousness of Christ in Satisfaction by Faith when the day of their Regeneration comes This is the dangerous Doctrine that these poor blind men are so afraid of § 4. There is another Argument of Mr. H's which he takes to be Herculean and admires and it looks as if it were out of his own Forge and he chargeth Mr. L. to hearken to it Animadv p. 67. There is nothing can be imputed to us but either that which we have not and then it is that we may have it that is to have it made ours or reputed as ours Resp There is nothing can be imputed to a Sinner for righteousness but that which he hath not first but is given so saith Mr. H. and here 's the difference he saith inherent Grace is given for righteousness we say the obedience of Christ is given for our righteousness which the Scripture saith now it is given that it may be imputed ours legally and it s imputed that we may be
dwells in Eternity there 's no Time nor Succession Christ was set up from Eternity Prov. 8. as Surety a Thousand Years are to God but as one Day and much less therefore Christs Execution of his Suretiship on Earth in the Days of his Flesh was Eternally before the Lord hence he is said to be slain from the Foundation of the World hence the faithful before his coming had a full 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Remission of Sin through this Covenant Relation of Christ there was not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or passing them by for Remission till Christ was actually Slain but they had the Vertue of his Death as fully as we Heb. 4.15 7. He continues our Surety that hath paid standing and pleading his full Satisfaction for us therefore is our Surety now since Payment carrying his own Blood into the Holiest of all and there making Intercssion for us CHAP. XV. More Places of Scripture Vindicated from False Glosses Section 1. Of Daniel 9.24 § 2. Of Ephes 1.4 § 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 examined § 4. Of Gal. 5.7 8. § 5. The Sence of the Apostle James § 6. Mr. H. and Mr. Cl. Answered Section 1. MR. Hum. interprets Daniel 9.24 thus He shall make reconciliation for iniquity and so shall bring in an everlasting righteousness i. e. he should by his death procure a Covenant or Law of Grace by our performance whereof without the law we are righteous and must be saved 'T is that is our righteousness if Christ had not procured for us this New Law we could not be saved Resp Let us see how Mr. H's Gloss will hold with the Text for I am sure it holds not with the Analogy of Faith Seventy weeks shall be distributed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which word lies the Key of the Prophesie not to our purpose now to speak to upon thy People i.e. the Church of the Jews here and upon the City of thy Holiness or Holy City to finish transgression to make an end of sin these Events seem in our English to be the same but they are not in the Original the first is most agreeable to the Margent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to restrain transgression i. e. by the Reformation of Ezra and Nehemiah in the compass of these 72 Weeks but to make an end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make an end of sins or sin-offerings by the offering up of Christ within the 72 Weeks and to make expiation for sin true not typical and perfect Expiation by the Expiation made by the Blood of Christ and to bring everlasting righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring in eternal righteousness or the righteousness of ages Lxx 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We shall go no further in the Prophecy This Prophecy is generally owned to belong to the first coming of Christ and in this Verse the time is set in a mysterious manner to the coming of Christ his offering up and erecting the Gospel Church the Angels the Events that should fall out in this compass of time especially toward the latter end in the Sacrifice of Christ wherein he should make an end of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the abolishing Sin by the sacrifice of himself Heb. 9.26 wherein he also finished all sin-offerings 2. He should put it away by making atonement and Expiation Lxx. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to blot out and attone for transgression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in pih signifieth to make Expiation and Atonement by Sacrifice even to the blotting them out and full satisfaction to Divine Justice for then sin is expiated when the Debt-Book is cancell'd thus the bloud of the Sacrifice was sprinkled on the Book of the Law and on all the People so that there is plenary satisfaction in the bloud of Christ and thereby a righteousness everlasting brought in i. e. preached called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 14.6.2 Thereby revealed and made manifest freed from the Vails and Shadows of the Old Testament for tho it was given us in Christ before the World began and lay obscured long under the Old Testament Types yet now was made manifest by the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ who hath abolished Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulling or abandoning death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel the Apostle seeming plainly to allude to these expressions of Daniel the bringing in of righteousness is plainly no more than the bringing the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ for everlasting righteousness opposed to the righteousness of the legal Sacrifices which was but temporary offered every year but this Expiation of Christ was one offering and the righteousness of Ages or if it carry any thing distinct from preceding Events that it be not to be understood of the passive obedience of Christ the Spirit of God expresseth to all the fulness thereof he adds this to signifie the active obedience of Christ which is also everlasting and to be understood always as a complement of that perfect righteousness of Christ In Answer to Mr. H. I say 1. Christ himself is the everlasting righteousness it s not procured but it s that which procures 2. The Righteousness of Christ is here prophesied of not the righteousness of our selves 3. It s the Righteousness that expiates the old transgressions and therefore here is nothing of a New-Law spoken of 4. Justifying righteousness is such as satisfies the Law broken and therefore there must be at least Expiation in it 5. It s very absurd and contradictio in adjecto to talk of a Law of Grace if thereby be meant a law for Justification and again absurder to talk of performing the condition of a law without law 6. How is new-law-righteousness for it s but imperfect obedience and therefore will be quite wipt away at death for when things that are perfect are come those that are imperfect are done away you will say it may last in a perfect righteousness than the New Law will turn into he old for they make imperfection to be a proper adjunct of the works of the New-Law and appropriate to it to distinguish it from the old law So that here they are justified by the New Law and in Heaven by the Old Law What a stir do these men make with the Law and how do they shift and shirk from one law to another swerving from Faith and Truth to laws singly making themselves great teachers of the laws but understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm I would fain know whether Daniel was justified by his own New Law righteousness it seems he did not understand that that kind of Justification was then a-foot and its a Wonder the Angel Gabriel could come to tell him that in a few years hence the Messias should come and bring in old self righteousness again for Justification which is so choice and precious a Commodity that it shall cost him his blood to purchase Would not Daniel be amazed at it that a man so
beloved as he was was ignorant of it but that very day as v. 16. According to thy righteousness I beseech thee let thy anger and thy fury be turned away a Neonomian will Gloss thus i. e. according to our righteousness of the New Law v. 18. We do not present our supplications to thee for our righteousness i. e. say the Neonomians the righteousness of the Old Law not of the New but for thy great mercy that say they is the Law of Grace so they will have their Belly-full of law shortly § 2. Mr. H. gives a wild Gloss upon Eph. 1.4 According as he hath chosen us in Christ before the Foundation of the World he saith the Election of Grace is the Election of Grace and Gods choosing us is the taking the Way and Method of Grace and not of Works a choice way of saving Resp Ay indeed it s a choice way to save by Grace and not by Works but to save by Grace and yet by Works is a Contradiction in Paul's Logick Election is in Christ how according to common Notion of Election is over hard to conceive but take it in this Notion and here is even Day-light if you take it for the Law of Grace the Law is the Will of the Law-giver and that 's all one with the Gospel there 's no difficulty in it Resp This Man is so fond of his New Law that ask him of what Place of Scripture you will what it means and he will tell you its the New Law what is Election The New Law what is Redemption Purchase of the New Law How are you justified by the Righteousness of the New Law how shall you be judged by the New Law what 's the Gospel the New Law may not these Men be fitly call'd Neonomian that thus New Law it its hard to conceive how Election is in Christ why Because he cannot conceive Christ to be a common Person or Head of the Elect and that Christ as such was chosen and the whole Body in him but tell him that we are chosen in the New Law and the Difficulty is removed and you see what he makes of the Gospel it is the Law-giver I think its Time to give over talking with Men whose Wits go a Wool-gathering once more though § 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing their Trespasses and hath committed to us the Word of Reconciliation the Word is the Gospel declaring to the World this purchased Pardon the Pardon is General a standing Pardon an Act of Grace yet if any will have Benefit by it he must look into the Act and see how he is to be qualified Resp The Gospel he saith is the Declaration of the New Law the making of which was an Act of general Pardon for all the World and for this Pardon Christ atoned none could obtain this but Christ and here all the Rogues and Whores in the World continuing so are pardoned at once now the silly Antinomian talks only of the Pardon of Believers before Faith now a Neonomian doth Antinomize to Purpose and Mr. H. is willing Christ shall have the Honour of saving Peter so far as he saved Judas and so far it 's from the Love of the Father in sending his Son to fulfil the Law how By no Obedience to it or Satisfaction for wrong done to him in it and in this Sence he will allow Grace is without Condition i. e. as much as Creation is Grace and God's giving a Law at first it 's true whatever Act God puts forth at first to a Created Being in a way of Nature or Jurisdiction or Mercy it may be said to proceed from his Sovereignty but it cannot shine forth in a way of Grace unless it be the bestowing some good Thing in a way of Speciality Peculiarity and in Distinction from others not to do something in general for all the World in common this is not that which will bear the Name of Grace likewise considering that what he calls a Law of Grace is but an Exhibition of a Law of Works for it is but do believe God had made the first Law as much a Law of Grace as this had the World been as full of People as since and more for it had been easier to perfect Man to perform than now an un-performable condition is to lapsed man This is Grace without conditions he saith even as much as the first Covenant for God made that Covenant without Man's causing it the Condition was lege constitura in the law enacted the previous causes of a law whether it proceed from the meer pleasure of the Legislator or obtained from him by Petition or Purchace are not considered in the law by the Subject it s the tenour of it that he looks at and is concerned in it therefore the making a law the proper nature whereof is to be conditional and promulgatting of it to all the world is no Pardon therefore he soon trips up the heels of his General Pardon in saying If any come to look for benefit by this Pardon Act of Grace Law Covenant Testament any thing a declaration of the will of God as he saith which being a law is not therefore Grace he must read it and see the conditions or terms that God requires And are not these conditions required of all the World are they therefore pardoned because they are required of them its required of every man he saith to believe repent walk sincerely in order to the benefit if these be the conditions of the Covenant then not free because working conditions are required of all the World which by the World are unperformable The main of the Text he cannot see he is so dazled with his New Law v. 18. All things are of God even the reconciliation of the World as well as its new Creation and therefore the righteousness by which reconciliation is made is of God and therefore saith reconciling us by Expiation and Satisfaction for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying reconciling by an Expiatory Sacrifice to himself the enmity was between the Sinner and God and God in this Grace is the first mover of Reconciliation by or in Jesus Christ in whom the righteousness of Satisfaction is giving to us the word of reconciliation i. e. the Gospel in which this reconciliation is preached whereby the Sinner seeing the preventing love of God in the mystery of Reconciliation by the Impetration of Christ he may have the application of this Grace also by Faith for this is the great doctrin that reconciles the heart and brings him to believe This he repeats v. 9. shewing only exegetically that we who are to be saved are the world in the sense of the Scripture in this truth by an usual synecdoche of the choice part being put for the whole and the whole for the better part not imputing their Trespasses shew which is the great thing done in reconciliation of a Sinner to
Justified by this Law here 's Christs law causa sine qua non with a Witness As to the consequence if Justification be an effect of Merits and it be a Juridical effect then Merits which is the cause must be imputed to the person on whom these effects must fall What moves the Court or Judge to justify this or that person his own Merits or the Merits of another Not his own but the Merits of another Then these Merits are imputed for it quickly and plainly appears what is imputed to any whether merits of Condemnation or merits of Justification for Justice goes by nothing but Merit and therefore mens own righteousness cannot justify-because it cannot Merit And do not our Neonomians speak as the Socinians in this point and mumble as if their mouths were full of plumbs Now therefore if Christs Merit be brought into Court as a meritorious cause of the Sinners Justification they are imputed to him for his Justification as if he had merited himself § Arg. 5. They say Christs Merits cannot be Imputed but the Effects are Imputed And I Argue If Christs Righteousness be Imputed its Imputed as a cause of Justification or in the Effect It should be as an Effect or the Disjunction is ridiculous but it s not Imputed in the Effect Ergo. In and as the Cause for the Effect is not the Cause but contrary it s another thing so that to say Christs Merits are imputed and so imputed to the person Justified is nonsense But what are the effects imputed All the Benefits purchased by Christ For is Justification an effect imputed Sure not Is Justification imputed to Justification Sure that 's most absur'd Is Mortification imputed to Justification That looks very odd Is Vocation and Adoption or Glorification all or any of them Imputed to Justification for they are Effects of Christs Merits But suppose they say some of these or all are to us imputed for righteousness unto Justification I then Query Whether the Righteousness perform'd by us in the new law Justification be merited by Christ as an Effect Do not I see them sneak away now and give no Answer but upon another Subject they will tell you that Faith and the condition of the New law was not purchased by Christ but are by the gift of Election only And now I pray what 's become of Justification by Effects of Christs Merits They will say we are Justified by Imputing the Spirits operations to us for righteousness Now this cannot be 1. The Spirit never was incarnate nor his Office to work a Righteousness for Justification this was peculiar to Christ 2. The fruits of the Spirit when they come to be exerted are called our works and justly so because Graces exercised or Duties performed by us are so these are all renounced as such by the Apostle Paul Phil. 3.8 and elsewhere 3. What the Spirit doth in Justification its office is by way of Application it takes of Christs and gives it to us it applies and brings home to a sinner the Impetration of Christ as Righteousness unto his Justification hence the Spirit is said to justifie 1 Cor. 6.11 in bringing to the Soul the Grace of Justification and enstating him therein by faith as he sanctifies by bringing in the Grace of Sanctification Now then if Christ's Righteousness cannot be imputed in the effect and is imputed at all then as the cause meritorious of Justification But they say God cannot impute Christs Righteousness to us because we did not perform it and God is a God of Truth he cannot impute that to us which we did not To which I answer 1. That God doth not reckon we performed Christs Righteousness 2. God may give us his Son for righteousness Rom. 8. and give us this righteousness Rom. 5.5 3. He may accept it for us on law terms as our righteousness to Justification and all this is according to Truth and Righteousness imputing it to us in a Law Sense 4. The Argument will fall upon Neonomian Justification for that 's to call that righteousness which is unrighteousness and not according to Truth as hath been shewed Mr. Cl. makes it a great Argument that the active righteousness of Christ must not be imputed because Christ did not obey that we should not obey and where 's the Antinomian that says so but we say that Christ did and suffered all that the law required of him as a Second Adam and our Surety and his obeying in doing is no hindrance but a Gospel ground and reason of our doing and obeying As Christ did not suffer that we should not suffer but not suffer the Penally so Christs doing was not that we should not obey Evangelically but that we should but not obey legally with expectation of our Justification by our works or from a law for that is to be under a Law and not under Grace and to sin instead of obeying Rom. 6 c. Lastly If Christ's righteousness be taken as a meritorious cause in a sinner's Justification it is imputed as such to the person justified the effect of this cause is the sinner's Justification which is his proper Discharge and this is not Imputation but Judgment upon it and Delivery in Law and suppose the effects of Merit could be imputed the cause and reason thereof must be first imputed for the Law doth nothing in way of Condemnation or Justification but upon a meritorious cause imputed unto Condemnation or Justification and how absurd is it to say Condemnation is imputed but its proper to say the sin that merits it is imputed § 6. Arg. 6. That Righteousness which is accepted in law unto Justification is imputed to the person justified but Christ's Merits are accepted of God to the Sinner's Justification The major must be owned for Truth by the Neonomians otherwise they could not assert their Justification by Works The minor hath been counted sound Divinity by most Protestants and many Papists but whether it be or be not the Scripture affirms it roundly see for a taste Eph. 5.2 chap. 1.6 for an acceptation in law must be an imputation of Merit to Justification and can be upon no other account either of a man 's own or of another's for him the law looks at the value of his Money or Works that he brings into Court not how he came by either whether by Gift or otherwise § 7. Arg. 7. That righteousness through which Sin is not imputed to condemnation is the righteousness through which a man is imputed righteous unto Justification But Christs righteousness is that through which sin is not imputed to condemnation Ergo. The minor is very clear from Rom. 8.1.34 who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died chap. 4.6 7 8 Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven to whom God doth not impute sin and this is told us is a righteousness without works that which comes on Jews and Gentiles that which covers Sin from the Eye of God's Justice therefore that which
have detected that ignorant Person and not charged it on their dissenting Brethren surely they are not such pitiful Wretches as not to distinguish between the mystical Body of Christ and his Person and to talk of a mystical Person 3. This mystical Person must be distinguished from a legal Union before Faith Where is this Stuff put together I challenge these Men to tell the Man and quote the Place where such a Mess of Nonsense is put together if they do not it must pass for one of the horrid Defamations wherewith they have bespattered their dissenting Brethren to render them odious unto the World I suppose the Bp could make nothing of it The Lord give them Repentance and Remission of these great Sins of the first Magnitude and that they persist not thus to fly in the Face of Christ and his faithful Members and that he leave them not to a reprobate Mind as well as such a persecuting false Tongue whereby we shall be engaged to pray the 120th Psalm against them A POSTSCRIPT BEcause we are so highly reproached by our Adversaries for Antinomians in the great Point of Justication I thought it very needful to transcribe some few Passages out of the Writings of that renowned Servant of Jesus Christ Mr. Tho. Shephard whom none of our bitterest Opponents can call an Antinomian He shews how Christ redeems 1. By Satisfaction 2. By strong Hand 1. By Satisfaction in paying a Price for us 1 Cor. 6. ult Hence Christ satisfieth Justice 1. By standing in the room of all them whom Mercy decreeth to save A Surety standeth in the room of a Debtor Heb. 7.22 As the first Adam stood in the room of all Mankind fallen so Christ standeth in the room of all Men rising or to be restored again 2. By taking from them in whose room he stood the eternal Guilt of all their Sins and by assuming the Guilt of all their Sins unto himself 2 Cor. 5.22 Hence Luther said Christ was the greatest Sinner by Imputation 3. By bearing the Curse and Wrath of God kindled against Sin for God is so holy that when he seeth Sin sticking only by Imputation to his own Son he will not spare him but his Wrath and Curse must he bear Gal. 3.13 Christ drinks up the Cup of all the Elect at one Draught which they should have been sipping and drinking and tormented with Millions of Years 4. By bringing into the Presence of God perfect Righteousness Rom. 5.11 For this also God's Justice required Perfection Conformity to the Law as well as perfect Satisfaction in suffering for the Wrong offered to the Lawgiver Justice requiring these Four Things Christ satisfies Justice by performing them and so pays the Price 2. Christ is a Redeemer by a strong Hand The first Redemption by Price finished in Christ's Person at his Resurrection the second is begun by the Spirit in Man's Vocation and ended at the Day of Judgment c. Sinc. Conv. p. 102 103. By Satisfaction I understand the whole Obedience of Christ unto the very Death both Active and Passive by which we are justified Heb. 10.10 Phil. 2.8 c. This Righteousness of Christ is not that of the Godhead for then what need was there for Christ to do or suffer but that which was wrought in the Manhood And hence it is finite in it self tho' infinite in value in that it was the Righteousness of such a Person This Righteousness of God may be consider'd two ways 1. Absolutely in it self 2. Respectively as done for us Christ's absolute Righteousness is not imputed to us as he is Mediator Head of the Church having the Spirit without measure c. These things are applied for our Good but are not imputed as our Righteousness Here the Objections such as these if Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us then we are Mediators Heads of the Church c. vanisheth 2. The respective or dispensative Righteousness of Christ which some call Justitia fide jussoria Suretiship Righteousness is that whereby Christ is just for us in fulfilling the Law in bearing God's Image we once had and have now lost by Sin And thus we are truly said to be as Righteous as Christ by Imputation because he kept the Law for us and here observe that the Question is not whether all that Christ did or had is imputed to us as our Righteousness But whether all that he did for us as a Surety in fulfilling the Law be not in Substance our Righteousness Because then we are justified by his working Miracles preaching Sermons c. Which is to cast Stumbling-blocks before the Blind so that tho' Christ doth not bestow his Personal Wisdom and Justice upon another yet what hinders but that which Christ doth by his Wisdom and Righteousness for another the same should stand good for him for whom it is done For thus it is among Men. Christ's Essential Righteousness Infinite Wisdom Fulness of the Spirit without Measure c. is not imputed to us yet these have conspired together to do that for us and suffer that for us whereby we come to be righteous before God Jer. 23.6 This Righteousness therefore imputed to us justifies us Rom. 5.18 we are said to be made righteous in him not the Righteousness of God whereby God is just but whereby we are just opposed to the Righteousness of Man called our own Rom. 10.3 Rom. 1.17 Not Righteousness from him as the Papists dream but Righteousness in him Sound Believer p. 265 266. ERRATA PAge 14. l. 2. ab ult r. appealed p. 15. l. 5. r. what necessary p. 16. l. 13. r. not taken p. 20. l. 5. ab ult r. ponitur p. 23. l. 6. ab ult r. not found p. 24. l. 22. f. Men r. more p. 43. l. 13. r. to the Sinner p. 49. l. 1. r. Gods p. 61. l. 8. r. Acquaints p. 69. l. 18. r. meritorious p. 76. l. 7. r. so as to bare l. 16.19.20 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 21. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 87. l. 6. r. 23.21 l. 9. dele at Sins l. 21. r. so as To my old Acquaintance Mr. John Humphry Reverend Sir THE former Civilities that I have receiv'd from you in sending your Books concerning the Doctrine of Justification to me which I always read and seriously considered knowing you to be a Man of Thought and plain-hearted sine fuco which some Men are too much starch'd with These I say first engaged me in this Undertaking for which I must crave your Excuse looking upon this as the best Returns that I am your Apponent in the Doctrine you have deliver'd in the said Books and laboured strenuously to defend for you know the old proverbial Saying Amicus Plato Amicus Aristotiles sed magis Amica Veritas I hope you will not nor Mr. Clerk whom I join with you as one that pleadeth the same bad Cause have any reason to complain of uncivil Treatment for if you find any