point, when pardon of fin fuppofes fin, and fin fuppofes the fall; and whether it is to be conceived of as in the divine mind, from eternity, or as paffing into fucceffive acts in time, as men fin, or as manifefted to their confciences, the objects of it cannot be confidered otherwife than as finners, fallen creatures; and therefore is a Sublapfarian, and not a Supralapfarian doctrine. Is this man qualified to examine the Supralapfarian scheme? He proceeds to try this practice of refusing to pray for the pardon of fin, any other wife than the manifestation of it to the confcience, by the example of the holy men of God, and by the advice and direction of our bleffed Lord and Saviour. He might have spared the pains he has taken in collecting the inftances of praying for the pardon of fin, since the question is not, whether the faints, in any sense, should pray for it; for we allow, that they have done it, that they are directed to it, and should do it; but the question is, in what fenfe they have done it, and fhould do it? Now we apprehend, that when believers pray for the pardon of fin, that their fenfe and meaning is not, nor fhould it be, as if the blood of Chrift fhould be fhed again for the remiffion of fin, or as if compleat pardon was not procured by it, or as though this was to be obtained by their praying, tears, humiliation, and repentance, or that any new act of pardon should arife in the mind of God, and be afresh paffed; but when they pray in this manner, their meaning is, either that God would, in a providential way, deliver them out of present diftrefs, or avert thofe troubles and forrows they might juftly fear; or, that they might have the sense and manifeftation of pardon to their fouls, fresh fprinklings of the blood of Jefus, and renewed applications of it to their confciences; and this, we believe, is both their duty and interest to do daily, fince they are daily finning against God, grieving his Spirit, and wounding their own confciences'. The inftance of the apoftle's advising Simon Magus to pray, is not to pray particularly for the pardon of fin, or that the evil thought of his heart might be forgiven him, as this author fuggefts; but to repent and pray in general; and this is added by way of encouragement, If perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. However, I will not contend with him about it, fince nothing in this controversy depends upon it. He goes 1 on to obferve, that, 3. The third branch of their eternal justification is, that God loved and de"lighted in the elect as much while in their finful state, and in the height of their "rebellion against his laws, as when they are converted, and made obedient to "his ways." That God loves his elect, and delights in them, as confidered in Chrift, and fo as juftified in him before the foundation of the world, I firmly believe; and which is far from being a licentious way of talking, or from being any contradiction to the holiness of God: but that his love to them, and delight * Page 27. See my Difcourfe on Prayer, p, 27, 28. Page 28, delight in them as fuch, should be a branch of their eternal juftification, is what I confess I never was acquainted with before; and what is more news ftill, is, that this fpurious tenet, as this author in his great wisdom and modesty calls it, is built upon eternal union with Chrift, which he reprefents as a falfe and fandy foundation; whereas the perfons he opposes, confider the everlasting love of God to his elect as the foundation, yea, the bond of their eternal union. Of this one would think he could not be ignorant; but really every page, and almoft every line, difcover fuch ftupidity and ignorance, that it is not at all to be marvelled at. He goes on, in his former way, to confider this tenet of God's loving and delighting in his elect, while in their unconverted eftate with the reft, as a Supralapfarian point; and which he calls a common maxim of the Supralapfarians. I intreat this author, that he would never more attempt to write about Supralapfarian principles, or to try and examine the Supralapfarian scheme, until fome of his friends, patrons, or editors, have better informed him concerning them. What, is this a Supralapfarian tenet, that God loves and delights in his elect while in their finful state, and in the height of their rebellion? Surely these perfons must be confidered as finners, as fallen creatures; and therefore as this author has ftated the point, it must be a Sublapfarian, and not a Supralapfarian one. Had he indeed reprefented it as our fenfe, that God loved and delighted in his elect, as in Chrift from all eternity, above the fall, and without any confideration of it, he had done us more justice; and this would have bid fair to have been deemed a Supralapfarian point: but this would not have answered his wicked defign; I can call it no other, which is, to fuggeft to weak minds "that God loves and delights in the fins and rebel"lions of his elect, or loves and delights in them confidered as finners, and "rebellious perfons;" things we abhor, as much as he: for what else can reflect dishonour on the Chriftian religion, or ftrike at the doctrine of God's holinefs, or stand diametrically oppofite to all practical godliness, or oppose those fcriptures which speak of God as hating fin, and abhorring the workers of iniquity? Not the doctrine of God's loving and delighting in his elect, as confidered in Chrift, in whom they cannot be confidered otherwife than as holy and righteous. We know that men in an unconverted state cannot please God, that is, do those things which are well-pleafing to him; and yet their persons may be acceptable in his fight, not as confidered in themselves; for fo they cannot be, even after converfion, notwithstanding all their humiliations, repentance, tears, prayers, and fervices; but as confidered in Chrift, in whom, and in whom alone, they are the objects of God's love and delight. But it feems we are to hear of this again; and therefore at prefent I fhall take my leave of it, till we know what he has farther to object. m 4. He proceeds to prove, "that these authors (the Supralapfarians) in "order to fupport their doctrine of eternal juftification, have very unjustly "affirmed that our bleffed Saviour was by imputation a finner; yea, that he "became very fin." I fhall content myself in making fome general obfervations upon his long harangue on this head, which will ferve to difcover his weakness and ignorance. (1.) I obferve, that as his title-page promises an examination of fome doctrines in the Supralapfarian fcheme, and his affurance leads him on; fo, according to his ufual way, he affirms that the doctrine of Chrift's being made fin, or a finner by imputation, or of the imputation of fin to Chrift, is a doctrine in the Supralapfarian fcheme, or a Supralapfarian notion: whereas imputation of fin fuppofes fin, and that fuppofes the fall; wherefore the perfons whofe fins were imputed to Chrift, and in whofe room and ftead he bore them, must be confidered as finners and fallen creatures. And hence it appears to be a Sublapfarian, and not a Supralapfarian doctrine. (2.) I take notice of the unfair and difingenuous dealing of this writer. He first propofes to prove, that it is unjustly affirmed that Chrift was by imputation a finner, and immediately alters the ftate of the question, and represents it as the notion of the Supralapfarians, that Chrift was really the finner, and made truly and properly fin, and made fin, or a finner, in a proper fenfe"; whereas though, with Dr Crifp, we affirm, that there was a real transaction, a real imputation of fin to Chrift, and that he really bore the fins of his people in the Proteftant fenfe, as oppofed to that of the Papifts, who fneeringly call every thing imputed, putative, fantaftic and imaginary, with whom our author feems to join but then we fay that Chrift is only the finner by imputation, or was only made fin this way; not that fin was inherently in him, or that it was committed by him; in which fenfe only he can be truly, properly, and really the And this is what Dr Crifp himself fays, and that in the very paffage this man takes upon him to confute: "Chrift, fays he, ftands a finner in God's eyes; though not as the actor of tranfgreffions, yet as he was the furety." This obfervation alone is fufficient to fet afide all the trifling and impertinent reafonings of this writer on this head. We are not afraid, nor afhamed to fay, that Chrift was made original and actual fin in this fenfe; that is to fay, that original fin, and the actual fins of God's people, were imputed to Chrift, and he bore them and made fatisfaction to juftice for them: Nor can we obferve any abfurdity in defcending to particulars, and saying that the fwearing, the lying, blafphemy, &c. of God's elect, were laid upon him, imputed to him, and he took them upon him, and bore them away. Nor does this reflect upon the holiness of God, as this finner. 66 this man fuggefts, in making his Son by imputation the worst thing that ever was in the world; fince there never was any one thing in the world which fo much discovers the holiness of God, and ftrictnefs of his juftice, than his giving his Son to be the propitiation for our fins; which could not be done without the imputation of them to him: Nor does this act of imputation make God the author of fin, any more than the imputation of the righteousness of Chrift makes the Father the author of that righteoufnefs; nor does this reflect difhonour, either on the divine or human nature of Chrift, fince neither of them can be defiled with fin; but, on the other hand, ferves much to express the wonderous love, grace, and condescension of Chrift, that he who knew no fin, fhould be made fin for us. 68 (3.) I obferve the rudeness of the man, in representing the doctrine of the imputation of fin to Chrift, or his being made fin by imputation, "as vile and ridiculous, and equally as pernicious as Tranfubftantiation; a fcheme not "to be freed from inexplicable perplexities, and vile nonfenfe; calling it "ridiculous doctrine, spurious stuff, yea, blafphemy;" when it is the doctrine of our reformers, of all found Proteftant divines, never denied by any but Socinians and Arminians, or fuch as are inclined to them: Wherefore had he thought fit to have rejected it, yet for the fake of fo many valuable men who have espoused it, he ought to have treated it with decency. Nor can I pass by his rude treatment of Dr Crifp and Mr Huffey; the one he represents as guilty of blafphemy, or fomething like it, and an addle-headed man, that knew not what he wrote; and the other, as a ridiculous writer; when they were both, in their day and generation, men of great piety and learning, of long standing and much usefulness in the church of Chrift; whofe name and memory will be dear and precious to the faints, when this writer, and his pamphlet, will be remembered no more. (4.) I observe, this author treats the doctrine of Chrift's being a finner by imputation, as a novel doctrine", and embraced by men of a vehement thirst after novelty. I have already hinted, that this was the doctrine of the first reformers, and all found Proteftant divines, that our fins were imputed to Christ, and Christ's righteousness imputed to us. This was the faith of the ancient church, in the first ages of chriftianity, as appears from a paffage of Justin Martyr", one of the moft early chriftian writers extant: "What elfe, fays he, speaking of Chrift, could cover our fins, but his righteousnefs? In "whom could we, tranfgreffors and ungodly, be justified, than in the only VOL. II. • Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 39, 40 M P Ibid. p. 37, 39, 55. W P. 37, 49. w Epift. ad Diognet. p. 5co. 9 Page 46. ⚫ lbid. P. 52 Son "Son of God? SO THE Y'Auxelas auTamans, "O sweet change!" O unfearchable performance! O unexpected benefits! Ira avoua pey Tomar Ev Sinew eve ngubn; "that the tranfgreffion of many should be hid in one righteous perfon; and "the righteoufnefs of one justify many tranfgreffors." Yea, fome of the ancient writers have expreffed themselves in terms full as exceptionable as what Dr Crifp has made ufe of: fo Chryfoftom; “Tor gas dirauer Einter QuastWhov ;. "for he hath made that righteous one a finner, that he might make finners. righteous" indeed he does not only fay fo, Am' wordw feslov av, "but what "was much more;" for he does not exprefs the habit, but the quality; he "does not fay, he made him a finner, but fin itself; that we might be made, "he does not fay righteous, but righteoufnefs, even the righteoufnefs of God." So Oecumenius; "Chrift, fays he, Hyσpode aμaglan☺, "was the great finner," feeing he took upon him the fins of the whole world, and made them his own." So Austin; "He, that is, Chrift, is fin, as we are righteousness; not our "own, but God's; not in ourselves, but in him; ficut ipfe peccatum, non fuum fed noftrum, even as he himself is fin; not his own, but ours; not in himself, "but in us." Some of them have been very exprefs, as to Chrift's bearing the filth of fin; particularly Gregory of Nya; "For, fays he, speaking of σε Chrift, Μετα εις γαρ προς εαυτον τον των εμών αμαρτον ρυπον, having tranfated to "himself the filth of my fins, he imparted to me his own purity, and made me "a partaker of his beauty." And in another place, fays he, "the pure and « harmlefs one, Τον της ανθρωπίνης φύσεως καταδέχεται ρύπον, took upon him, or "received the filth of human nature; and paffing through all our poverty, "came to the trial of death itself." And elsewhere he fays, "purity was, " BY TWO NμETEр@ BUT, in our filth; but the filth did not touch that purity;" meaning, that the holy nature of Chrift was not defiled by it. I fhall not now take notice of fome later writers; perhaps I may hereafter: I hope this will be. fufficient to clear the doctrine from the charge of novelty. (5.) I cannot overlook the wretched vanity and ignorance of the man about tropes and figures. Though I cannot but think his learned friend, or friends, who had the fupervifal of his performance, have been far from acting the kind, faithful, and friendly part, in fuffering him to expofe himself as he has done; he tells us, that "it is very evident, that all the scriptures that they (Dr Crisp, "and others) depend upon as plain proofs that Chrift was made very fin for us, "are metonomies, which is a figure frequently to be met with in the Bible; |