and then by an asterisk, we are directed to the margin, where, for the fake of the poor, illiterate Supralapfarians, a definition is given of a metonymy, which is this; "a metonomy is a changing, or putting one thing, or more, for an"other: "" and, fays he, in the body of his work, fometimes you have the "caufe for the effect, and fometimes the effect put for the caufe;" and among the instances, he produces this is one, that unbelief is put for faith. Now, not to take notice that a metonymy is a trope, and not a figure, nor of his mifcalling it metonomy, instead of metonymy, which might have been thought to have been an error of the press, but that it is fo often repeated; I fay, not to take notice of these things; he fays, "a metonomy is a changing, or putting one "thing, or more, for another;" but furely it is not a changing, or putting any one thing for another; it looks as if he thought fo, feeing, among his examples, he makes unbelief to be put for faith. There is a metonymy of the cause and effect, fubject and adjunct, but never of contraries; as grace and fin, vice and virtue, faith and unbelief are: this looks more like the figure antiphrafis, than the trope metonymy. Our author, by his new figure in rhetoric, will be able, in a very beautiful manner, to bring off the vileft of creatures, that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for fweet, and sweet for bitter. Let me afk this author, fince he has put this instance among his examples of a metonymy of the cause for the effect, and of the effect for the cause; let me, I say, ask him, whether he thinks unbelief is the cause of faith, or faith the cause of unbelief; and feeing he has got fuch a good hand at metonymies, we will try what ufe he can make of them in explaining the fcriptures in this controversy.

(6.) The fcriptures made use of to prove the imputation of fin to Chrift, or that Chrift was made fin by imputation, are, 2 Cor. v. 21. Ifai. liii. 6. Now our author" hopes to make it plain, that these scriptures are as truly figurative texts as thofe are that represent Chrift to be a lion, a ftar, a door, a rock, a vine," &c. and obferves, that "all the fcriptures depended on as plain "proofs, that Chrift was made very fin for us, are metonomies." But he should have obferved, that the fcriptures which speak of Chrift as a lion, a star, a door, a rock, a vine, &c. are metaphors, and not metonymies; and could he produce any, where Chrift is faid to be made a lion, a star, a door, a rock, a vine, &c. there would appear a greater likeness between them, and fuch a text which fays, he was made fin for us: he fancies the doctrine of transubstantiation is as well supported by fcripture as this doctrine; that the constructions we put upon the texts in difpute about it, are as grofs as thofe the Papists put on fuch as they produce in favour of theirs; which is not very furprising, fince he feems to have

M 2

an

• Ifai. v. 20.

Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 35.

• Ibid. p. 37.

an opinion of popish doctrines, and to be verging that way; for in one! part of this performance of his, he frankly acknowledges, that he has no high opinion of popish doctrines, which fuppofes that he has an opinion of them, and begins, at least, to think a little favourably of them, though not very highly. But let us attend to the texts in difpute; the first is, 2 Cor. v. 21. For he hath made him to be fin for us, who knew nɔ fin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him; which, he fays, has been notoriously wrefted, and obferves, that "this text, in both parts of it, is metonomically fpoken, and is the cause put "for the effect; and the native language of it is, that God made his dear Son "a fin-offering for us, that we might partake of the promised bleffings, or the "righteoufnefs of God in him." Admitting the words are to be taken in a metonymical fenfe, yea, that the meaning is, that Chrift was made an offering for fin; they are not a metonymy of the caufe for the effect; for fin is not the caufe, though the occafion of a fin-offering; there might have been fin and no offering for it offering for fin is not an effect neceffarily arifing from it, but what purely depended on the will and pleasure of God; but taking the words in the sense of a fin-offering, it is, as Pifcator' obferves, Per metonymiam fubje&ti occupantis in veteri Teftamento ufitatam. Besides, this fenfe of the words is fo far from deftroying the doctrine of the imputation of fin to Chrift, that it ferves to confirm it for as the typical fin-offerings under the law, had firft the fins of the people put upon them by the priest, and typically imputed to them, and were bore by them, Lev. x. 17. before they could be offered for them; so our Lord Jefus was first made fin, or had the fins of his people imputed to him, or he could never have been made an offering for them. I deny, that falva juftitia Dei, confiftent with the juftice of God, Chrift, an innocent perfon, could ever bear even the punishment of our fins, or be made a facrifice for them, or die for them, as he did, according to the fcriptures, if they had not been imputed to him; punishment could never have been inflicted on him, if sin had not been reckoned to him. Though I fee no reason why fin, in one and the fame fentence here, fhould have two different meanings, as it must have, according to this fenfe of them, he hath made him to be fin for us, who knew no fin: the word fin, last mentioned, cannot be meant of an offering for fin; for it is not true, that Chrift knew no fin-offering, when multitudes had been offered up under the law; but the meaning is, that he never was guilty of fin; and yet he who never was guilty of fin, was made fo by imputation, that is, had the guilt of our fins imputed to him; which well agrees with, and may be confirmed by the latter part of the text, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Now in the fame way that we are made the righteousness of God,

was

Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 125.

* Ibid. p. 37, 38.

1 In loc.

m

was Chrift made fin: we are made the righteousness of God by imputation, that is, the righteousness of Chrift, who is both God and man, is imputed to us ; fo Chrift was made fin by imputation, that is, our fins were imputed to him. What this author fays concerning our being made, the effects of God's righte ousness or faithfulness, I own, I cannot, for my life, for any idea of; and though he has attempted to explain it, he has left it inexplicable; I choose not to use his own phrafe, inexplicable nonfenfe. Before I difmifs this text, I would take notice of one very extraordinary obfervation of this author's "; which is, that this way of reasoning to prove Chrift a finner, will prove that all men, that have the righteoufnefs of Chrift imputed to them, are their own faviours; his argument is this: "If by the imputation of our condemning fins to Chrift " he was made a finner, then, by the imputation of his faving righteoufnefs, "we are made faviours." But, with his leave, this does not follow; but the truth and force of the reasoning stands thus: If by the imputation of our condemning fins to Chrift, he was made a finner, and condemned as fuch, then, by the imputation of his righteousness, we are made righteous, and faved as fuch; for not finner and faviour, but finner and righteous, falvation and condemnation, are the antithefes. Give me leave to fubjoin the fenfe of two or three of our principal reformers, and found Proteftant divines, of this paffageof fcripture, who wrote long before Dr Crifp's time. Calvin upon the text fays; "How are we righteous before God? namely, as Christ was à finner; for, in "some respects, he fuftained our perfon, that he might become guilty in our name; and, as a finner, be condemned, not for his own, but the offences "of others; seeing he was pure, and free from all fault, and underwent punish"ment due, not to himself, but to us:" which agrees with what he fays on Gal. iii. 13. Because he sustained our perfon, therefore he was a finner, and deferving of the curfe; not as in himself, but as in us." Beza on the place, has these words; that "the antithefis requires, that rather Chrift should be "said to be made fin for us, that is, a finner, not in himself, but on the ac"count of the guilt of all our fins, imputed to him; of which the two goats "were a figure, mentioned Lev. xvi." Pifcator, as well as Beza, having mentioned the other fenfe of Christ's being made a fin-offering, adds, "rather sin ❝here, by a metonymy of the adjunct, fignifies fummum peccatorem,” “the "chief finner; "inafmuch as all the fins of all the elect were imputed to Chrift; "which expofition the following antithefis favours, that we might be made the " righteousness of God in him; that is, righteous before God; namely, by a righteousness obtained by the facrifice of Chrift, imputed to us by God." So that though the words may be taken in a metonymical fenfe; yet they are

66

not a metonymy of the cause for the effect, but a metonymy of the adjunct: so fcelus is put for fceleftus, by Latin authors, as here fin for the finner.

I now proceed to what our author has to fay to Ifai. liii. 6. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. This text, he fays, Dr Crifp makes the foundation of his feveral fermons, to prove that our bleffed Lord was made a finner; and fays, that he very injudiciously affirms, that it is the very fault, or tranfgreffion itself, that the Lord laid upon Chrift; but he purposes to make it plain, that he is mistaken in his opinion about this text, and that it was not the crime or fault, but the punishment due to us for our fins, that was laid upon Christ, which, he thinks, is evident from ver. 5, 7. To which I reply; that the punishment due to us for fin, could not have been laid upon Chrift, nor could he have been wounded for our tranfgreffions, or bruised for our fins, or have been oppreffed and affited, had he not had our fins laid upon him, that is, imputed to him nor is it ingonfiftent with the holiness of God, to take either original fin, or our actual fins and tranfgreffions, even particular fins, and lay them upon Chrift; fince this was done in order to fhew his infinite holiness, his indignation against fin, and the ftrictness and severity of his juftice in the punishment of it; nor is this inconfiftent with the nature of fin, nor any rude and extravagant way of thinking of it, which furely may as truly and properly be put, or laid upon Chrift, as the iniquities and tranfgreffions of the children of Ifrael in all their fins, which mean their very crimes, were typically put and laid upon the fcape-goat. This writer goes on to obferve, that the prophecy in Isaiah iii. 4. Surely be bath borne our griefs, and carried our forrows, was fulfilled by our Lord's healing the difeafes of the people, Matt. viii. 16, 17. and argues, that if the text in Ifai. liii. 4. is to be conftrued in the fame method as the fixth and eleventh verses are, the confequence will be, that our Lord bore the palfy of the Centurion's fervant, and the fever of Peter's wife's mother: this, he thinks, will greatly hamper our scheme, fo that we shall not be able to produce any thing confiftent with it, free from inexplicable perplexities and vile nonsense. But what reafon can be given, why the expreffions in the feveral places, fhould be interpreted in the fame way? What though our Lord, in his ftate of incarnation, being a man of forrows and acquainted with griefs, is faid to bear the griefs, and carry the forrows of men, because he had compaffion on them, and fympathized with them in their fickness, which put him upon healing of them; and in fuch sense, bore them as a parent bears the fickneffes of a child, or a husband bears the infirmities of a wife; for we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities: does it therefore follow, that this must be the fenfe of Chrift's bearing our fins, when he suffered for them as our

P

furety ?

Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 44.

P Ibid. p. 46.

furety? Can it be thought that he fympathized with our fins, or with us on the account of them, which put him upon fuffering for them, as he is faid to bear or fympathize with mens fickneffes and difeafes, or with them upon the account of them, which put him upon healing of them?

(7.) The imputation of the filth of fin to Chrift, and his bearing of it, would come next to be confidered; but our author has not thought fit to make use of any arguments against it, and therefore I do not think myself obliged to enlarge upon it; only would obferve, that filth and guilt are infeparable from fin; and therefore, if fin is laid upon Chrift, and imputed to him, guilt and filth must be likewife: nor can I fee how we can expect to be cleared of the one and cleanfed from the other, unless Chrift bore them both, when his foul was made an offering for fin, and his blood was shed to cleanse from it. This writer would, indeed, be nibbling at it, but knows not how to go about it; and only cavils at fome expreffions of Mr Huffey's concerning it. Whether, in Pfalm c. 7. there is any allufion to the brook Cedron, or Kidron, over which our Lord went into the garden, I will not fay; but I fee not why that black and unclean brook, or common-fewer, may not be an emblem of the pollutions and defilements of fin; which being laid on Chrift when he paffed over that brook, made him fo heavy and fore amazed in his human nature, as to defire the cup might pafs from him. As to what Mr Huffey fays of our iniquities being put into this bitter cup, and of his drinking of it, and of the torrent of our fins and blackneffes running into his foul with that wrath; this is not to be understood of fin being inherent in him, or of his being defiled with it, the contrary to which he folidly proves; but only of the imputation of them to him, and of his fufception of them; for he fays, "It was not pain or torture abftractly in the bitter draught, but pollu❝tion, the dregs of our fins, fin being the only impure thing in God's account, "and fo the spot of fin, the filth and pollutions of fin, were imputed to him by "his Father, and put upon Christ's account, and mingled with his wormwood cup, that it made his holy foul to tremble." Nor is the fimile he makes use of a foolish one, of a drop of ink, or poison, falling upon a fiery globe of brass, without leaving any fullying mark upon it, or receiving any ftain or pollution by it; nor does it tend to extenuate the flood of the filthiness of fin, that has been running ever fince Adam; nor is it unfuitable to the imputation and fufception of it; which is all he means by his drinking of it; but is defigned to fet forth the infiniteness of Chrift, and of his power to refift the infection and stain of fin; as may be feen at large in this valuable writer; who himself frankly owns', "that the fimilitude is imperfect, to fet out the matter in the "deep myfteries of this gold tried in the fire, or the person of Chrift in his sufferings;

་་