The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined

order as revealed in the Gospel, is, that we believe and be justified, &c. Faith whereby we believe is bestowed on us absolutely, always without condition, sometimes without outward means; This faith by the constitution of God is attended with the privileges contended about; which are no less purchased for us by Christ, then faith it self. Yea the purchase of our justification or Acceptation with God, is, in order of Nature, antecedent in Consideration to the Purchase of faith for us: if M. Baxter hath a mind to oppose anything of this (which is all that as yet to this business I have declared,) Let him do it when he pleaseth, & if it be tantidem (as he speaketh) I shall give him a further account of my thoughts about it; But he would know what I mean by Christ's undertaking for the Elect; let him consider what I have delivered about the Covenant between the Father and Son in this business, and he will know at least what I intend thereby. He will see how Christ being then only God, did undertake the business to do it, not as God only: and withal the widenes of that exception, that the prophesy of Isaiah was written a long time after, and could not give any such right as is pretended. A right is given there in respect of manifestation, not constitution. Isaiah in that prophesy speaks of things to come, as past, v. 5. 6. and of things past, and present, as to come; it reveals, not constitutes a Covenant. But he saith, we use to distinguish between the undertaking and accomplishment: Divines use to say, that upon man's fall Christ undertook satisfaction, but it was in the fullness of time that he accomplished it; how therefore he accomplished it in the undertaking, I do not well see. 2. But that he did perfectly accomplish what he undertook I easily grant. But! how you learned Divines distinguish I know not: This I know, that such poor men as myself, do believe, that as to the efficacy of satisfaction and merit, Christ's undertaking was attended with no less then his actual accomplishment of what he undertook; or we know not how to grant Salvation to the Saints under the Old-Testament: It was concerning their Efficacy as to merit, not their distinction between themselves that I spake.

These things being premised, M. B. proceeds to answer my Arguments, which were produced to prove, that upon the death of Christ, there was a right obtained for the Elect to all the benefits of his death; this right residing in the justice of God, or in the equalling of these things by divine constitution, (as I fully declared in the place by M. B. opposed) upon the interposing of some expressions in the process of my discourse, of the grant being made to the elect, and mentioning of their right, which in what sense they were to be taken, I expressly delared, M. B. takes advantage to answer them all with this intendment put upon them, that they aimed to prove a subjective personal right, which at any time they may plead; when the utmost that my words can be extended unto, is, that they have it ex faedere, not realiter; for the subject of it, I place elsewhere. Now if M. B. will send me word, that he supposes he hath answered my Arguments, as they were proposed to my own purpose, I will promise (if I live) to return him an answer. In the mean time I shall have no itch to be scribbling to no purpose; ego me, tua causa, ne errs, non rupturus sum. yet of the whole he may for the present be pleased to receive the ensuing account, both as to the nature of a Jus, and its application.

For the description of jus, M. B. rely's on Grotius, and something also he mentions out of Sayrus, Grotius in the first chapter of his book de jure belli & pacis, in the sections transcribed (in part) by M. B. and some others, expresses (in his way) the distinction given at the beginning both of the Institutions & Digests about jus, and those also which they handle under the head, de statu. So do all men commonly that write of that subject; How exactly this is done by Grotius, those who are learned in the Law will judge; for my part, I am so far at liberty, as not to be concluded by this bare Affirmation either as to law or Gospel: Yet neither doth he exclude the Right by me intended: He tells us indeed that facultas which the lawyers call sui, is that which properly and strictly he intends to call jus. But the other member of the distinction he terms aptitudo, which though in a natural sense it respects the subject immediately, yet he tells you, that in the sense of Michael Ephesius, which he contradicts not, it is but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , id quod convenit, which respects only the order of things among thenselves. And though out of Aristotle he calls it also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet that word (as he also afterwards expounds it out of Cicero ) is of much a lower signification then many imagine. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is that which I assert; and Sayrus his definition of jus ad rem, may also be allowed.

But for others; jus, artificially is, ars boni & aequi. Ponz: de lamiis num: 14 Tom: 11. jus Gregor: p: 2. and D. D. cap. 1. Celsus. though some dispute against this definition, as Conanus, Comment: Jur: Civil: lib: 1. cap: 1. That which is aequum is the subject of it. so the Comaedian, quid cum illis agat, qui neque jus, neque bonum, neque aequum sciunt. Terent: Heauton: all terms aequipollent. And in this sense one that is not borne may have a jus, if it be in a thing that is profitable to him; quod dicimus eum qui nasci speratur pro superstite esse, tunc verum est, cum de ipsius jure quaeritur, aliàs non prodest, nisi natus sit. Paulus de verbor: significat: which one interpretation will overbeare with me an hundred moderne exceptioners, if they should deny that a man may be said to have a right unless he himself be the immediate subject of the right, as if it were a natural accident inherent in him; so is it in the case proposed by Cicero, in secundo de inventione. Pater-familias cum liberorum nihil haberet, uxorem autem haberet, in Testamento ita scripsit. Si mihi filius genitus fuerit unus, pluresve, hic mihi haeres esto. The father dies before the son is borne: a right accrues to him that is not borne. Such a Right I say there is, although this Right is not immediately actionable: Gaius tells us, that actio est prosecutio juris sui. This jus suum, is that which Grotius cais facultas, and is jus proprie & strict dictum. And this jus suum I did not intend, in that I said it was not actionable; And therefore whereas Conanus says, that nullum est jus, cui non sit aut à natura, aut à lege data quaedam obligatio, tanquam comes & adjutrix: Comment: juris Civil: lib: 2. cap: 1. which obligation is the foundation of Action; It is evident, that he intends jus proprie & strict dictum; for Gaius distinguisheth between jus utendi, fruendi, and jus obligationis, D. li: 1. 1. 8. which he could not do, i • all and every right had an Obligation attending it, And such is that Right whereof we speak; If any one thinks to plead it, he will be like him, whom the Lawyers call, agentem sine action, of whom they dispute, an liceat eiexperiri, and whether his plea be to be admitted; concerning which the variety of cases and opinions are repeated by Menochites de Arbit: Judic: lib: 1. Qu: 16. 2.

And such a jus as this, ariseth ex contractis innominatis; for as jus ex innominato contractu oritur, quum ex parte debentis, implere id quod convenerat, impletum est, Ludovic: Roman: Consul: 86. pag: 23. so ex contractu innominato, non transeunt actiones sine mandato, as Bartholus tells us; For though the Covenant between Father and Son, whence this Right ariseth, be not in it self of the nature of a contractus innominatus, do ut des, yet to them it is of that import. Hence the Socinians, who are skilled in the Law, though they wholly suspend the actual obtaining of Remission of sins upon the fulfilling of the conditions required, do yet grant, that a plenary jus or right of obtaining forgiveness of sins was given to all in the death of Christ; jam vero quidnam mediator foederis, ab una paciscentium parte legatus, & ipsius sponsor constitutus, ac quoddam veluti testamentum ejus nomine constituens, qua talis est, aliud praestat, quam ut jus alteri parti, & jus quidem plenum largiatur, ad foederis hujus, aut testamenti promissa consequenda; obstringit nimirùm atque obligat promissorem qui ipsum obligaverat ad servanda foederum promissa, eáque rata prorsus habenda. Crellius de causis mortis Christi, pag: 9. So in the common speech of the Ancients Budaeus tells us, that bonum jus dicere, is as much as that which is now vulgarly expressed, requesta tua rationabilus est: If there be an equity in the thing, there is a jus belonging to the person. Any thing that made it equitable that a man should be regarded, they called his j •• : whence is his complaint in Plautus, finding himself every way unworthy: sine modo & modestiâ sum, sine bono jure, atque honor: Bachid: and Paulus, in lib. 3. ff. de servitut: urb: praed: Ne jus sit vicino invitis nobis altiùs aedificare. It were very facile both from Lawyers and most approved Authors to multiply instances of this large Acceptation of the word jus, or right. And whither the grant of the father, and purchase of the mediator before mentioned, be not sufficient to constitute or denominate such a jus or right in them, for whom, and whose profit and benefit the grant is made, I question not. Again consider that of Paulus. lib. 11. ad, Edict: D D. de verb. signif: Tit: 16. Princeps bona concedendo, videtur etiam obligationem concedere; which adds a propriety to the jus as was shown before. Yet that it should be presently actionable doth not follow: Actio est jus persequendi in judicio, quod sibi debetur; Institu: lib: 4. de action. Every jus ad rem, is not jus persequendi in judicio: whence is the gloss of Aldobrondinus on that place: nec facias magnam vim ibi: Quia cum multas habeat significationes haec dictio jus, ut ff. de inst: & jus l: p. &, si, hoc est unum de significatis ejus, ut dicatur jus agendi vel persequendi: besides it must be, quod sibi debetur, that is actionable; the obligation whence that debitum arises, being as the Lawyers speak, mater actionis; But yet even, debere, it self, is of so large and various signification in the Law, both in respect to things, and persons, as will not admit of any determinate sense unless otherwise restrained, ff: de verbor: signif. b. pecuniae §. 8. si. Yea and on the other side, sometimes a plea may lie, where there is no debitum; Quaendoque ago etiam ad id quo • mihi non debetur; R. de pact: l. si quo poenam; nam ibi non ago ad id quod est debitum, sed ad id quod ex nudo pacto convenit: that M. B. may know what to do with his schemes of Actions, produced on the account of my assertions.

This for the word, and my use of it; I hope in the things of God, about words, I shall not much contend. I had rather indeed insist on the propriety of words, in the originals, their use in the Law, and amongst men, so all be regulated by the Analogy of faith, then to square the things of God to the terms and Rules of Art and Philosophy, to which without doubt they will not Answer. Let any man living express any Doctrine of the Gospel whatever, in the exactest manner, with Artificial Philosophical terms, and I will undertake to show, that in many things the truth is wrested and fettered thereby, and will not bear an exact correspondence with them; yet hence are many of our Learned strifes, which as they have little of learning in them, so for my part I value them not at a nut shell! properly so called.

This being premised, his Answers to my Arguments may very briefly be considered.

My first Argument is. It is justum, that they should have the fruits of the death of Christ bestowed on them: therefore they have jus unto them: for, jus est quod justum est.

M. B. denies the consequence, and says though it be justum, yet they may not be subjects of this jus; to this I have answered, by showing what is jus in General, & what is their jus, & where fixed.

2. He Questions the Antecedent; for the confirmation whereof, and its vindication from his exceptions, I refer the Reader to what I had written of the Covonant, between the father and the son, some good while before I saw M. Bax. Animadversions, or that they were public.

My 2d. is, that which is procured for any one thereunto he hath a Right; The thing that is obtained, is granted by him, of whom it is obtained, and that to them, for whom it is obtained. To this is answered.

1. In the margent; that I should make great changes in England, If I could make all the Lawyers believe this strange doctrine: but of what the Lawyers believe, or do not believe, M. B. is no competent judge, be it spoken without disparagement, for the Law is not his study. I, who (perhaps) have much less skill then himself, will be bound at any time to give him twenty cases, out of the Civil and Canon Law, to make good this Assertion; which if he knows not, that it may be done, he ought not to speak with such confidence of these things. Nay amongst our own lawyers (whom perhaps he intends) I am sure he may be informed, that if a man intercede with another to settle his land by Conveyance to a third person, giving him that conveyance to keep in trust, until the time come, that he should by the intention of the conveyer enjoy the Land, though he for whom it is granted, have not the least knowledge of it, yet he hath such a right unto the land thereby created, as cannot be disannul'd.

But 2. he says! that the fruits of the death of Christ, are procured for us, finaliter not subjective.

Ans. They are procured for us objective, are granted, ex ad aequatione rerum, and may make us subjects of the right, though not of the things themselves, which it regards; may I say, though I do not say it doth. The following similitudes of my horse, and a King, have no correspondency with this business at all; of the Right of horses, there is nothing in the Law: in the latter, there is nothing omitted in the comparison, but merit, and purchase, which is all.

3. All the fruits of the death of Christ are obtained and procured by his merit for them for whom he died.

M. B. 1. not all, not the same measure of sanctification for one as for another: not faith for all, for whom he died, as for his Elect.

2. He procured it for us as the finis cui, not subjects of the present Right.

Ans. The substance of the fruits of the death of Christ, and the ultimate end, belongs to his purchase: the measure and degrees of them to the fathers sovereign disposal, ad ornatum universi.

2. It is most false, that Christ did not purchase faith for all, for whom he died.

3. What our Right is, hath been before delivered; the finis cui, & subject of a present Right, are not very accurately opposed.

4. The nature of merit infers an attendant Right: Rom: 4. 4. M. B. If this be your debt, you may say, Lord I have merited salvation in Christ, therefore it is mine of debt; Christ hath of debt the right to pardon you, you have no debt, &c.

Ans. Very good! but I use no forms of prayer of other men's composing; who said, it was our debt? who says our right is actioble? The whole here intended, is, that Christ meriting pardon of sins for the Elect, it is just they should obtain it in the appointed season: such another prayer as that here mentioned, doth M. B. afterwards compose in a suitableness as he supposes to my principles; but what may he not do, or say?

4. He for whom a Ransom is paid, hath a right to his liberty by virtue of that payment.

M. B. All unproved, and by me unbelieved; if you pay a sum to the Turk for a thousand slaves, thereby buying them absolutely into your own power, I do not believe that they have anymore right to freedom, then they had before. If a Prince pay a ransom for some traitors to the King his father, thereby purchasing to himself a dominion or a propriety over them, so that they are absolutely his, yet I think it gives them no more right then they had before.

Ans. I suppose it is not yet determined, that this business is to be regulated absolutely according to what M. B. thinks or believes. For I must needs say, that whether he believes it or no, I am still of the same mind that I was.

He for whom a Ransom is paid, hath a Right to a deliverance; as to him, to whom the Ransom was paid: if M. B. believes not this, let him consult the Civil Lawyers, with whom he is so conversant: Tit: de pact:

2. I say, that the Law of Redemption requir's, that the Redeemed be at the disposal of the Redeemer, where he hath no plea jure postliminii; and it is most certain, that Christ hath a dominion over his Elect; (for a propriety over them I understand not) yet, that that dominion is the proximate end of the Death of Christ, under the notion of a Ransom, price, or purchase (which yet are of various considerations also,) is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of this discourse.

Having given this specimen of M. B's. answers to my instances, as an addition to the former Explication given of my judgment in this business, I shall not further trouble the Reader with the consideration of what of that same kind ensues.

To tell the whole truth, I expressed the effects of the death of Christ, in the manner above mentioned, to obviate that stating of his satisfactō & the use of it, which I had observed to be insisted on by the Remonstrants in their Apology, and in other writings of theirs, but especially by Episcopius. For some time, I met not with any great opposition made to the expressions of their imaginations in this business, but only what was briefly remarked by the Leyden professors in their specimina. Of late I find Voetius reckoning it among the principal controversies, that we have with the enemies of the cross of Christ: I shall set down his words about it, and leave them to the consideration of them who may think themselves concerned in them.

His words in his disputation de merito Christi, An. 1650. are: Secunda controversia capitalis, quae Christianismo cum quibus • am heterodoxis (Remonstrantibus scilicet in Belgio, viris, si non Socinianae, saltem dubiae Theology) intercedit, est de merito Christi pro nobis, hoc est, vice, & loco nostro, & sic in bonum nostrum actualiter praestito, seu de satisfaction plenâ ac proprie dicta à Christo sponsore, loco nostro justitiae divinae praestita: illi satisfactionem & meritum sic accipiunt, quasi nihil aliud sit, quam partis offensae talis placatio qua offenso hactenùs satisfit, ut in gratiam redire velit cum eo qui offendit, & per quam Christus Deo Patri jus & voluntatem aquisiverit novum foedus ineundi cum hominibus. so he.

The expression of our dying with Christ is fallen upon again, p. 226. of which he desires leave to speak as confidently as myself; truly I thought he had not been to ask leave for that now: But why may he not use it without leave as well as others? Some perperhaps will say, mira edepol sunt ni hic in ventrem, sumpsit confidentiam, to consider what he hath written already. But with this leave he falls a conjecturing at what I mean by that expression, to no purpose at all, as may be seen by what I have delivered concerning it. The like I may say to the passage by the way mentioned, of the right which ariseth from the decree of God: It seems to me, that what God hath decreed to do for any, that is, or may be a real privilege to him, it is jus, ex justitia condecentiae, that in the appointed season, he should receive it. If M. Baxter, be otherwise minded I cannot help it; habeo aliquid magis ex memet, & majus, then that I should attend to the disputes thereabout; nor will I stand in his way if I can choose, for he seems to cry— ad terram dabo, & dentilegos omnes mortals faciam quem{que} offendero.

After this I find not my self particularly smitten, until he comes to the close of the chapter to talk of idem and tantidem: Unless it be in his passage pag. 274. That which makes me suspect that I am there intended, is, his former imputation of some such thing unto me; namely that I should say, that the deputation of Christ in our stead, is an act of pardon; But I suppose that I have so fully satisfied him as to that surmise, by showing that not only my sense, but my exrressions were, not, that the deputation of Christ, was our pardon, but that the freedom of pardon did in part depend thereon, that I will not take myself in this place to be concerned; because I cannot do it and prevent the returnal of a charge of some negligence on this Person, whose writings seem sufficiently to free him from all just suspicion thereof. In the close of this discourse (with the method of a new line) M. Baxter falls upon the consideration of the payment made by Christ in our steed, or the penalty that he underwent for us; and pleads, that it was not the idem that was due to us, but tantundem. Although some say this difference is not tantidem, (as some speak it seems) yet he is resolved of the contrary, and that this one Assertion is the bottom of all Antionmianisme. Seeing I profess myself to be contrary minded, I suppose it will be expected that I should consider what is here to the purpose in hand insisted on by M. B. What I intend by paying the idem, or rather undergoing the idem that we should have done, I have so fully elsewhere expressed; that I shall not stay the Reader with the repetition of it. But says M. Baxter this subvertes the substance of Religion: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Now you shall have the proofs of it, the idem (saith he) is the perfect obedience, or the full punishment of the man himself, and in case of personal disobedience, it is personal punishment that the Law requires, that is, suplicium ipsius delinquentis.

A. But: The idem that we would pay, or undergo, is perfect obedience to the Law, and proportionable punishment by the God's Constitution, for disobedience; This Christ paid, and underwent; that the man himself should undergo it, is the Law originally; but the undergoing or doing of it, by another, is the undergoing of the idem, I think; it is personal punishment that the Law originally requires; but he that undergoes the punishment (though he be not personally disobedient, which the Law judgeth to him that was personally disobedient, undergoes the idem that the Law requires.

The idem is suppliciam delinquenti debitum, by whoever it be undergone, not supplicium ipsius delinquentis only.

He proceeds: the Law never threatened a surety, nor granteth any liberty of substitution: that was an act of God above the Law; therefore Christ did not undergo the idem. I deny the consequence. Nor is the least shadow of proof made of it: The question is not whether Christ be the sinner, but whether he underwent that which was due to the sinner.

He adds. If therefore the thing due was paid, it was we ourselves morally or legally, that suffered: I know not well what is meant by morrally; but however I deny the consequence; the thing it self was paid by another for us, and the punishment it self was undergone by another, in our stead.

That which follows, falls with that which went before, being built thereon. It could not be ourselves Legally (saith he) because it was not ourselves naturally. Though for the security of the Hypothesis opposed, there is no need of it, yet I deny his proposition, also, is taken universally. A man may be accounted to do a thing Legally by a sponsor, though he do it not in his own Person.

But he says, if it had been ourselves Legally, the strictest justice could not have denied us a present deliverance ipso facto, being no justice can demand anymore then the idem quod debitur. (as M. Baxter's Printer speaks) But 1: it is supposed, that all Legal performance of anything, by any one, must be done in his own Person.

2. It supposes, that there is such an end as deliverance assigned, or assignable, to the offenders own undergoing of the penalty, which is false.

3. The Reasons and Righteousness of our actual deliverance at the time, and in the manner prescribed by God, and (as to the last ) revealed in the Gospel, upon Christ's performance of personal obedience, and undergoing the penalty due to us in our stead; which are founded in the economy of the Trinity, voluntarily engaged into for the accomplishing the salvation of the Elect, I have elsewhere touched on, and may, if I find it necessary, hereafter handle at large.

That which is feared in this business is, that if the idem be paid, then according to the Law, the Obligation is dissolved, and present deliverance follows. But if by the Law, be meant the Civil Law, whence these terms are borrowed, it is most certain, that anything in stead of that which is in the Obligation doth according to the Rules of the Law dissolve the Obligation, and that whether it be paid by the principal debtor, or Delinquent, or any for him; The beginning of that Section, quibus modis tollitur obligatio, lib. 3. Instit: will evince this sufficiently. The Title of the Section is, Si solvitur ID quod debetur, vel ALIUD loco illius, consentiente creditore, omnis solvitur Obligatio, tum rei principalis, quam fide-jussoris. The words of the Law it self are more full. Tollitur autem omnis obligatio solutione EJUS quod debetur; vel siquis consentiente creditore ALIUD pro ALIO solverit; nec interest quis solverit, utrum IPSE qui debet, an ALIUS pro eo: liberatur enim & alio solvente, sive sciente, sive ignorant debitore, vel invito, eo solutio siat: Si fide-jussor solverit, non enim ipse solus liberatur, sed reus. So that there is no difference in the Law, whether solutio be ejusdem or tantidem; and this is the case in the things that are ex maleficio, aut quasi; as may be seen at large in the Commentatours on that place.

To caution all men against the poison of Antimonian Doctrines. now so strenuously opposed by Mr. Baxter, and to deliver students from the unhappy model of Theology, which the men of the preceding contests have entangled themselves, and others withal, M. B. seriously advises them to keep in their minds, and carefully to distinguish between the will of God's purpose, and his precepts or Law, his determining, and commanding will, in the first place; the ignorance whereof it seems, confounded the Theology of Doctor Twisse, Pemble, and others.

Nextly, that they would carefully distinguish between the covenant between the Father and the Son about the work of his mediation, & the covenant of Grace and mercy confirmed to the Elect in his blood.

Now if these two Distinctions, as carefully heeded, and as warily observed as we are able, will prove such an antidote against the infection, for my part (in all probability ) I shall be secure, having owned them ever since I learned my Catechism,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

And so am I dismissed. This may perhaps be the close of this controversy; if otherwise, I am indifferent; on the one side it will be so: I delight not in these troubled waters. If I must engage again in the like kind, I shall pray, that he, from whom are all my supplies, would give me a real humble frame of heart, that I may have no need with many pretences, and a multitude of good words, to make a cloak for a spirit breaking frequently through all with sad discoveryes of pride and passion; and to keep me from all magisterial insolence, Pharisaical supercilious self-conceitedness, contempt of others, and everything that is contrary to the Rule whereby I ought to walk.

If men be in hast to oppose what I have delivered about this business, let them (if they please, I have no Authority to prescribe them their way ) speak directly to the purpose, and oppose that which is affirmed, and answer my reasons in reference to that End only for which by me they are produced and insisted on:

Because I see some men have a desire to be dealing with me, and yet know not well what to fix upon, that I may deliver them from the vanity of contending with their own surmises, and if it be possible, to prevail with them to speak closely, clearly, and distinctly to the matter of their contests, & not mixe heterogeneous things in the same discourse, I will briefly shrive myself for their satisfaction.

First then I do not believe that any man is actually justified from eternity; because of that of the Apostle Rom. 8. 28, 29, 30: but yet what is the state of things, in reference to the economy of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, engaged in from Eternity for the salvation of sinners, with that fountain union, that is between Christ and his body in their predestination, I shall desire a little more time to delivery myself unto.

2 I do believe that there was a Covenant, compact, or Agreement between father and Son for the salvation of the Elect by his mediation, which, upon sins entering into the world, had an efficacy & effect of the very same nature with that, which it hath when he hath actually accomplished what was on his part required for the end proposed to him; & that therefore in the Old Testament his death is spoken of sometimes as past, Isa. 53. 4, 5, 6: & that to make this Covenant in it's Constitution to be contemporary to it's revelation, or the promises of it to be then made to Christ, when the Church is acquainted that those promises are made, is a wide mistake.

But under what consideration the Elect lie unto God, upon the transaction of this original Covenant with the Mediator. I desire liberty for a while as above.

3 I do not believe that the Elect, that live after the death of Christ, are all actually in their own Persons justified and absolved at his death; because the wrath of God abides on men that believe not, Joh. 3. 36. But yet what to the advantage of the Church is enwrapped in the discharge of their great representative, who died in their stead (for that I believe also, and not only for their good ) I desire respite for my thoughts as formerly.

4. I do believe that Christ underwent the very same punishment for us, for the nature and kind of it, which we were obnoxious unto, & should have undergone, had not he undertaken for us, and paid the idem that we should have done, 2 Cor. 5. 12. Gal. 3. 13.

5. I believe that upon the death of Christ, considering what hath been said before concerning the compact, and Agreement between God and the Mediator, about that matter; it became just and righteous, with reference to God's justice, as Supreme Governor and moderatour of the creatures, and all their Concernements, that those for whom he died, should all be made partakers of all the good things, which Christ by his death procured for them, in the season appointed by the sovereign will of God. But that this right though indissoluble is so actually vested in them, as to be actionable in the Gospel without faith, I believe not.

6. I believe that all spiritual blessings, mercies, privileges whatever, are fruits of the death of Christ, and that notwithstanding the order wherein they stand one to another, they all depend immediately on it's causality; though respectu termini they have not a natural immediation.

7. I profess that we are absolved, pardoned, and justified for Christ's sake, & therefore that Christ is reckoned to us, or made rightousnesse to us, in order of nature antecedently to all those things, which for his sake we do receive, and are made partakers of with and by him, &c.

For a close of all, I must profess, that I will not contend with any man, who discovers in himself such a resolution 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that if he be pressed, rather then let it go, he will go backward, and attempt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and to Question common received principles; knowing the multitude of Errors, and Abominations that the Church of God hath been pestered withal by men of this principle and practice. Hence are the beginnings of men modest, but their Endings desperate: hence is Arminianism ended in Episcopianisme; and Arianism in Socinianism, & in many, Socinianism in Mahumedisme and Atheism. If I find this resolution and spirit in any man, he shall rather enjoy his own present conceits, then by me be precipitated into worse Abominations. Nor shall I (the Lord assisting) be unmindful of that of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 6. 3, 4, 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. as also that of the same Apostle, Tit. 3. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If I must contend with any, as I am resolved for the matter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so for the manner of handling it, it shall not be my endeavor to cloud and darken things easy, trite, common in themselves, with new, dark, artificial expressions, but rather to give plainness and perspicuity to things hard and difficult, confirming them with the Authority of Scripture, opened by the import of the words insisted on, and design of the Holy Ghost in their contexture; Nor will I contend with any, whose motto is that of him in Plautus; dicat quod quis{que} vult, ego de hac sententia non dimovebor: or that hath thoughts of his own notions, like those of him in Naevius, who cried out, primum quod dicebo recte, secumdum quod dicebo eo melius. And as my aim is to know Christ, and him crucified, to exalt him, and ascribe to him the preeminence in all things, to discover the whole of our salvation, and glory of God thereby, centred in his Person and mediation, with it's emanation from thence, through the efficacy of the eternal Spirit, and all our obedience to receive life, power, and vigor from thence only, knowing that it is the obedience of faith, and hath it's foundation in blood and water; so I equally abhor all doctrines that would take self out of the dust, make something of that which is worse then nothing, and spin out matter for a web of peace and consolation from our own bowels, by resolving our Acceptation with God into anything in ourselves; and those, that by any means would intercept the Efficacy of the death and Cross of Christ from it's work of perpetual and constant mortification in the hearts of Believers; or cut off any obligation unto obedience or holiness, that by the discovery of the will of God, either in the Law, or Gospel, i • put upon the Redeemed ones of the Lord.