things, that we should not encourage ourselves in such sort of crimes on that account, he added; "The loathsomeness, abominableness, and hatefulness of rebellion were also charged on Christ, as well as the guilt: yea, that God made Christ as verily a sinner, as the creature himself was."

Loveg. [To Malapert.] Sir, do you call all this exalting Christ? Could you say worse of the devil himself than to suppose he is actually guilty, and an actual partaker of the most horrid and foul crimes that human nature can commit? By this way of talking, you make it out, that he positively deserved the punishment he met with. But if he was actually the blasphemer, the murderer, and the every thing that is bad, how could he be the substitute or the surety for the sins of others?

Mer. Yes, and then what becomes of these passages which tell us, he was "the Lamb without blemish ?" and how could he "offer himself without spot, to God ?" or how could he be "holy, harmless, and separate from sinners!" if all the sins of his people were made his own, as though actually committed by him: how could he "suffer the just for the unjust," when he himself was actually unjust? how could he "bear the sins of many,' when he had all his own sins to bear? or how could he in any wise suffer for others, when he had to suffer for crimes, the worst of crimes, which were actually made his? what can be plainer, than that "for the transgressions of his people, was he smitten ;" and that all our sins, (not his own sins,) were laid upon him, by a transfer of our guilt on his innocent person, "who knew no sin ;" who was neither guilty nor filthy, but at all times most innocent and pure?

Loveg. Yes, and from the same profaue supposition, some of them have advanced that which appears to me still more profane; that at that time, God "hated, and abhorred Christ, as the greatest sinner upon earth;" to

say nothing of the absurdity of the unchangeable God thus loving at one time and hating at another the same adored person; yet how could such a hatred ever have existed, when God himself declares, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ;" and that he was the Holy One," in whom his soul delighted," if he could thus be made the subject of his Father's wrath, how could he, in the hour of his extremest suffering, still address him as his Father? "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me ;" and even while on the cross, he claimed the Lord as his God; "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and in his last expiring moments, he could confidently say, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit:" really it appears to me, that such whimsical interpretations of scripture would not be worthy of a refutation, were they not exceedingly dangerous and profane.

John. Yes, and at the conclusion of the same young man's sermon, I remember he said, that "a toad could not be more odious in the sight of God, than Christ then was;" for that all the hatefulness and lothesomeness in our nature being put upon Christ; he stands, as it were, the abhorred of the Father."

Mer. And are these the profane and horrid discussions that have lately occupied your mind?

Mal. Sir, I shan't give up the point yet, though I confess I am not so ready at an answer as I thought I should have been; but how could I expect it, while I have so many upon me at the same time? [He feels in his pocket;] I find I have left my pocket book behind me, in which I have a great number of short-hand notes on this subject. I'll assure you I have studied the point very closely, and I hope to be a preacher soon. There is very little gospel preaching about these parts. With your leave, Mr. Merryman, I'll step home for my pocket

book. I shall return again in a few minutes, and I'll warrant you I shall be able to stand my ground.

At once he was off like a pea out of a pop-gun. Mr. Lovegood had his doubts what good end could be answered, by continuing the controversy with such an antagonist; but, Mr. Merryman feared that an impertinent triumph might be the result, if a further hearing should not take place. They all thought it most prudent to wait for his return, the result of which will be. found in the following Dialogue.

DIALOGUE XLI.

ANTINOMIANISM UNMASKED.

BETWEEN MR. LOVEGOOD, MR. MERRYMAN, MR. SAVORY, HIS COUSIN JOHN, AND MR. MALAPERT.

IMMEDIATELY on Mr. Malapert's return the Dialogue thus recommenced.

Malapert. Well, gentlemen, I have not been long gone. I hope I shan't tire your patience in resuming my subject, as I am a pretty good dab at short-hand writing. I think I have brought sufficient materials, so that I may be able to stand my ground better than I have done; (he takes out his notes.) And now, gentlemen, you shall hear what I have further to advance on the doctrine of imputation,* or rather, an actual exchange of persons between Christ and his elect.

Loveg. Sir, I hope you don't mean to detain us long about these doctrines, in which we all most assuredly believe and agree. Do you think we deny the mediatorial righteousness of Christ, (and as far as that, we will admit imputed sanctification,) both active, and passive, to be a righteousness sufficient to, and designed for, the salvation of the elect? Or whether our justifi

* Most of these quotations are from Dr. Crisp, (in high estimation among a certain party.) These sermons were republished by the late Dr. Gill, who has thereby done infinite mischief to some of the less pious of his own denomination, while a deal of pains is taken to explain away some of the most dangerous points, contained in those sermons; yet it is impossible so to neutralize them, as to render them palatable or safe. The reader will discover this as the Dialogue proceeds.

cation, and all other blessings, when we are made partakers of them, are the fruits of this righteousness, and the only meritorious cause of them? Or whether Christ's obedience and sufferings were so in our stead, that God cannot exact from us any other atonement for sin, or meriting price?

Mer. And I will add, whether Christ by his righteousness procured a finished salvation for all his chosen people, so that they assuredly shall, in his own time and way, be saved by his grace, and made meet for his glory; and all that, upon the credit of that very righteousness which is imputed to true believers, by which all the blessings of the covenant of grace are secured to the children of God?

Mal. Upon my word, gentlemen, you in some respects come nearer to the gospel than I expected; but as yet, you fall short of the real point. I believe, (taking out his notes,) there is actually an exchange of persons, between Christ and the believer: "Mark it well, Christ is not so completely righteous, but we are as righteous as he nor are we so completely sinful, but Christ became, being made sin, as completely sinful as we: nay more; we are the same righteousness, for we are made the righteousness of God." "That very sinfulness that we were, Christ is made that very sinfulness before God; so that Christ takes our persons and conditions, and stands in our stead: we take Christ's person and condition, and stand his stead; so that if we reckon well, we must always reckon Christ to be in our persons, and our person in his."

Loveg. And this, Sir, I suppose, you will say is your way of exalting Christ, by most profanely putting the Saviour in the sinner's stead. Supposing a prince with all his honours, puts himself in a beggar's state with all his rags and sores; would not the prince be most grievously debased, and the beggar exalted; or suppos