oâ— that he was accounted to have sinned to have been the Author or any way the Cause of our sins or that God lookt upon him as such These things we account blasphemous but we mean that Jesus Christ in all he did and suffered did intend to satisfie the Law of God which Man should have kept and particularly in his Sufferings did intend and actually bare the punishment due to our sins to satisfie the Law thereby and that the Father in imposing this Obedience and in inflicting these Sufferings upon Christ did intend that his Law which man had broken should be satisfied thereby and that Christ should bear the Punishment of our Sins and further that God did accept of these Sufferings of Christ as a satisfaction for our Sins and did look upon his Justice as executed and satisfied in him Thus our sins are said to be imputed to Christ because he was truly and in the Fathers and in his own intentions punished for them He was not reckoned an Offendor but he was reckoned and dealt with as he who had undertaken to bear the Punishment due to Offenders Many labour to make this Position odious by misrepresenting it and putting it into harsh and unscriptural terms But the Question is plainly this Whether the Sufferings of Christ were truly and intentionally the Punishment of the Sins of Man laid upon him whether Christ was properly punished for their Sins And this the Scripture abundantly and expresly affirmeth Isaiah 53.4 He hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows Yet more plainly v. 5. He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed v. 6. We have gone astray c. and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all v. 8. For the transgression of my people was he stricken v. 10. His Soul was made an offering for sin v. 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous Servant justifie many And the means whereby he cometh to justifie them is because he shall bear their iniquities v. 12. He bore the sin of many Can any thing be more express If Christ was wounded bruised stricken offered as a Sacrifice for sin then he was properly punisht for sin and though the other terms bearing of sin carrying our griefs c. may have a larger interpretation yet being joyned with those other more express and significant words they are to be taken in the same sence Galat. 3.13 He was made a Curse for us c. The Curse is the Punishment of Sin laid upon a person in pursuance of the Sentence of the Law Christ then was punisht the Sentence of the Law executed upon him with intention to satisfie the Law 2 Corinth 5.21 He was made Sin for us Our Authors paraphrase this He was made a Sacrifice for Sin the Sin-offering being sometimes in Hebrew called Sin And the Interpretation is not much amiss but the Sacrifice for sin died for the Sinner and did typically bear the punishment of his Sin Therefore Christ the Antitype did really undergo the punishment of Sin It is to be observed that our Lord was put to death without the City on purpose to answer the Type of the Sin offering in special above the rest of the Sacrifices which was to be carried out and burnt without the Camp Lev. 6.3 Heb. 13.11 12. 1 Peter 2.24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own Body on the Tree by whose stripes ye were healed Here it is exprest that Christ in his own person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bore our sins upon the Cross in his own Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore his Sufferings upon the Cross were the punishment for our sins Our Opposites interpret this to be spoken figuratively Trueman â— â—rop p. 89. The Sufferings of Christ were not properly an Execution of the Law though they may figuratively be so called but a satisfaction to Justice that the Law-threat might no be executed They mean That Christ's Sufferings were for sin i. e. to take away Sin by bringing in a Covenant of Grace and possibility of Pardon but not that he satisfied offended Justice by bearing the Punishment of Sin in his own person Now this is not to die for sin at all nor to bare sin be wounded for it or stricken for it but only to suffer by occasion of sin as sin was the occasion that Christ suffered to bring in a way of Pardon and so as Christ's Righteousness is not the cause of our Justification but the occasion of it that which made some way for it as we have proved above so also by this Doctrine our sins were not the cause had no proper influence upon the death of Christ but were an accidental occasion of it because if we had not sinned he had not died to bring in a Covenant of Grace and pardon What can be spoken full and clear enough if these plain Scriptures may be so easily waved The same Author saith p. 86. That Christ's death was a Satisfaction to Justice that God might be Just if he should pardon not an Execution of the Law but a satisfaction to Justice that the Law might not be executed I answer The Justice of God is twofold Absolute and Essential which is the infinite Holiness of his Nature whereby he can do nothing but what is becoming himself or limited and ordinate which is a voluntary Obligation which God hath laid upon himself to proceed in his dealing with Creatures according to the Law which he hath prescribed them I demand which of these Christ satisfied not the first any further than as it is included in the second viz. as it is becoming God's infinite and essential Holiness to proceed with his Creatures according to his own Laws when he hath given them Laws to act by For this Author and his Friends do not deny that Essential Justice might have been content to have pardoned and restored Adam and us in him without the death of Christ it must therefore be limited and ordinate Justice which Christ satisfied Now by this Justice God is obliged to proceed according to his own Law to see his Law fulfilled and executed and that it attain the end for which it was made therefore there is no satisfying of this Justice but by having the Law executed To talk of satisfying Justice of which the Law is the Rule without executing the Law yea that the Law might not be executed but taken out of the way is by fair consequence a Contradiction Argument 7. 7ly I argue Either Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us we are justified immediately by believing in it or Christ only purchased a Law of Grace by fulfilling whereof we should be justified There is no medium betwixt these two in the Question about Imputation but the latter is false therefore the former is true This is that our Opposites contend for That Christ only purchased that we should be saved
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and v. 17. Death reigned had its full power upon Man kind by means of this one Man And v. 18. By the Offence of one Judgment came upon all to condemnation all are condemned for his Offence And v. 89. The reason is because by that one mans disobedience peccatores instituti sunt they are made constituted Sinners whence the Argument is strong All men be condemned dead sentenced adjudged to death for the Sin of Adam therefore that sin is accounted theirs imputed to them not as if they had personally been the Actors of that Sin or that it did inhere or adhere properly to them but Adams sinning as the Head of Man kind and as it were for all men they are accounted to have sinned in him so as to incur all the punishment of his Sin Now let it be observed that ex adverso in like manner cometh the Gift of Life of Justification and the Gift of Righteousness by Jesus Christ by his Obedience men are made righteous justi constitutisunt are constituted righteous But men were made Sinners by Adams Sin and so fell under the Sentence of death before they sinned in their own persons without their own personal disobedience through being destitute of grace they must needs sin and so add to their punishment Therefore they that believe are made righteous in Christ with his Righteousness before any personal righteousness in them without the condition of their own obedience though being made righteous in Christ they receive grace to be obedient and so to be fit to receive the Inheritance giv'n them in Christ Object It is objected by a learned and grave Person that in this place v. 19. we are not said to be justified with Christs Obedience Hotchkis ut supra p. 43 44. but by it and that by signifieth an efficient or meritorious cause but with a formal cause and that we may be said to be justified by the Obedience of Christ as it merited Justification upon the Terms of the Gospel but not with it as imputed to us Answ Forgetfulness of Grammar is no wonder scarce a fault in his Age but that tells us that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when construed with a Genitive Case doth signifie cum with as well as per by and gives this example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum gladiis The same also say the Lexicons So then by the favour of the Greek word we may translate it with the Obedience of one many are made Righteous Moreover by signifieth the formal Cause which is causa per quam and with an Instrumental Cause Part 1. p. 229 230. not a Formal as hath been shewed And thus this distinction is grounded upon a mistake both in Grammar and Logick But he farther saith that here is no word of Imputation or imputing Christs Obedience to us and that it is barely said By his Obedience we are made Righteous I answer It is necessarily implied we are made righteous by the Obedience of Christ as we were made Sinners by the Disobedience of Adam but his Disobedience made us Sinners by imputation or being imputed to us ergò the Comparison is expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this Authors sence be admitted in the latter words it must be affixed also to the former i. e. If we are made righteous by Christs Obedience only because he merited that we should be justified if we obey the Gospel then it must follow we are made Sinners by Adam's Disobedience only because he merited by his Fall that if we sinned we also should perish If Christ only brought in a way of righteousness how we might be justified if we observed it then Adam only brought in a way of Sin how men might be condemned if they trod in his Steps but this is absurd To return that Adam's Sin is properly imputed to us I farther prove from Eph. 2.3 We were by Nature Children of wrath even as others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the rest of men Grotius his gloss upon these words viz. That the Apostle meaneth only the Gentiles who were born out of the Church and out of the Covenant and therefore were by nature Children of Wrath is against the words of the Text. For the Apostle having spoken of the Gentiles in the two former verses putteth himself and the Jews into the same condition in this verse saying Amongst whom we all had our Conversation in times past and we were by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Children of wrath even as the rest All men therefore are by nature Children of wrath i. e. are born Heirs of wrath under the Sentence of Condemnation For as Children of Life Children of the Kingdom signifie those that are Heirs under the Promise of Life so Children of Wrath are those that are Heirs under the Sentence of Condemnation Now I demand how all men should come under the sentence of condemnation and inherit it as their natural though woful Birth-right unless Adams Fall be sharged upon them and so as soon as they have a Being derived from him in a natural way the Sentence pronounced against him is â—n force against them also Suppose God might justly have deprived all Mankind descending from Adam of his present Favour and of the Gifts and Graces Priviledges and Benefits which Adam enjoyed because Adam had forfeited them and could not therefore leave them to be enjoyed to his Posterity Aâ— a Father spending or forfeiting his own Inheritance and Honours doth deprive his Children of them though they are not therefore made guilty of his Offence yet how will it consist with Justice besides the loss of all Privileges to adjudge sentence men to death before any Trial is made of their Obedience whether they will not do better than Adam did or aâ— least do something that in their forlorn Estate may move some compassion to them and mitigate their misery This is our Case we are born Heirs of Death Judgment and Condemnation is past upon all men taketh hold of them as soon as they are men How can this be without any guilt chargeable upon them and if there be any it must be the guilt of Adams Fall Ezek. 18.20 God declared that the Son should not die for the Fathers Sin it would certainly be high injustice in men to deprive the Posterity of an Offendor for ever not only of their Fathers Inheritance but of all possibility of return and recovery of themselves so that they should ever be dealt with as Malefactors Much more is it consistent with Divine Justice to punish all Mankind not only with the loss of Adams Priviledges but with Eternal Death inevitably for any thing the Law provideth to the contrary meerly because they descended from him without trying or expecting how they would behave themselves There must therefore be a Guilt upon all men by nature viz. the Guilt of Adams Sin and that must be imputed to them and
to be called by the same Name This is the Name whereby she shall be called The Lord our Righteousness Answ But the Context sheweth that it speaketh of the same Person and almost in the same words sc the righteous Branch of David c. And therefore learned men translate it This is the name of him who shall call her viz. The Church The Lord our Righteousness So Junius translates it also the Geneva and the Dutch Annotions and others but if it be meant of the hurch as Mr. Gataker contends it must Gataker in locum it only because the Name of Christ is put upon or as being clothed with his Righteousness the New Jerusalem the Gospel Church named Jehovah Shammah the Lord is there â—â—om his Presence in her and as God himself pleased to take upon himself the Name of â—â—s People Ps 24.6 Ezek. 48.35 This is the Generation 〈◊〉 them that seek thy Face O Jacob i. e. the â—â—â—d of Jacob. Dan. 9.24 Seventy weeks are determined â—â—on thy People and upon thy Holy City to finish the Transgression and to make an end of â—â—ins and to make reconciliation for Iniquity and 〈◊〉 bring in Everlasting Righteousness Daniel â—â—d prayed for the deliverance of the Jews â—â—d the forgiveness of their Sins and that not â—â—r the sake of their own Righteousness but â—â—ods great Mercy v. 18 19. He is answerâ—â—d that the City shall be built again and the â—eople saved by the Messiah v. 25. and that 〈◊〉 his being cut off not for himself v. 26. â—â—plying that it should be for them and that â—â—en should be brought in everlasting Righteousness whereby Israel should be justified and â—â—ved This is the Righteousness of the Mesâ—â—ah for none else is a standing and everlasting â—ighteousness Ours is mutable and subject 〈◊〉 fail Hos 6.4 Neither was our righteousness in special manner to be brought in by â—â—e Death of Christ it had been before in the Sanctified in all Ages of the Church It was a new Righteousness then to be wrought and brought in at the Death of Christ though by the Virtue of it the former Saints were saved yet it was not actually wrought and Justification by it distinctly declared till now Therefore it is all one with finishing transgression making an end of sin making reconciliation for the people which is plainly Justification to be had by this Everlasting Righteousness Rom. 5.18 19. As by the offence of one Judgment came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life All men were condemned by the offence or sin of Adam So they that believe shall be justified by the righteousness of Christ the free gift oâ— grant of life comes by the righteousness of Jesus Christ as the sentence of death came by Adams unrighteousness The 19 v. makes it clearer As by the disobedience of one many are made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous Adam did not make way by his Sin for mens condemnation he did not only render them liable to death if they should sin as he did and break the same Covenant But he brought them under the Curse and Sentence of death absolutely by and for his Sin so that all that are of his Seed are under the Judgement of Condemnation ipso facto as soon as they have a Being In like manner Christ must not only make way for mens Justification or procure them a Covenant whereby they shall be justified if they perform it as he performed the Covenant of a Mediator but he must also justifie them intitle them to life so soon as they believe in him by and for his own Righteousness and Obedience One Exception against this place hath been answered in the former Chapter Another excepteth Object The Apostle doth not say IN one mans obedience many shall be made righteous Just Evang p. 72. but BY one mans obedience as a consequent and effect of it many shall be made righteous As the effect of one mans disobedience many come to be shapen in iniquity and brought forth in a sinful condemned nature so as the effect of one mans obedience many come to be new born and brought forth in a Righteous and Saving State Answ The vanity of the exception from the word BY hath been manifested before The Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used signifieth BY or WITH which is the proper sence of the place the term IN would be more obscure And thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated Rom. 14.20 To him that eateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with offence but the Sum of this Exception is as it is largely prosecuted p. 68. c. That Adams personal disobedience is not imputed to his Posterity but he virtually containing all men in his Nature and Sinning before the Act of Propagation he did corrupt his Nature and so begat Children in a sinful mortal State But I have before proved the Imputation of his Actual Sin I now add Do Mankind derive a sinful mortal Nature from Adam by meer necessity of Nature seeing the effect must be like the cause or by virtue of Divine Constitution that his Posterity should inherit the Fruits of his Sin If by necessity of Nature as this Author seems to intimate then the Soul of Man must be ex traduce derived from the Parents else it could not be born sinful by necessity of Nature and then it must be corrupted with the Body and cannot exist without it and at best must be raised with the Body and sleep in the dust till the last day as the Socinians teach Nor would the want of original righteousness no nor positive dispositions to sin in our Nature as derived from Adam be sinful in us they be poena causa peocati the Punishment of Adams Sin and the cause of Sin in us but not peccatum our Sin no more than the natural Diseases of the Body which we derive from our Parents For that which comes by meer natural necessity cannot be a Sin But if it be by Divine Constitution then the meaning must be either that God appointed that if Adam should sin that one Sin then not only he should perish but that he should also propagate a sinful mortal Nature to all his Seed without exception and then the sin and misery of all Mankind is directly and properly the punishment of Adams personal sin only which besides the horrour of the thing that so many millions in all Ages should be made miserable both here and for ever as the punishment of another mans Sin in which they were no way concern'd is also against Gods own Law The Children shall not be put to death for the Fathers nor the Fathers for the Children but â—very man for his own sin Deut. 24.16 Or â—lse this Constitution must mean that God appointed that Adam shall stand or fall for all his â—osterity and then
integrum intire freedom to do what he pleased then Christ did as freely offer his Obedience to the Father to do what he pleased with it or upon it and certainly this is not to merit Thus Slatius declar apert Jesus Christus per passionem mortem suam nihil meritus est nec solvit pro nostris peccatis veluti vas pro debitore qui non est solvendo If they say that he took away the Covenant of Works and the necessity which God was under to condemn men and this might be the Effect of his Merit this is not true By this Opinion Christ did not take away the Covenant of Works nor the Sentence of it For then man must have been discharged without any further Covenant or Terms which is the thing they oppose They must say Christ offered himself to his Father in such manner that he might take occasion from it if he thought it justly to lay aside his Obligation to Punish by the Law of Works and proceed to terms of Grace but not that he must do either and so Christ merited nothing at all of his Father 2ly It followeth from this Doctrine That Christ's Obedience and Death were not properly satisfactory to Divine Justice The say That by Christ's Death God's Justice wâ— satisfied the obstacle of Justice was removed But how God's Justice in this case is nothing else but his Will or voluntary Obligation of himself to deal with men according to his Law To satisfie God's Justice is to satisfied his Law and to satisfie the Law is to fulfill 〈◊〉 by obedience to it or suffering the penalty 〈◊〉 it or both But they will not allow That Christ properly satisfied the Law of God Mr. Trueman saith Ibid. p. 89. His death was not proper Payment at all And if Christ did properly satisfie the Law then those for whom be did it must be hereupon discharged without any further conditions to be required or 〈◊〉 be performed of them But if Christ satisfied not the Law how could he satisfie Divine Justice which hath the Law for its Rule 〈◊〉 is tied to it It was of Divine prerogative or infinite Soveraignty that God did accept of Christ to fulfill the Law for man to whâ—â— it was given and who only was obliged by 〈◊〉 But when the Law-makers Prerogative 〈◊〉 accepted of the Surety and of his underâ—â—king for the Sinner then he himself was mâ—â—â— under the Law and satisfied Justice by satisfying the Law but if he satisfied not the Law then his Obedience was not performed as Obedience to the preceptive part of the Law or his sufferings indured as subjection to the unitive part of it and so neither of them â—ere exacted in a way of Justice or performed as submission to Justice either preceptive or punitive and so Justice could no â—ay be satisfied by his Obedience Moreover 〈◊〉 after all the Obedience of Christ God was â—ree to save or not to save men then he was â—ree either to give them new conditions of Life â—r to proceed to destroy them according to â—he sentence and curse of the Law of Works and is it possible that Gods Justice should have received real satisfaction from an infinite Price and Person and yet the Persons for whom satisfaction was made not be discharged but Justice still be left in full force to take vengeance if the Judge pleased Surely among men if Justice be satisfied either by the guilty person or by his Surety by the Judge's consent even Justice it self must acquit and discharge the party concerned The truth is By this Doctrine there was no satisfaction made to Divine Justice by Christ's Obedience and therefore the Sinner hath no discharge procured but the whole transaction of the business of Man's Redemption betwixt the Father and the Son was but a point of honour or a kind of generosity if we may so speak As if a young generous Prince should perform some noble and difficult exploits for the honour of his Father and the Father again should pardon some condemned Rebels and restore them to his Favour hereupon not as being any way obliged to it but as an act of a Noble and generous mind and to express some honour and requital to his Son Thus Slatiâ—â— Epist ad N. Martin An Christus pro nobâ— satisfecit Respondeo Nos negare i. e. Did Christ satisfie for sin We deny it And he gives five reasons the last whereof is The God could neither punish for sin nor require Faith as a condition in order to Salvation 3ly It followeth also that Christ's Death was no Ransom Redemption or Price for Sinners For if God after the death of Christ was still free to save or not to save Sinners then this death had properly bought or purchased nothing of him A ransom or price is not a valuable consideration only for a thing worth it or equal in value to it but it must also be paid with the Compact or Agreement that the thing bought or ransomed shall for that price become the Buyers and the property be transferred to him and no longer remain in the Seller If then Christ propetly bought us ransomed us c. then our Salvation became his de jure he had a right to it upon his death and it could no longer remain in the free power of God to grant or not to grant it But if there were no compact that life should be granted to Sinners if Christ would die for them if to give Life was still in God's absolute disposal then his obedience is no ransom nor was he a Redeemer he did not purchase his Church with his own Bloud nor was that Bloud a Price of their Redemption 4ly It followeth that Christ did not at all die for sin The Prophet saith He was wounded and bruised for our iniquities yea his Soul â—us made an Offering for Sin Isa 53.5 10. But if Christ did not take away sin and procure pardon but left God still free to pardon or â—ot then he did not die for sin sin was not â—he meritorious cause of his Death nor was â—he pardon of sin the immediate end of his Death but only to free the Father from the necessity of condemning Sinners Sin could be â—t the most but a remote occasion or causa â—ne qua non of the death of Christ if that had not been God would not have been bound up from the exercise of his natural goodness and â—o there would have been no occasion of Christ â—o die to remove that obstacle out of the way And yet it is not easie to imagine what these â—en mean by the obstacle of God's Justice which hindred his Mercy to Sinners which was removed by Christ's Obedience For â—oth they and their Friends the Arminians â—eem generally to grant That God of his infinite Sovereignty might have pardoned sin without satisfaction so that his absolute Justice 〈◊〉 as not an obstacle to his Mercy and for his Law and that Justice which respecteth it
men to obedience whether there be Promises or Threaâ— or none or whatever they be which he doâ— in this life with many infirmities and in Heaven without any CHAP. IX That Faith doth not justifie as a Condition and that it doth not justifie as believing in Christ as King and Prophet as well as Priest THat Faith justifieth a Sinner as it is a trust in the Promise of Life through the Righteousness of Jesus Christ hath been proved and vindicated in the preceding Chapters We are now to consider what the opposite Opinion is concerning Faith and its Influence upon Justification The Scriptures teach that Abraham the Father and great Exemplar of all Believers was justified by Faith his Faith was counted to him for Righteousness Rom. 4.3 And that this Faith was a Trust in the Promise of God is evident both from the occasion and immediate Object of it the Promise of a Son against all natural hope and probability and that his Seed should be numerous be the people of God the Blessed of the World Gen. 15.4 5 6 18. c. and also from the Apostles Explication or Amplification of this Faith in this Chapter v. 19 20 21 22. viz. That it was a believing in hope against hope and a not considering the natural impossibility of the thing promised and not staggering at the Promise through unbelief but being strong in Faith and fully perswaded that God was able to perform what he promised and that this Faith justified him as such a trust in the Promises and not as an Act of Obedience is evident from the Apostles own Reason in the close of that Discourse v. 22. Therefore iâ— was imputed to him for Righteousness Wherefore Because it was a firm trust in the Promise of God It is also added v. 23. That this Example was written not for Abraham's sake only but for ours that succeed because Faith also shall be imputed to us for Righteousness if we believe in him that raised Christ from the dead who died for our sins and rose again for our justification v. 24 25. If this was written for our sakes then the Faith that justifieth us must be a trust in the Promise as Abraham's was even in the Promise of Life through the death of Christ and must justifie us as a trust in that Promise as his did him and not upon any other account It is the Righteousness of Christ for which God justifies believing Sinners but because they are rational Creatures God doth not justifie them without their knowledge consent or acceptance but with and by means of it and this is Faith sc Man's trusting in or acceptance of Life promised in Christ which doth render the subject as a rational Creature capable of pardon and mercy by a Promise though that natural capacity of the subject would not obtain pardon if it were not promised to it and this is all we mean when we say Faith is the Instrument of our Justification viz. That God having promised Justification through Christ to all that believe or trust in it this Faith doth trust in it or is that disposition of the soul whereby it doth trust in that promise and so obtain a grant of Jnstification We acknowledge to believe God's Promises is commanded by him and an act of our Obedience to him always indispensibly due but we say That Faith obtaineth any thing promised and Justification in particular not as or because it obeyeth the general command of believing Gods Promises but as it trusteth in dependeth upon the Promises and consequently that God fulfilleth the Promise of Pardon Justification and the immediate fruits of it to a Believer out of his meer goodness and faithfulness not out of remunerative Justice and Debt as he must if he justifieth for Faith as an act of Obedience to any Command But our Opposites will have Faith to justifie us as the condition of the New Covenant 〈◊〉 Gospel not as a meer trust in the Promise A condition saith Amyrald Amyrald dissert de grat unic p. 52. is a certain â—aw added to a matter or business which is required to be performed by a man Conditio 〈◊〉 Lex addita negotio quae ab homine exigitur â—o that believing in Christ is annexed to the promise of Justification as a Law requiring that faith and then saith must justifie as obedience to or fulfilling of that Command is Perfect Obedience was the condition of the â—aw So they tell us Faith is the condition of the Gospel and one justifyeth now as the other did then sc as Man should then have been justified for his Perfect Obedience as the fulfilling of the Law to which life was promised so now Faith justifieth as or because it obeyeth the Gospel Chmmand of believing in Christ to which life is promised to Sinners To strengthen this they further say which indeed is but a just consequence of it that as the Covenant of Works upon the condition of Perfect Obedience was made with all Mankind in Adam so also the Covenant of Grace was made with all Mankind in him also after the Fall and renewed to Noah upon the condition of Faith in Christ i. e. as before they were all commanded to obey perfectly and they should live for so doing so now they are all commanded to believe in Christ and they shall live for so doing Foedus gratiae salutaris in Adamo cum omnibus singulis hominibus initum Ibid. p. 87. et in Noa cum omnibus singulis hominibus sancitum fuit sub fidei conditione adeo ut si omnes singuli crederent salutis à Christo partae compotes fierent This we are now to examine and there are two Opinions about it One acknowledgeth Faith to be fiducia a trust in the promise and this only to be the condition of Justification the other makes Faith to include Obedience to the Gospel Command so that when they sayâ— Faith justifys they mean Faith and Obedience flowing from it To begin with the First 'T is usual with Divines to call Faith the Condition of the Gospel and Justification but they take the terâ— condition improperly and largely for any thing required of us and that must be in us in order to being justifyed they mean no more but that men are not justifyed by the Death of Christ as a Ransom paid for them without any thing in them to apply it to themselves in particular but that his death doth justify them being offered in the Promises trusted in them for themselves in particular Ibid. in this sence we grant Faith to be a condition of Justification But some Amyraldus and others take a condition strictly for something required not only as a disposition of the subject or as an internal rational means of obtaining a thing but also as acquiring a right to it as the performance of that Command which required it and thus they say Faith is the Condition of Justification i. e. we are justifyed
the Debtor cannot properly be said to be the Author of the payment he paid not the Money 't was not his but the Sureties yet the Money being paid for him in his stead for his benefit by the Surety and accepted for him instead of his payment by the Creditor he is a subject of denomination and may be truly accounted a clear and solvent person and the payment imputed to him placed to his account as really and as fully as if he had paid it with his own hand and with his own money Hence some call the Righteousness of Christ the Formal Cause of our Justification Vid. Whitaker de Ecclesia p. 460 461. Synop. Leidens disput 33. Th. 21 23. and others the Matter or Material Cause both mean the same thing viz. That Christs righteousness is the very thing for which we are accepted and justified before God I will not contend about terms of Art in so great a point whereon Salvation depends yet it seemeth more logical to say In Justification man in the Matter or Subject viz. the Person justified Christs righteousness is the Form that by which he is constituted righteous or just before God Imputation Gods accepting this righteousness for him is as the Union betwixt the Matter and the Form even the Application of Christs righteousness to the person justified God the Father is the Efficient accepting or acquitting him for the sake of Christs righteousness The Promise of the Gospel is the medium whereby this righteousness is conveyed and Faith the instrument or disposition in the subject whereby it is rendred capable of receiving Christs righteousness or having it imputed to him And Justification is the Condition or State of a Man accepted with God to life eternal through the righteousness of Christ imputed to him From â—â—ence I inser that Imputation of Christs righteousness and Justification is all one and but â—â—e real Act and so Arctius defines it Justiâ—atio est imputatio justitiae alienae gratuita Lib. Probl. loc 25. faâ—â—a a Deo respectu meriti Filii Dei ad salutem â—â—ni credenti Some learned men make Justication to consist of 2 Acts. The First whereby Christs righteousness is imputed to a Sinâ—er The Second whereby his sins are forgiven and he accepted for the sake of that righteousness But this makes it more perplext that it is to impute righteousness We are righteous with the righteousness of Christ â—â—t in a Physical sence as if it were inherent or adherent to us but judicially We are accepted as righteous i. e. discharged from punishment and intituled to life for it and this 〈◊〉 to be justified We may indeed make it Formal Acts or formally distinct the one thereby Christs righteousness is placed to our account or reckoned to be done for us the â—ther whereby we are accepted or intituled 〈◊〉 life for that righteousness But it 's really â—â—e same thing to account Christs righteousâ—â— be wrought for us to satisfie and fulfill the â—aw of God and to accept us and give us â—ight to life for that righteousness God in â—s Promise proposeth life to Sinners on the account of Christs satisfaction in which when â—â—ey believe and trust there is by virtue of that Promise a Grant and Title to life made other to them and hereby righteousness is imputed to them or they are justified Thus Rom. 4 2. When the Apostle would prove Abraham was not justified by Works he saith v. 3. Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness Then to justifie or impute Christs righteousness is all one and God accounteth us righteous for this righteousness i. e. God justifieth or giveth us eternal life for Christs righteousness and frees us from condemnation Nor is Christ first given to us and then his right ousness as some speak as if we were actually interessed in Christs Person before we are his righteousness God worketh Faith in the Heart which apprehendeth the promise of liâ—â— through the righteousness of Christ and hereby we are accepted and justified and this righteousness is thus made ours or given to us and no other way Afterwards we are adopted and receive the Spirit of Sons by which Spirit we are united to Christ as to our Hear and the Fountain of Spiritual Life and the Christ is most properly given to us or wâ—â— are actually interessed in his person in whom all the Elect have some interest before on the account of Election but this was not actual and proper These things thus explained the Question betwixt us and our Opposites is plainly thâ—â— Whether God justifieth men and intituled them Life for the Righteousness which Christ wrought in fulfilling and suffering the Penalties of the Law The Affirmative is the Protestant Doctrine and now to be proved Argument 1. 1. I argue from the Parallel of Christ and Adam Christ is called the Second Adam the Second Man 1 Cor. 15.45 47. Adam was the Figure of him who was to come viz. Christ Rom. 5.14 Whence is this but in respect of the general Influence of what they did upon the rest of Markind Hence I argue As Adam's Disobedience condemned men so Christ's Obedience acquitteth and justifieth them But the very Acts of Adam's Disobedience are imputed to men to their Condemnation they are condemned for them therefore they that believe have the very righteousness of Christ imputed to them and by that are justified The Major is largely proved by the Apostle Rom. 5.12 ad finem where he sheweth That Justification and Life come into the World in like manner as Death and Condemnation did each by a common Person and by them derived upon the rest of Mankind As many were made Sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one Mans Obedience so by the Obedience of one many shall be made righteous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 19. They are constituted righteous and unrighteous in the same manner unrighteous by Adams disobedience righteous by the obedience of Christ But this I suppose will not be denied and he that denieth the Minor viz. That Adams disobedience is imputed to us as the immediate Cause of our Condemnation is a down right Pelagian But because iâ— this Age all the Foundations are destroyed we shall prove it from the fore-cited Text Rom. 5.12 where the Apostle affirms That by one man Sin and death entred into the World and Death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether we translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iâ— whom all have sinned as the the Fathers did against the Palagians meaning Adam 〈◊〉 whom all his Posterity sinned or in quantum for as much as all men have sinned the Sence is all one Sin and Death came upon all men from one man i. e. Adam and therefore they were all made Sinners in him and by him But this is clearer v. 15. where it is said Many are dead by the Offence of this one man viz. Adam And v. 26. The Judgment or Sentence unto Condemnation came by one man 〈◊〉
in it for his Glory and their good CHAP. V. The adverse Opinion propounded and examined Pelagius and Arminius the Authors of it OF all that ever troubled the Church with their Errours the Pelagians and their â—ate Off-spring the Arminians have most perplext it with their Opinions partly by their importunity reviving them and urging them â—afresh from time to time so that the Church hath had little quiet from them for the last twelve hundred years though their Opinions have been most frequently and most fairly examined and unanimously refuted above any Errours whatsoever and that both by particular Writers of all Ages and also many Syâ—ods greater and smaller But principally by their dishonest Art of misrepresenting the Orthodox Doctrine to perswade the Simple that they oppose particular mens Sentiments not the Doctrine of the Church and by covering their own Opinions propounding them plausibly and ambiguously that the Falshood may â—ot be easily discern'd that at once they may â—nsinuate with the Simple and have retreats â—o avoid the Arguments of the Learned wherein they do like those that sculk in Woods and Thickets whom it is as hard to find out as it â—s to conquer It was a sit Epithite that Hieâ—om gave Pelagius Coluber ille Britannus that British Snake For he had his many windings and foldings and for his advantage could cast his Skin to When he was taxed to deny Grace ascribing all to mans free Will he protested to ascribe all to Grace and yet meant thereby nothing but Nature or Free Will which he called Grace because it was the Gift of God Vossius Hist Pelag lib. 1. pars 1. Joh. Latius Hist Pelag lib. 1. par 1. and when all his Opinions were summed up and objected to him in the Synod of Diospolis or Lydda he openly and severally renounct them all with Anathemas and all by equivocal words keeping the same meaning The like did his Scholar Caelestius when called to an account before the Bishops of Rome and Africa Fostus and Cassianus the Semipelagian Leaders trod in their steps as the same Authors out of Augustin and Prosper have shewed Arminius and his Followers have not come behind them in this Art The Preface to the Synod of Dort and Lubertus sufficiently insorm us how Arminius strove to cover his Opinions contra Bersium till he might by secret insinuations gain a party to stand on his defence When he was suspected of novelty by the Presbytery of Amsterdam Sancté protestatusest c. he solemnly profest that he knew no man in the Low-Countries that had a mind to bring in Innovations in Religion His Disciples were of the same temper which they shewed both in the Synod and in their own Writing By the same Art their Followers amongst us at this day create us much trouble especially in this point of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed about which they had their Doctrine from Arminius Popular Insinuations is the best of their Rhetorick Generals Equivocation and Tergiversation is the greatest part of their Logick which we shall make now to appear by enquiring what is their Opinion concerning the Effect of Christs death and obedience who deny us to be properly justified by it or it to be imputed to us They do agree to retain the Term of Imputing Christ's Righteousness Just Evang p. 51. The notion of Imputation in general saith one of them is no way to be opposed it being impossible that we should receive benefit by and the effects of what another doth without some kind of Imputation But thus Socinus will say What Christ did was imputed to us i. e. it was nostro bono for our good and benefit Mr. Baxter chargeth Dr. Tully with the breach of all that is Sacred Answ to Dr. Tully p. 18 172. for saying that he denyeth all Imputation of Christs Righteousness and telleth us that he doth not only hold it in some sence but in a larger sence than many do viz. That not only his Passive Obedience is imputed to us but his Active also yea his Habitual and Divine Righteousness so far as influential to give merit to his Obedience and yet all this is but words For whosoever asserteth the infinite value of the death of Christ must and doth acknowledge the concurrence of his Active Habitual Papaeus and Divine Righteousness to make his death an infinite Prize which it could not be unless the person dying were God of a perfect holy Nature and of perfect holy Life till the time of his death But he that useth a common word as this of Imputation is and in that Question and Matter to which it belongeth properly and useth it in a sence quite different from the common acception and state of the Question doth but equivocate in retaining that Term. Though Protestants have differed about the Righteousness of Christ imputed whether it be the Passive only or the Active also yet till of late there hath been no question among them about the meaning of the term Imputation all understanding thereby that we were justified and accepted to Life Eternal for the Righteousness of Christ intended and wrought for us But it is more strange that he who is so earnest to be accounted a maintainer of Imputation should no better defend himself from the accusation of denying it For when a few lines would have expressed any mans meaning in this point who was willing to be understood he gives us many distinctions divisions chap. 2. p. 48 c. and sub-divisions and fifty Propositions to explain in what sence he holdeth Christ's Righteousness imputed and in what not and yet confesseth after all these that he doubteth he hath not made his meaning plain enough to those who are not exercised in the Controversie who had most need of his Explication and therefore addeth more distinctions and propositions to make his meaning plainer chap. 3. p. 79. which is as well performed as if a man endeavouring to wash an Aethiopian white should first plunge him into a River of Water and afterwards into a Vessel of Ink He goes â—n with the same Art and Chap. 4. p. â—9 instead of opposing the Drs. sence of Imputation and deâ—ending his own he thrusts together all the â—ences of Imputation which he denieth both â—he sound and the unsound and then disputes against Imputation with 43 Reasons but against what or in what sence he would not have â—he People but only his Friends to understand 〈◊〉 this be reconciling to devize new terms and â—ew questions if confounding things be clearing of them if hiding ones meaning with mulâ—itudes of words be to explain onesself then â—his Author hath acquitted himself well I will â—dd another instance of his Explications I did assert that Christ's Righteousness even habiâ—ual Appeal to the Light p. 1. active and passive exalted by his Divine â—ighteousness being the fulfilling of his Law and Covenant of Mediation hath perfectly meâ—ited Reconciliation Pardon Adoption
Opinions were the Pelagians and Arminians and that herein the Socinians differ little from them Let us now inquire seeing we must not be justified by the very Righteousness of Christ's Obedience and Death to what End Christ died according to those men CHAP. VI. This Doctrine overthroweth Christ's Merit and Satisfaction THE Apostle Rom. 4.25 saith That Christ was delivered i. e. to death for our Offences and raised again for our Justification Whence our Protestants have taught that the proper and immediate Effect of the Death of Christ was the procuring or grant of Pardon Justification Life Eternal to all the Elect in the Purposes of God and that accordingly God in due time publisheth to them the Promises of the Gospel by which through the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost they are perswaded and drawn to Christ to believe and trust in him for Life and so they are made actual partakers of his Death and justified But these Authors denying us to be justified immediately and properly by the Righteousness of Christ must and do deny Justification to be the immediate and proper Effect of it and assign some other immediate End of Christ's Death What this is we shall shew and how it doth make void the Merit and Satisfaction of Christ I meet with two Opinions in this matter The First saith That the immediate and proper End of the Death of Christ was not to procure Reconciliation Justification c. for all or any man but to render God placable or reconcileable to man i. e. not that God upon the Death of Christ doth grant purpose or covenant the Justification and salvation of any man but that he may now justifie forgive and save men in what way and upon what terms he pleaseth Thus Mr. Trueman as before Gr. Prop. p. 86. The immediate Effect of Christ's Satisfaction is that God might be Just though he should pardon Sinners that he might pardon salvâ justitiâ not that he must pardon them come what will of it or be unjust And again The Justice of God as a flaming Sword obstructeth all treating with us upon any terms of Reconciliation whatsoever and this would have been an eternal Bar to all Influences and Effluxes of Favour and now this Justice being satisfied and this Bar and Obstacle removed Divine Grace and Benignity is left at liberty freely to act how it pleases and in what way and upon what terms and conditions it thinketh meet This he had from Arminius who having said That Justification Pardon or Reconciliation of any man is not immediately purchased by the Death of Christ He tells us The proper Effect of it is Reconciliatio Dei remissionis justificationis redemptionis apud Peum impetratio contra Perkins fol. 76. apud Twiss qua factum est ut Deus jam possit utpote justitiâ cui satisfactum est non obstante hominibus peccatoribus peccata remittere spiritum gratiae largiri i. e. the Reconciliation of God the obtaining of remission and redemption viz. That God may forgive and sanctifie men if he please without breach of Justice which is now satisfied Hereupon they go so far as to tell us That when Christ had done and suffered all which was appointed him God was free to save or not to save men or to save upon what terms or whom he pleased Thus Grevinch contra Ames fol. 8. Peltius p. 126. Postquam impetratio praestita ac peracta esset Deo jus suum integrum mansit pro arbitratu suo eam applicare vel non applicare nec applicatio finis impetrationis propria fuit sed jus potestas applicandi pro liberrimo suo placito quibus qualibus vellet i. e. After Christ's Purchase was made and finished God was perfectly free to apply â—t or not to apply it as he should please nor was the Application of it the proper End of Christ's Purchase but that God might have power to apply it to whom and how he should think fit Episcopius goes a step further and saith There could not be a deliberate purpose in God of saving men and opening a way of â—ise to them till Christ was sacrificed Disp 5. Ibid. Deliâ—eratum mortale salvandi salutisque ostium apetiendi propositum in Deo esse requirit priusquam sacrificium oblatum esset Now if this be the only proper Effect of the Obedience and Death of Christ that God who was before bound to condemn Sinners by the Law of Works violated by them might now think of a way to save them if he pleased and withal might chuse whether he would save them or propound terms of Life to them or not It followeth â—ence 1. That the Obedience of Christ was not meritorious nor did merit any thing of the father It is true there was an intrinsecal infinite value in Christ's Obedience by reason of the Divine Excellency of his Person and so there was an equality or proportion betwixt his Obedience and the Happiness which was to be procured for men But this is the Foundation of Merit not Actual Merit To merit is to deserve a Reward to do something whereupon a Reward is due so that Merit in its proper notion doth imply an actual Right or Obligation to a reward which Obligation ariseth from some Law Promise or Compact betwixt the Parties and he which doth not give that Reward according to Merit offendeth against some Law either of strict Justice or at least of Gratitude Generosity Kindness c. If then God was not bound by Covenant Promise or so much as deliberate Purpose to save men or to give them any terms of Life for all that Christ did or suffered then his Obedience merited nothing there was nothing due no reward proposed to him which he would challenge for God was still free to do what he pleased with men God they say would not have been unjust if he had not saved men though Christ died he was not then bound by the Law of Justice and he could not be bound by any other Law to remunerate the Death and Sufferings of his Son with such an happy Effect as man's Salvation Christ's Death say they was a refuseable payment for sin even when it was presented to the Father God might then have refused it and yet have been Just But it would not have been just to have denyed Jesus Christ that which he merited that would be due debt to him They say indeed Christ was the meritorious cause of our Justification But what did he merit Justification Then God was not free to deny it he must justifie those for whom Christ merited Justification or be unjust unless there can be a cause without an effect or causality The effect of merit is some reward deserved given for the sake of the merit the causality of merit is some compact Law or Promise whereby one is bound to reward that merit If then God was bound to nothing upon the Obedience of Christ but still had jus
Christ say they did in no proper sence satisfie 〈◊〉 and therefore his Obedience could have â—o proper respect to Divine Justice much less â—o sin that had offended Justice 5ly Nor was Christ's Death a Propitiation â—r Atonement for our sins The Apostle 1 Joh. 2.1 saith That Christ was a Propitiation for our Sins that he loved us and washed us from our sins with his own Bloud Apâ—â— 1.5 But this is true only accidentally and eventually if the immediate effect of Christ's death was only that God might pardon not that he must and it was not the prime and principal intention of his death Since God hath pleased to grant terms of Salvation upon the death of Christ his death may improperly be said to have made atonement or reconciliation for them because it occasioned it 〈◊〉 made some way for it but that which left God still intirely free to pardon or not that did not appease his Anger remove his displeasure reconcile him or obtain his good Will as is the nature of a Propitiation or propitiatory Sacrifice nor was it immediately 〈◊〉 directly intended for that end 6ly Nor can it properly be ascribed to God's Love to the World that he gave his Son to die or to the Son's Love to Mankind that he gave himself For if love to men were the Motive of Christ s Obedience and Death both to the Father and the Son men's Salvation would have been immediately designed and intended in it it would have been medium ordinatum a proper means design'd to bring about their Salvation But they tell us it was designed only to save God's Honour in case he should forgive Sinners but not that he had obliged himself any way to do it no nor that he had resolved with himself or deliberately purposed to grant terms of Salvation when he sent his Son into the World or when he laid his wrath a curse upon him it seems God did not yet know what use he would make of the Death of his Son neither could the Son know when the Father was not resolved Thus we see this Opinion overthroweth the whole Nature and Intendment of Redemption and Christ's Merit Satisfaction Ransom Sacrifice and all that belong to it are but improper Metaphors and the greatest Mystery of Godliness must fly for refuge to a poor Trope to save it from being an untruth and Christ himself must be at most but an honorary Mediator and Redeemer The Second Opinion concerning the End of Christ's death is That he died to purchase the Covenant of Grace or Conditions and Terms of Salvation by the fulfilling whereof men might be saved Thus the Arminians used to speak That Christ died viam salutis pandere to open a way for Mens Salvation to purchase conditions whereupon they might be saved whereas before their Salvation was impossible by reason of the Curse or Sentence of the Law of Works Act. Syn. Dort Art 2. Remon Christus merito mortis suae Deum Patrem universo generi humano hactenus reconciliavit ut Pater propter ipsius meritum salva justitia veritate sua novum gratiae foedus cum peccatoribus damnationi obnoxiis hominibus inire sancire potuerit voluerit Thus Mr. Baxter faith That Christ purchased Justification and life to be given by his New Covenant not that he purchased these absolutely to be certainly given to any persons but that he purchased a Covenant or Law of Grace whereby these are promised upon condition of Faith and Obedience And this must be the sence if any of those that assert Christ dying for all men to make them salvabiles salvable and to render their Salvation possible being impossible before while the Law of Works stood in such sorce For before Christ's death Mens Salvation was possible to God no new power was acquired to him and possible in its self Men being subjects naturally capable of Salvation this possibility then must be a possibility in Law as we say id possumus quod jure possumus that Christ purchased a Law and grant of Salvation upon certain Terms whereby it now became possible for all Men to be saved if they should have sufficient notice of it This Opinion is a little more plausible but no more true than the former which I thus prove 1. It cannot be conceived how Christ did purchase this Covenant according to the rest of their Notions The occasion or ground of this Purchase was That God was bound by his own Law of Works violated by Men to condemn them without Mercy Now then could this Obligation be dissolved without satisfaction to and fulfilling that Law which yet they will not allow Christ to have done unless per accidens as part of it is comprised in that special Law of Mediator which was given to him If it was the Law which hindered God from shewing mercy and made mans Salvation impossible then that Law doth oblige God to see it fulfilled or else to grant no life to Sinners and if Christ did not fulfil it nor was made properly subject to it as they teach then he could not properly purchase a Covenant of life if he did fulfil it for sinners then they must be discharged by his satisfaction without further conditions imposed on them as hath been often said They say the Law of Works was neither abolished nor fulfille by Christ but relaxed I suppose they mean That God did not insist upon the absolute performance of the Law but was pleased to admit of an aequivalent reparation of his Honour by the Obedience of Christ to that Law which he should impose on him wherein should be comprehended a great part of the Moral Law I reply If God did relax the Law so as not to require the proper fulfilling of it then he did lose the obligation which was laid upon him to see it fulfilled The ordinate or relative Justice of God obliged him to proceed according to that Law and if he admitted of another way of reparation to his Honour he did not proceed in a way of Justice in all that he laid upon Jesus Christ and he might as well have saved Man without the Obedience of Christ as with it his Justice or Law allowing that relaxation no more than a total superseding or laying aside the Law by this purchase therefore they can mean no more but that Jesus Christ did so honour the Father by his Obedience and Sufferings that he might with Decorum to his Majesty give to Sinners terms of Salvation and would do it but this is no purchase which transferreth a legal right to the Purchaser if the Purchase be accepted but dependeth meerly upon Promise or Terms of Honour It is also great presumption for Men to judge what is becomming Divine Majesty and what will salve his Honour other then what is according to his Law or Promise wherers here they make him to wave his own declared Law founded in the highest reason and equity 2ly Nor in this sence is the death
of Christ a ransome satisfaction or propitiation A ransome respecteth persons to be redeemed it is a price given for them not for Laws and Covenants Whoever paid a ransome without agreeing to whom it should extend and that it should take certain effect whereas here is nothing purchased but a Covenant or Promise that all those that believe and obey the Gospel should be saved which perhaps might be none nor was it agreed how long the World should stand and so what number of Men should be made or should need or be capable of this Redemption A satisfaction to God in this case is a satisfaction to his Law whereby the Sinner must immediately be discharged A Propitiation is a Sacrifice appeasing and reconciling God to Man neither of which it done if only a Promise be procured to save Men upon their fulfilling the conditions of a New Law 3ly If Christ only purchased a Covenant of life then his Redemption is much more in-effectual to fave than Adam's Fall was to destroy Man The Apostle Rom. 5.17 18 20. comparing the Death of Christ with Adam's Fall saith As Sin reigned to death so Grace much more reigneth to life as Sin abounded to condemnation Grace much more aboundeth to justification and life but where is this much more the Obedience of Christ falls far short of Adam's Disobedience in its effects if he only purchased conditions of life Adam in a few moments by one transgression procured a sentence of certain death upon every individual person that should naturally descend from him as soon as they should have a Being but Jesus Christ by his transcendent Obedience of thirty four years by induring the Wrath of God the rage of Men and Devils and a most ignominious death purchased life for no one certain Man but only conditions whereupon they that should hear of them not half Mankind should be saved if they did fulfil them which for any thing he purchased or was contained in the Covenant of life was a meer contingency viz. whether any should ever believe and be saved or not 4ly If Christ only purchased a Covenant of life then he purchased no more for the Elect than for others no more for the Sheep than the goats and they that go to Heaven may hereafter say Christ redeemed them no more than he did those in Hell the difference betwixt them proceeded from their applying and performing the Covenant and its conditions which others neglected For the Covenant is equal to all that hear it promising life upon conditions only which every one is equally concerned in alike capable of Salvation and one no more likely to perform the conditions than another The Arminians grant this that Christ died for all alike Syn. Dordr Ibid. Th. 2. Heterodox Christi mortem impetrasse omnibus hominibus restitutionem in statum gratiae salutis 5ly It follows also That for any efficacy there was in the death of Christ there must have been no man saved For the Covenant of Grace which only he purchased would have been as true and as firm a Covenant viz. That they should be saved who would believe and obey the Gospel though no man had fulfilled it and so been saved by it as the Covenant of Works was which according to them was never fulfilled nor ever gave life to any The Covenant required no more then that God should be ready faithfully to give eternal life ro all that fulfilled it and all that Christ purchased was a Promise that he would so be which would have been true though all men had perished by their unbelief and so Christ might have had the empty Title of a Redeemer without any person being redeemed by him And this Arminius Gravirch and others are not ashamed to confess Arnoldus contra Molin Omnino credo futurum fuisse ut finis mortis Christi constaret etiamsi nemo credidisset Some of ours fay That God had his Elect whom he purposed to bring to Christ and save by him But the Scriptures are as express that Christ died for the Elect as that God elected them And if Christ purchased no more for them then for others they might have perished as well as others for any thing his Redemption or Purchase could do for them or had done 6ly If Christ intended his death for certain particular persons then he purchased more than a meer covenant or conditions of Life The consequence is evident If he purchased life to be given to certain men certainly infallibly then he purchased more than offer of life to them upon conditions which they might or might not perform The Minor That Christ in his death intended the redemption of certain particular persons the Scriptures assirm He laid down his Life for the Sheep Joh. 10.15 16. even for those of the Gentiles that were not of the Jewish Fold and so yet knew him not And the effects of this laying down his life for them was on purpose to call them in due time v. 16. to teach and make them follow him v. 27. and to keep them safe to life eternal by his own and the Fathers power v. 28 29. and from these Sheep are distinguished those who are not of his Sheep and therefore all means are ineffectual to make them believe v. 25 26. He died to gather together in one all the Children of God Joh. 11.52 that were scattered abroad i. e. all the Elect of God dispersed throughout all Nations And the Apostle Paul saith of himself He loved me and gave himself for me Gal. 2.30 Therefore Christ redeemed particular persons and did not only purchase Grants and Covenants 7ly Christ purchased the Spirit and Grace to make his Death effectual to those he died for therefore he purchased more than a Covenant of Grace A meer Covenant of Grace only promiseth Life upon conditions of Faith and Obedience leaving it to men whether they will perform them or not as the Covenant of Works promised life to perfect obedience and then left it to Adam whether he would obey or not A meer Covenant makes no provision of grace and strength to enable men to perform it If then Christ purchased grace to believe and to obey for the Elect he purchased more than a Covenant of Grace and that he did so hath been partly proved and may be further evidenced by this That when Christ saith he laid down his life for the Sheep Joh. 10.16 c. he presently adds he must bring home all the Sheep and make one Fold under one Shepheard himself and that he will make them follow him and will preserve and lead them to Eternal Life and no Wolves shall pluck them out of his hand v. 27 28 29. Also that he died to gather into one all the Children of God This must be done by his Spirit and Grace purchased by his Redemption and that power which is given to him not only to purchase but also to apply the blessed Fruits of Redemption to them Thus our