when Noah offered up his burnt-offerings to God The Lord smelled a sweet savor c. Gen. 8.21 So when Christ offered up himself a sacrifice of atonement the Lord smelled a savor of rest and was fully satisfied for the sins of his people 3 There is no reason can be given why those words should be terminated to the person of Christ seeing that God was never displeased with him nor had our Saviour any doubt or suspition of it and therefore it was altogether needless that God should declare his well-pleasedness to him in his own person 4 The well-pleasedness of God is to be extended unto them for whom Christ offered up his sacrifice but Christ did not offer up his sacrifice for himself but onely for sinners Ergo. § 3. Well haec non successit alia aggrediamur via his next Exception therefore is That if we should extend it unto men the exception 2 words prove no more then that it is through Christ that God is well pleased with men whensoever it be that he is well pleased So that in his sense I am well pleased is as much as I will be well pleased with them when they have performed the terms and conditions required on their part A gloss which I dare say was never dreamed of by any Expositor before himself Here 1 let the Reader observe how bold he makes with the Holy Ghost for when God tells us he is well pleased to say no he is not now but he will hereafter is not to interpret but contradict the Scripture 2 His gloss contradicts it self for if our reconciliation with God doth depend upon terms and conditions performed by us then it is not through Christ alone that God is well pleased with men whensoever it is and Christ is at most but a partial cause of our reconciliation § 4. But to render his Paraphrase more probable he hath cited divers other places where as he pretends Verbs and Participles of the Present tense have the signification of the future Though says he the Verb in this place be not the Present tense but the first Aorist though it be the Aorist what is that to the purpose seeing as every School-boy knows the Aorists have the signification of the Preterperfect tense and not of the Future and if that enunciation will hold in the Preterperfect tense as Beza grants then is it much more true in the Present tense But to his Allegations I answer 1 That in most of his instances there is no necessity to feign a change of Tenses as John 4.25 Messiah cometh i. e. The promise of the Messiah draws nigh to be fulfilled So Chap. 5.25 The hour is coming and now is c. The dead did then hear the voice of the Son of man both in his own and in his Disciples Ministery So 2 Cor. 3.16 the Verbs are most properly rendred in the Present tense When Israel shall or doth turn unto the Lord the vail is taken away for as Cameron notes their Conversion to God doth not precede the taking away of the vail but both are at the same time Rom. 8.24 By hope we are saved The enunciation is true and emphatical in the Present tense for in many other places the Saints are said to be saved and to have eternal life whilest they are in the body John 3.36 5.24 6.54 56. Col. 2.10 Eph. 2.5 8. Tit. 3.5 1 John 5.11 12. They have here the beginnings or first-fruits of that Salvation the complement and perfection whereof they as yet do wait for they have now the joy and comfort of their Salvation thorough Faith and Hope because Hope looks upon the promises of God not as doubtful but as sure and certain Heb. 11.1 2. They are now sayed by Hope or they shall never be saved by Hope for Hope that is seen is not Hope in the world to come they are saved by sight and not by Faith or Hope So that Text 1 Cor. 15.57 is most properly rendered Thanks be unto God that giveth or hath given us the victory through Jesus Christ. For the Saints have already obtained victory over death and the grave in Christ their Head Rom. 8.37 In all things we are more then conquerors And John 16.33 Be of good cheer I have overcome the world So Heb. 10.35 Your confidence hath a great recompence of reward to wit In the present effects which it did produce as inward peace joy c. according to that of the Psalmist Psal. 19.11 In keeping thy statutes there is great reward But 2 if I should grant what he desires that in all these places there were an Heterosis of Tenses for I acknowledge this trope is frequent in Scripture yet this great flourish will amount to nothing unless he had shewn by the circumstances of the Text or the nature of the thing that it must be so expounded here for if men had liberty to feign Enalloges of Numbers Cases and Tenses at their pleasure it were easie to elude the meaning of the plainest Texts § 5. 3 Those words Heb. 11.6 Without Faith it is impossible to please God do not conclude what he would have them to wit That God is not wel-pleased with his Elect in Christ before they do believe for the Apostle speaks there of mens works and actions and not of their persons No man can please God without Faith no not Believers themselves their Religious Services are not pleasing to God unless they are done in Faith for bonum est ex causa integra Now Faith is a principal ingredient in the Saints obedience for if it be not done in Faith it is not done in love Gal. 5 6. And consequently it is not fruit unto God Rom 7.4 Gods wel-pleasedness with his Elect is the immediate effect of the death of Christ for that which raised a partition wall between God and them was the breach of the Law now when the Law was satisfied for their sins this partition was broken down his favor had as free a current as if they had not sinned And therefore the blotting out of our sin and our reconciliation with God is ascribed solely and immediately to the death of Christ as in many other Scriptures so particularly Ephes. 1.6 7. 2.13 14. Col. 1.20 21. 2.13 14. 2 Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself he did not onely act towards it as Mr. W. glossed those words in his Sermon but saith the Text he did not impute their sins unto them for whom Christ died The actual blotting out of sin sayes Mr. Perkins doth inseparably depend upon satisfaction for sins and satisfaction with God doth necessarily imply the very real and general abolishment of the guilt and punishment of sin That which makes our persons acceptable to God is the Righteousnes of Jesus Christ but now our actions are not pleasing unless they are conformable to the rule and all necessary circumstances do concur the cheif whereof is
controversie would be but a meer Tautology for though it be the same Justification wherewith we are iustified in the sight of God and in the Court of Conscience yet the terms are not equipollent and convertible but do admit of distinct considerations though he that is justified in foro conscientiae is also justified in foro Dei yet every one that is justified in foro Dei is not justified in foro conscientiae § 3. Now according to these several Senses which are given of this forementioned phrase it will be easie to resolve the third Query concerning the time of our Justification when we were justified in the sight of God 1. If we take it in this last Construction I shall grant That we are not justified in the sight of God before we believe We do not know nor can we plead the benefits and comforts of this Blessed Priviledge until we do believe it is by Faith that the Righteousness of God is revealed to us and it is by his knowledge notitia sui that Christ doth justifie us or inables us to plead not guilty to all the Indictments and Menaces of the Law But 2. if we refer it to the justice of God which I conceive to be the most proper and genuine use of it we were justified in the sight of God when Christ exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his Blood for all our sins that ransome of his set them for whom he died free from the Curse of the Law cleansed them from all their sins and presented them holy blameless and unreproveable in the sight of God so that the eye of Divine Justice cannot behold in them the least spot of sin This perfect cleansing is the sole and immediate effect of the death of Christ in regard that no other cause concurs therewith in producing of it 3. If we refer it to the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed or determined in himself not to impute to us our sins or to inflict those punishments upon us which our sins deserve but contrariwise to deal with us as righteous persons having given us the Righteousness of his own Son God doth certainly know whatsoever he wills Now God having from all eternity absolutely and immutably willed the Righteousness of his Son to all his Elect he saw or knew them to be righteous in his Righteousness even when he willed it § 4. For the clearer understanding of the Point in question I shall give in my Judgement concerning it as distinctly as I can in three Propositions proposition 1 The first shall be this That Justification is taken variously in the Scripture but more especially Pro volitione divina pro re volita as the Schools do speak 1 For the Will of God not to punish or impute sin unto his people and 2 for the effect of Gods Will to wit His not punishing or his setting of them free from the Curse of the Law That Justification is put for the effect of Gods will or the thing willed by that Internal Act to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment I suppose there is none will question the onely scruple that can arise is Whether the Will of God not to punish or charge sin upon a person is or may be called Justification I confess to the end that I might not offend the weak I have been sparing of calling this immanent act of God by the name of Justification and the rather because some gross mistakes have sought for shelter under the wings of this expression As 1 that absurd conceit That Christ came not to satisfie the justice but onely to manifest the love of God which yet hath not the least countenance from our Doctrine seeing that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish his Elect we say That the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no less then for the sins of others And 2 their notion who upon this ground have asserted the Eternal Being of the Creature whereunto they were driven because they could not answer that Consequence Justificatus est Ergo Est which holds not in terminis diminuent ibus whether à priori as Electus est Ergo Est or à posteriori Mortuus est Ergo Est. Yet I must profess That I look upon Dr. Twisse his judgement in this point as most accurate who placeth the very essence and quiddity of Justification in the Will of God not to punish Mr. Kendal though he makes Justification to be a declared sentence or transient act of God yet he grants That Gods Will or Decree to remit our sins carries in it a remission of them tan◠amount for who shall charge them on us if God decree to remit them And again This Decree hath so much in it that looks so well like unto Justification that is may be called so without Blasphemy But I see no inconvenience at all but rather very much reason to adhere unto the Doctors definition That Justification is the Will of God not to punish 1. Because the definition which the Holy Ghost gives us of Justification is most properly applied to this act of God It is a certain rule Definitum est cui convenit definitio that is Justification whereunto the definition of Justification doth agree The definition which the Psalmist and from him the Apostle gives of Justification is Gods non-imputing of sin and his imputing of righteousness unto a person Psal. 32.1 2. Rom. 4.6 8. Now when God willeth not to punish a person he doth not impute sin to him The original words both in the Old and New Testament whereby imputation is signified do make it more clear for both of them do signifie an act of the minde or will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used by the Psalmist is properly to think repute esteem or account and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same signification it is usually applied to Accountants who when they have cast up many sums do set down at the foot what they do amount unto So when a man hath accounted with himself the loss and benefit conveniencies and inconveniencies that may accrue unto him the result and issue of his deliberation is significantly expressed by this word it notes a stedfast purpose and resolution Quae quasi rationibus subductis explicatis conclusa est it is opposed unto a doubtful and uncertain opinion It notes either the purpose or determination of one alone or the consent and agreement of two between themselves whereof Camerarius gives us an instance out of Zenophon This word is fitly used to signifie this immanent act of God for though he doth not purpose and resolve in that manner as men do by comparing things together or by reasoning and concluding one thing out of another yet are his purposes much more firm and immutable Mal. 3.6 Jam. 1.17 Numb 23.19 The Lord therefore did non-impute sin
a Stone or other Creatures which are not capable of sinning but Privative being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse as the imputation of Righteousness is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentiâ The difference between these is as great as between a mans will not to require that debt that shall or is about to be contracted and his will not to require any thing of one that never did nor will ow him any thing 2 This non-imputation of sin is actual though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being in like manner the imputation of Righteousness is actual though the Righteousness to be imputed is not actual Man whose thoughts arise de novo doth non-impute usually after the commission of a fault but for God who is without any shadow of change and turning so to do is absolutely impossible for as much as there cannot arise any new will or new thought in the heart of God 3 This act of justifying is compleat in it self for God by his eternal and unchangeable Will not imputing sin to his Elect none can impute it and he in like manner imputing Righteousness none can hinder it Neither doth this render the death of Christ useless which is necessary by the Ordinance of God as a meritorious cause of all the effects of this Justification even as the eternal Love of God is compleat in it self but yet is Christ the meritorious cause of all the effects of it Eph. 1.3 4. And therefore we say § 7. 2. That if Justification be taken as most commonly it proposition 2 is not for the Will of God but for the thing willed by this immanent act of his to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Though there be no cause of the former out of God himself for the merits of Christ do not move God to will not to punish or impute sin unto us yet is Christ the meritorious cause of the latter It is from the vertue of his Sacrifice that the obligation of the Law is made void and the punishments therein threatned do not fall upon us By his death he obtained in behalf of all the Elect not a remote possible or conditional reconciliation but an actual absolute and immediate reconciliation as shall be proved anon And in this respect all that were given unto Christ by the Father may be said to be justified at his death not onely virtually but formally for the discharge of a debt is formally the discharge of the debtor Their discharge from the Law was not to be sub termino or in Diem but present and immediate it being impossible that a debt should be discharged and due at the same time We acknowledge That the effects of this discharge from the Law may be said to be sub termino or in Diem As for instance from that full satisfaction and perfect Righteousness which Christ hath performed there arise these two things One is The non-execution of the desert of sin which we continually commit upon us That whereas the Reprobate sin and upon their sin the curse with all the evils included in it is upon them The Elect likewise sinning yet for Christs sake the curse or evil of suffering is not inflicted upon them which non-punishing quoad effectum is forgiving and not imputing sin And in this sense God is frequently said to forgive when he doth not inflict punishment and in this sense also he is said often to forgive The other is The imputation of Righteousness in the effects of it whereby the effects of a true and perfect Righteousness come upon the people of God to wit All good things both for this life and that which is to come yea those things which seem to be evil and hurtful as their falls and afflictions are ordered by the over-ruling hand of a wise and powerful Providence to work together for good unto them These effects are immediate in respect of causality though not of time for though God doth not presently bestow them but as he sees fit both for his own glory and for their good yet do they immediately slow from the merit of Christ in regard there is no other meritorious cause that intervenes and concurs therewith in procuring of them Notwithstanding we say That our discharge from the Law must needs be immediate and present with the price or satisfaction that was paid for it in regard That it implies a contradiction a debt should be paid and discharged and yet justly chargable But of this we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter § 8. 3. Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution proposition 3 and forgiveness And thus God is said to justifie men when he reveals and makes known to them his Grace and Kindness within himself And in this sense do most of our Divines take Justification defining it The declared sence of absolution and not improperly For in Scripture phrase as was noted before things are then said to be when they are declared and manifested the declaring of things is expressed in such wise as if it made them to be whereof many instances might be given a very plain one there is Gen. 41.13 Pharaohs cheif Butler speaking of Josephs interpretation Me says he he restored and him i. e. the Baker he hanged whereas he did but declare these successes unto them So God is said to justifie his people when he manifests and reveals to them that mercy and forgiveness which before was hidden in his own heart to wit that he doth not impute their sins but contrariwise doth impute Righteousness unto them Now the Lord at sundry times and divers ways hath and doth declare and manifest this precious Grace unto his people 1 More Generally towards all his Elect and 2 more Particularly to individuals or numerical persons The former is done 1 in the Word of God and 2 in his Works and Actions § 9. First God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to his people in his Word The Gospel or New Covevant being an absolute promise as we shall shew anon may be fitly termed a Declarative Sentence of Absolution unto all the Elect to whom alone it doth belong the publication of the New Covenant is their Justification For which cause Maccovius makes Justification to Commence from the first promise which was pronounced before the curse So that if Adam had not been a publick person including both the Elect and Reprobate there had been no curse at all pronounced save onely upon the Serpent or Satan in reference to this promise it was that the Apostle saith The Grace of God 2 Tim. 1.9 and eternal life Tit. 1.2 was given to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not signifie eternity as our Translators carry it but the beginning of time it is of the same latitude with 〈◊〉
it and declared himself well pleased and satisfied therewith Matth. 3.17 Isa. 42.1 Insomuch that God hath thereupon covenanted and sworn that he will never remember their sins nor be wrath with them any more Isa. 43.25 54.9 10. Fourthly That by this Ransom of his they are freed and delivered from the curse of the Law Gal. 4.4 3.13 Our Adversaries say That he paid the price for their Redemption but with no intent that they should be immediately and absolutely freed which is often boldly affirmed and as slenderly proved But why not immediately and absolutely There is saith Mr. W. a compact and agreement between the Father and the Son when he undertook to be our Surety that his death should not be available for the actual reconciliation of sinners till they have performed the terms and conditions required on their part Sed hoc restat probandum and I am perswaded will till the worlds end Let them shew us this Covenant and Agreement and we are satisfied till this be done we shall think our proofs sufficient and that the force of those Allegations is no whit invalidated by this Crude Assertion I confess I have heard much talk of this Suspensive Covenant but hitherto I have not had the hap to meet with that Author that hath attempted to make it forth though I might justly be excused from the labor of proving the Negative seeing that it lies upon our Adversaries to clear it up That there was such a compact and agreement made between the Father and the Son that his death should not be available to the immediate reconciliation of sinners but onely upon conditions performed by them Yet because I intend not any other Reply and that Mr. W. may see I do not dissent because he hath said and not proved it which in controverted points were ground enough I shall offer him the Reasons which as yet do sway my Judgement to believe the contrary CHAP. XIV Of the Covenant between the Father and the Son concerning the immediate effects of Christs death THe Reasons which perswade me to believe That there was not any Covenant passed between God and Christ to hinder the immediate and actual reconciliation of Gods Elect by his death and to suspend this effect thereof upon terms and conditions to be performed by them but contrariwise that it was the will both of God and of Christ that his death should be available to their immediate and actual Reconciliation and Justification without any condition performed on their part Are as followeth First There is no such Covenant doth appear Ergo there is none Non est Scriptum Ergo There is no such thing hath hitherto been counted a good Argument amongst Christians It is not possible says Damascene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To speak ought of God beside the things which are divinely manifested in the Old and New Testament If there be any such Covenant let our Adversaries shew it and until they do we shall rest securely in the Negative they must pardon us if we yeeld not up our Faith to unwritten Verities Secondly The Covenant made between God and Christ was That upon giving up of himself to death he should purchase a Seed like the Stars of Heaven i. e. All the Elect of God Isa. 53.10 And our Saviour Christ after that he had tasted death to bring many sons unto glory boasts and glories in this atchievement Heb. 2.13 Behold I and the children whom God hath given me Ergo It was the Will of God that his death should be available for their immediate reconciliation for they could not be the children of Christ and the children of wrath at the same time § 2. Thirdly If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities then was it his Will that our discharge procured thereby should be immediate but it was the Will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debts and a full satisfaction for our iniquities Ergo. I suppose the Assumption will not be questioned for though the word satisfaction be not used in Scripture yet the thing it self is plainly signified in those phrases of Redemption Atonement Reconciliation and in like manner all those places which declare that Christ died for us and for our sins and offences do imply the same scil That the death of Christ was the payment of our debts and the punishment of our sins that thereby he satisfied the Law for all those wrongs injuries we have done unto it Now the Sequel is evident If God willed that the death of Christ should be a full and satisfactory payment of our demerits then he willed that the discharge procured thereby should be immediate and present for it is contrary to Justice and Equity that a debt when it is payed should be charged either upon the Surety or Principal and therefore though God did will that the other effects of Christs death as it is the meritorious price of Faith Holiness Glory c. should be sub termino or in Diem not Present but Future yet he willed that this effect of it to wit our discharge from sin and the curse should be present and immediate because it implies a contradiction that the same debt should be paid and not paid that it should be discharged and yet justly chargable As when a man that is a Trespasser or any one for him payes a sum of money which is sufficient both for discharge of his trespass as also for the purchase of a peece of Land From the trespass his discharge must be present if the satisfaction be full though the enjoyment of the Land may be in Diem as the Vendee and Purchaser can agree the Case before us is the very same The death of Christ was both a price and a ransom it served both to pay our debts and to procure our happiness he did thereby purchase both our deliverance from sin and death and all those Spiritual Blessings present and future which we stand in need of The discharge of our debts and deliverance from punishment must needs be present and immediate upon the payment of the price though those Spiritual Blessings be not received till a long time after as God and Christ shall see it fit to bestow them on us To this I shall adde a fourth § 3. Fourthly If nothing hindered the reconciliation of the Elect with God but the breach of the Law then the Law being satisfied it was the Will of God that they should be immediately reconciled but nothing hindred their reconciliation with God but the breach of the Law Ergo. It was sin alone that made a distance or separation between God and them Isa. 59.2 For which cause it is compared to a cloud or mist Isa. 44.22 to a partition wall Ephes. 2.14 It lay as a block in the way that God could not salva
are justified by performing the conditions required of us which in effect makes men their own Saviours as before 5 He recedes very far both from the meaning and expressions of all our Orthodox Writers who do constantly call our Saviour a common person but never that I finde the exemplary cause of our Justification I shall onely refer the Reader to what his Grand-father Parker hath written of this matter who hath copiously and learnedly proved both from Scripture and the Fathers That Christ no less then the first Adam was made a common person by the Ordination of God and his own voluntary undertaking who took our sins upon him as if they had been his own and for the same made full satisfaction to Divine Justice and consequently received as full a discharge in our behalf 6 This expression of his savors rankly both of Pelagianism and Socinianism The Pelagians as they made the first Adam a meer pattern and example in communicating sin to his posterity so they made the second Adam but the pattern and example of our reconciliation Those words 2 Cor. 5.18 Who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ they expounded by his Doctrine and by his Example i. e. By our obedience to his Doctrine and by imitatâ—ng his example The Socinians do speak the same Language Christus ideo servator noster dicitur quod salutis viam nobis annunciavit quod salutis viam nobis confirmavit miraculorum patratione sanguinis effusione resurrectione à mortuis quod vitae exemplo viam salutis nobis ostendit Christ is therefore called a Saviour because by his Life and Doctrine he hath shewed us the way of Salvation and by his Miracles and Sufferings hath confirmed the same I am sorry to hear the Language of Ashdod from the mouth of a Protestant Minister § 4. The excuse which he gives for calling our Saviour the exemplary cause of our Justification rather then a common person is both fallacious and impertinent I use saith he the term of an exemplary cause rather then of a common person because a common person may be the effect of those whom he represents as the Parliament of the Commonwealth 1. It is fallacious dealing under pretence of giving a more significant term to leave out that wherein the force of the Argument lay He seems to intimate that the phrases are of equal latitude that an exemplary cause doth express as much as a common person which is cleerly false for the act of the Exemplar is not the act of the Imitator as the act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents which in Law is accounted as if it had been done by them Parents and Superiors are examples to their Children and Inferiors they are not common persons as Adam was to all his posterity In whose loyns saith the Apostle we all sinned and in this respect he is made a figure of Christ Rom. 5.14 Whose Righteousness is accounted unto them for whom he died as Adams sin was accounted unto us when as yet we were not 2. It is impertinent for though Christ be not the effect of them whom he represents yet that hinders not but that his discharge was theirs no less then if he had been chosen by them I can see no reason why the act of God constituting and appointing his Son to be the Head Surety and Common Person to all his Elect should not be as effectual for the communication of his benefits to them as their own choice and election We did not chuse Adam to be our common person and yet his sin was imputed to us so though we did not chuse the Lord Jesus to stand in our stead that is no reason why his Righteousness and Satisfaction should not be accounted ours § 5. The instances he hath brought from our Personal Resurrection and Inherent Sanctification to render this Argument absurd have not the least force to conclude against the efficacy of Christs Satisfaction for our immediate discharge from sin and wrath It doth not follow that because we did not personally rise with Christ and were not inherently sanctified in his Sanctification Ergo. We had not in his Resurrection an actual discharge from the guilt of sin there is not the like reason for these For to our actual discharge there needed no more then the payment of our debt or satisfaction to the Law of God but our personal resurrection necessarily supposeth both our life and death Again our Inherent Sanctification cannot be without our personal existence and the use of those means which God hath appointed for that end but our Justification is wrought without us and for us Though Christ hath fully merited our Sanctification and Resurrection to glory in which respect we are said to be crucified with him and to be risen with Christ as well as our Justification yet it is not necessary that these benefits should be communicated to us at the same time and in the same manner It is no such absurdity to say Christ hath purchased our Resurrection though we are not risen as to say Christ hath purchased our discharge and yet we are not discharged for as hath been shewn to say a debt is discharged and yet that it is justly chargable implies a contradiction Let the Reader judge whether the Assertion that follows be not much more confident then solid No man living can shew any reason of difference as if he were master of as much Reason as all men living why we may not as justly infer that our Resurrection is passed already because we are risen in Christ as that our Justication is passed before we believe because we are justified in Christ. Enough hath been said to evict the disproportion of these consequences § 6. 2. His next distinction is That Justification is either Causal and Virtual or Actual and Formal We were saith he causally and virtually justified in Christs Justification but not actually and formally Our Protestant Divines do generally place the formale of Justification in the non-imputation of sin Now if our sins were formally imputed unto Christ even to a full Satisfaction they could not formally be imputed unto us also unless a debt discharged by a Surety can be justly reckoned unto him that did first contract it It is true a debt may be imputed both to Principal and Surety before it be discharged but after to neither It is granted by all Orthodox Writers That our Saviour by giving himself to death made full satisfaction to the utmost farthing for all the sins or debts of Gods Elect. Now I say the discharge of a debt is formally the discharge of the debtor unless we speak of an outward formality such as is by an Acquittance which serves but either against the unfaithfulness of the creditor who otherwise would deny the payment or else against the ignorance of the debtor who being not at the payment might still look upon himself as a debtor and lyable
in Christ nor any more benefit by his death then reprobates till they did believe and that they are but dreamers who do conceit the contrary I know not what could be spoken more contradictory to many plain Scriptures which shall be mentioned anone more derogatory to the full atonement which Christ hath made by his Death and more disconsolatory to the souls of men in laying the whole weight of their Salvation upon an uncertain condition of their own performing And therefore after the Exercise was fully ended I desired the Minister that Preached that with his leave and the patience of the Congregation I might remonstrate the insufficiency of his Grounds or Reasons to uphold the Doctrine he had delivered three of which I took more especial notice of One was drawn from the parallel between the first and the second Adam As men said he are not guilty of Adams sin till they have a Being so the Elect have no benefit by Christ till they have a Being whereunto he added those old Philosophical Maxims Non entis non sunt accidentia and Accidentis esse est inesse Another was That where there is no union there can be no communion but there is no union between Christ and the Elect before they believe Therefore the Elect have no communion and participation in the benefits of Christs death before they have a Being and do believe in him The proof of the Assumption was managed thus The union between Christ and the Saints is a personal union which cannot be supposed till their persons have a Being A third ground upon which he laid the greatest stress was to this purpose The Elect have no benefit by Christ before they do believe because God hath made a Covenant with his Son That they for whom he died should be admitted to partake of the Benefits of his death by Faith § 6. Whereunto my Replies were to this effect I told him that I conceived his first Allegation made very much against him For if the Righteousness of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto Justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation as the Apostle shews it doth Rom. 5. Then it must follow That the Righteousness of Christ was reckoned or imputed to the Elect before they had a Being and then much more before they do believe in him for it is evident that Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation before they had a Being for by that first transgression sayes the Apostle vers 12. Sin entered into the world And more plainly Death passed upon all men The Reason follows because in him or in his loyns all have sinned Now as in Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is All that shall perish were constituted sinners before they had a Being by reason of the imputation of his disobedience to them so in Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that shall be saved were constituted righteous his obedience being imputed unto them by God before they had any Being otherwise then in him as their Head and common Person There is a late Writer who tells us that there is not the same Reason for the imputation of Christs Righteousness to all the Elect before they believe as there is for the imputation of Adams sin unto his posterity before they have a Being Because says he the issues of the first Covenant fell upon Adams posterity in a natural and necessary way but the issues of Christs death do come to us in a supernatural way But this Reason seems to me to be of small validity for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed unto none until they are actually propagated and the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate Parents as they do from Adam so that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernatural way i. e. By vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him as a common person in behalf of all his posterity and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience descend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ as a common person in their behalf and therefore unless they can shew any Proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flow as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Argument will stand in force But to return to my discourse with Mr. Warren I added That those Logical axioms non entis c. have no force at all in the present Controversie It doth not follow that Christs Righteousness cannot be imputed to us before we have an actual created Being because accidents cannot subsist without their Subjects for as much as imputed Righteousness is not an accident inherent in us and consequently doth not necessarily require our existence Christ is the Subject of this Righteousness and the imputation of it is an act of God Now the Apostle hath observed That God in justifying and imputing Righteousness calleth things that are not as if they were Rom. 4.17 As the Righteousness of Christ was actually imputed to the Patriarks before it was wrought and our sins were actually imputed to Christ before they were committed so I see no inconvenience to say That Christs Righteousness is by God imputed to the Elect before they have a Being § 7. As to his second Reason before mentioned I excepted as I conceive but justly 1. Against his calling our union with Christ a personal union which seems to favor that absurd notion That a believer loseth not onely his own proper life but his personality also and is taken up into the Nature and Person of the Son of God Divines do call our union with Christ a Mystical and Spiritual union because it is secret and invisible to be apprehended by Faith and not by Sense or Reason but the Hypostatical or Personal union is proper unto Christ in whom the Divine and Humane Nature do constitute but one Person 2. Against his Assertion proposed Universally That there is no manner of union between Christ and the Elect before they do believe for though there be not that conjugal union between them which consists in the mutual consent of parties yet is there such a true and real union that by means thereof their sins do become Christs and Christs Righteousness is made theirs God from everlasting constituted and ordained Christ and all the Elect to be as it were one Heap or Lump one Vine one Body or Spiritual Corporation wherein Christ is the Head and they the Members Christ the Root and they the Branches Christ the First Fruits and they the residue of the Heap In respect of this union it is That they are said to be given
Aphorisms who denies That Christs obedience is the material the imputation of his Righteousness the formal cause of our Justification or that Faith is the Instrument by which we do receive it he plainly ascribes the same kinde of causality unto Christ and Faith making them to differ onely secundum magis minus that Christ is the sine qua non principalis and Faith the sine qua non minus principalis he might have listed sin in the same rank which too is a sine qua non of our Justification That Faith and works in a larger sence are meritorious causes of Life and Blessedness Now we say with Mr. Cr. 1 That God is the efficient cause or the onely Justifier that he hath no motive or inducement but his own Grace and Love to will not to punish us and to give to us his Son thorow whom we have Redemption◠and Deliverance from the curse of the Law We say too 2 that Christ is the onely meritorious cause of our Justification taking Justification pro re volita for a transient effect of the Will of God that Jesus Christ hath by his death and satisfaction fully procured and merited our Discharge and Absolution from the penalty of the Law which we deserved by sin For which cause he is said to have purged our sins by himself i. e. Without the help and assistance of other means Heb. 1.3 There are many who ore tenùs in word do acknowledge That Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification that in deed do deny it The Papists in the Councel of Trent say That God is the efficient the glory of God the final the death of Christ the meritorious cause of our Justification But yet we know that they allow not this effect unto it unless other things do concur on our parts they say That Faith Charity c. do Impetrare remissionem suo quidem modo mereri Obtain and after a sort merit forgiveness though not by their own worth and dignity yet by vertue of Gods Covenant and Promise Too many of our Protestants setting aside the word merit which yet Mr. B. thinks may be admitted do tread directly in their steps they ascribe as much unto works as Papists do It is a poor requital unto Jesus Christ to call him the Meritorious cause of our Justification and in the mean while to deny the merit of his death as to the immediate purchases thereof and to ascribe at least a partial meritoriousness to other things 3 I shall go further with Mr. Cr. I freely grant him which I believe Mr. W. will stick at That Faith is the Instrument by which we receive and apply the Righteousness of Christ unto our selves whereby the gratious sentence of God acquitting us from our sins is conveyed and terminated in our Consciences We say indeed That Faith doth not concur to our Justification as a proper Physical Instrument which is a less principal Efficient cause Mr. Rutherford saith well That Faith is not the Organical or Instrumental cause either of Christs satisfaction or of Gods acceptation thereof on our behalf By believing we do not cause either our Saviour to satisfie for our sins or God to accept of his satisfaction Every true Believer is perswaded That God hath laid aside his wrath and displeasure towards him for his sins having received a sufficient ransom and satisfaction for them in the death of his Son Sed hoc fides non facit saith he sed objectum jam factum praesupponit Faith is a Receptive not an Effective Instrument an Instrument not to procure but to receive Justification and Salvation which is freely given us in Jesus Christ. It is called an Instrumental cause of our Justification taking Justification passively not actively or in reference to that passive Application whereby a man applies the Righteousness of Christ to himself but not to that active Application whereby God applyeth it to a man which is onely in the minde of God Therefore Calvin calls Faith Opus passivum a passive work § 4. Mr. Cr. proceeds This Doctrine saith he hath in all ages been opposed and obscured sometimes by open Enemies sometimes by professed Friends and such as would be accounted the great Pleaders for Free-grace It is most true That this Article of Free Justification hath and will be a Bone of Contention to the worlds end It is the cheif cause of all those contests and quarrels which have arisen between the Children of the Free-woman and the Children of the Bond-woman Mr. Fox hath well observed It is so strange to carnal Reason so dark to the World it hath so many enemies that except the Spirit of God from above do reveal it Learning cannot reach it Wisdom is offended Nature is astonished Devils do not know it Men do persecute it Satan labors for nothing more then that he may either quite bereave men of the knowledge of this truth or else corrupt the simplicity of it It is not unknown what batteries were raised against it in the very infancy of the Church how the Wits and Passions of men conspired to hinder it what monstrous consequences were charged upon the Doctrine and what odious practises were fathered upon them that did profess it never was any truth opposed with so much malice and bitterness as this hath been and by them especially that were most devout and zealous But when it could not be withstood and stifled Satan endeavored then to deprave and adulterate it by mixing of the Law with the Gospel our own Righteousness with Christs which corruption the Apostle hath strenuously opposed in all his Epistles and more especially in that to the Romans and Galatians where he excludes all and singular works of ours from sharing in the matter of our Justification For the eluding of whose Authority carnal Reason hath found out sundry shifts and distinctions As that the Apostle excludes onely works of Nature but not of Grace Legal but not Evangelical works and that our works though they are not Physical yet they may come in as Moral causes of our Justification It is certain That the most dangerous attempts against this Doctrine have been within the Church and by such as Mr. Cr. calls Professed Friends who have done so much the more mischief in regard they were least apt to be suspected Justification by works was generally exploded amongst us whilest it appeared under the names of Popery and Arminianism which since hath found an easie admittance being vented by some of better note such as would be accounted Pleaders for Free-grace § 5. Mr. Woodbridges Discourse saith Mr. Cr. deals not with the Errors of Papists Socinians Arminians but with Antinomian Error How unjustly our Doctrine is called Antinomian hath been shewn before and Mr. Cr. may be pleased to take notice That Mr. Rutherford accounts the Opinion we oppose the very cheif of the Arminians Socinians and Papists Errors about Justification to wit That
of the Law and by the just judgement of God proceeding against them according to the tenor of the first Covenant So that God need not go about to entangle men who were before fast bound in the shackles of sin and misery the Law condemned them sufficiently though their contempt of the Gospel will aggravate their condemnation Our Saviour had no intent at all to shew the state of the Elect before believing but the certain and inevitable misery of them that believe not by reason of the sentence of the Law which had passed upon them § 4. 2 His next Allegation is as impertinent as this Verse 36. of the same Chapter He that believeth not the wrath of God abideth on him It is evident that our Saviour speaks there of a final unbeliever and not of an Elect person before believing the phrase of the abiding of Gods wrath is applicable to none but unto Reprobates who do perish for ever And to say that the place hints there is a wrath of God which is done away by believing is but an attempt to suborn the Spirit to serve our turn § 5. 3 That which seemes to speak most fully to his cause is Ephes. 2.3 where the Apostle tells the Ephesians whom God had chosen to Eternal life Chap. 1.4 That they were by nature the children of wrath even as others To which I answer 1 That the Text doth not say that God did condemn them or that they were under Condemnation before Conversion 2 The Emphasis of this Text I conceive lies in this clause by nature So then the Apostles meaning is That by nature or in reference to their state in the first Adam from whom by natural propagation they descended They were children of wrath they could expect nothing but wrath and fiery indignation from God Yet this hindered not but that by Grace they might be the Children of his Love for so all the Elect are whilest they are in their blood and pollution Ezek. 16.4 8. The Lord calls them his Sons and Children before Conversion Isai. 43.6 53.11 8.18 Heb. 2.9 For it is not any Inherent qualification but the good pleasure of God that makes them his Children Ephes. 1.5 Rom. 8.29 John 17.6 Believers considered in themselves and as they come from the loyns of Adam are sinful and cursed Creatures as vile and wretched as the Devil himself though in Christ they behold themselves made righteous and blessed It is granted That Elect Infants have the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them though they know it not and I see no reason that can be given why it should not be imputed to the rest of the Elect before Conversion § 6. Although the Elect are freed from wrath and condemnation yet in some sence they may be said to be under it in regard that the Law doth terrifie and affright their consciences Rom. 4.15 In which respect it is called A ministration of wrath and of death 2 Cor. 3.7 9. The wrath of God hath a threefold acception in the Scripture 1. It signifies the most just and immutable Will of God to deal with a person or persons according to the tenor of the Law and to inflict upon them the punishment which their sins shall deserve And in this sence none but Reprobates are under wrath who for this cause are said to be hated of God 2 It notes the threatnings and comminations of the Law Rom. 1.18 Psal. 6.1 Hos. 11.9 Jonas 3.9 c. 3 It notes the execution of those threatnings or the punishments threatned Ephes. 5.6 Luke 21.23 Matth. 3.7 Now in the first and third sence the Elect never were nor shall be under wrath God never intended to deal with them according to the tenor of the Law nor doth he inflict upon them the least evil upon that account Christ having freed and delivered them from the Curse But as wrath is taken in the second sense for the comminations and threatnings of the Law so they are under wrath till they are able to plead their discharge and release by the Gospel The threatnings of the Law do seize upon and arrest their Consciences no less then others and therefore the Law is compared to a rigid School-Master which never ceaseth to whip and lash them until they flye unto Christ. For though he hath freed them from the Curse yet the Lord sees it fit they should for a while be held under the Pedagogy and Ministration of the Law that they may learn to prize the Redemption which they have by Christ Gal. 3.22 The Lord when he published the Law in Sinai as the Apostle observes Gal. 3.17 Did not repent him of his promise made Typically with Abraham and his Seed but really with Christ and the Elect in him But sayes he the Law was added because of transgression i. e. To discover their sinfulness and misery by nature and to render the Grace of the promise more desirable Vers. 22. As the Saints in the Old Testament were Heirs of the Promise had a real and actual Interest in all the Blessings of the New Covenant whilest their Consciences were whipped and scourged by this merciless School-master so all the rest of the Elect are partakers of the same Grace of Life though the Law doth terrifie and condemn them The threatnings of the Law do not shew what is the state of a person towards God or how God doth account of him but what he is by nature and what he hath deserved should be inflicted upon him which a man cannot chuse but expect and fear till his Conscience be secured by better promises So that I shall not be afraid to say That the Consciences of the Elect before Faith are under wrath and not their Persons and though their Consciences do condemn them yet God doth not But against this Mr. W. hath sundry Exceptions § 7. The condemnation they are under is the condemnation exception 1 of the Law which pronounceth all men guilty not onely in their own conscience but before God Rom. 3.19 Answ. That the voice or sentence of the Law shews not who are condemned of God but who are guilty and damnable in themselves if God should deal with them by the Law which is the scope of the Apostle Rom. 3.19 20. That all the world might become guilty before God So indeed are all men considered according to what is due by the Law Psal. 143.2 But the Elect as considered in the Grace and forgiveness of God and the perfect satisfaction of Jesus Christ are discharged from this rigorous Court their cause is judged at another Bar. § 8. The condemnation of an unbelievers conscience is exception 2 either true or false if true then it is according to the judgement of God and speaks as the thing is and so God condemns as well as the conscience c. Answ. The testimony of an unbelievers conscience 〈◊〉 true so far as it agrees with the written word if it witnesseth to a
The ground whereon he builds these Assertions is a very sandy foundation to wit That the death of Christ was not solutio ejusdem but tantidem not the payment of that which was in the obligation but of something equivalent and therefore it doth not deliver us ipso facto but according to the compact and agreement between the Father and him I answer 1 Whether the death of Christ be solutio ejusdem or tantidem as it is a satisfaction or payment of a debt so the discharge thereby procured must needs be present and immediate for that a debt should be paid and satisfied and yet justly chargeable implies a contradiction But 2 Mr. W. might have thought we would expect a better proof then his bare word That the death of Christ is not solutio ejusdem seeing the Holy Ghost shews First That Christ was held in the same obligation which we were under He was made under the Law not an other but the very same that we were held in Gal. 4.3 4. Ergo he paid the same debt that we did ow. Secondly That the Curse or punishment which we deserved was inflicted upon him Gal. 3.13 The whole wages or curse that is due to sin is Death and this Christ under-went for us Heb. 2.9 14. Isai. 53.4 5. What is it to die or to bear chastisement for another but to undergo that death which the other should have undergone If it be objected That the death which we deserved is Eternal such as the damned endure our Divines have answered long ago That Christs death was such in pondere though not in specie in potentia though not in actu The dignity of his person raised the price of his temporary sufferings to an equipollency with the other Mr. Owen says well That there is a sameness in Christs sufferings with that in the obligation in respect of Essence and equivalency in respect of the Adjuncts or Attendencies Thirdly The laying of our sins upon Christ Isai. 53.6 subjected him to the same punishment which our sins deserved Fourthly If God would have dispenced with the idem in the first obligation Christ need not have died for if the justice of God would have been satisfied with less then that penalty threatned in the Law he might as well have dispenced with the whole So then his inference That the death of Christ doth not deliver us ipso facto being destitute of this support will fall to the ground of its own accord § 14. M. W. grants That if the debtor himself do bring unto the creditor that which he ows him it presently dischargeth him but the payment of a Surety doth not And why not Amongst men there is no difference so the debt be paid it matters not whether it be by the Principal or his Surety the obligation is voide in respect of both The case is the very same between Christ and us Secondly This Exception makes the payment of Christ less efficacious for the discharge of our debt then if it had been made by us whereas it is infinitely more acceptable to God then the most perfect righteousness performed by us But sayes he the payment of a Surety is refusable Not after that he is admitted by the creditor and taken into Bond with or for the principal debtor It is true God might have refused to be satisfied for our debt by a Surety but seeing he ordained his Son to be our Surety and entered into Covenant with him from everlasting to accept his payment on our behalf the debt which he hath fully satisfied cannot be charged again either upon the Party or Surety without manifest injustice But the Father and the Son have agreed between themselves that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do believe Shew us this agreement and we will yeeld the cause As for the Scriptures which he hath mentioned they speak of no such thing John 6.40 This is the will of him that sent me That every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life This Text and others like it do onely shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit they that believe The other Text Gal. 5.2 4. is palpably abused to serve his turn The Apostle doth not say Without Faith Christ shall profit us nothing but if we joyn any thing with Christ as necessary to attain Salvation we are not Believers or true Christians our profession of Christ shall profit us nothing and the reason hereof is because these two principles cannot be mixed A mans righteousness before God is either all by Works or all by Christ and therefore whosoever attributes any part thereof to Works he wholly renounceth Christ. At the sixth Verse he attributes that to Faith which he denies unto other Works In Christ Jesus saith he neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing but Faith which worketh by love But as the Godly learned have well observed the intent of the Apostle here was not to shew what it is that doth justifie but what are the Exercises of Divine Worship in which Christians should be conversant He doth not say That Faith working by love is available to us before God or in the sight of God but in Christ i. e. In the Church or Kingdom of Christ which consists in Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost though neither Faith nor Love are available to justifie us yet they are available i. e. Acceptable to God as acts or duties of Spiritual Obedience they are the onely acceptable service which we can perform to God The last place he hath mentioned is as little to the purpose as the rest 1 Joh. 5.11 He that hath not the Son hath not life True he doth not say That all who have not Faith except final unbelievers have not the Son or any benefit by him § 15. But says Mr. W. if our Adversaries could prove That it was either the Will of God in giving his Son or the Will of Christ in giving himself to the death that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation of sinners without any condition performed on their part it were something to the purpose but till this be done which indeed can never be done they were as good say nothing Had not prejudice cast a mist before his eyes the Scriptures which have been brought already would be proof sufficient What clearer Testimony can be desired of the Will of God and of Christ in this point then those Sacred Oracles which shew us First That Christ by the Will of God gave himself a Ransom and Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savor unto God in behalf of all the Elect Joh. 6.27 Heb. 5.10 10.9 10. Secondly That this Ransom was alone and by it self a full adequate and perfect satisfaction to Divine Justice for all their sins Heb. 1.3 10.10 12 14. 1 Joh. 1.7 Thirdly That God accepted
of sins according to the riches of his grace not according to any condition performed by us he having obtained eternall redemption for us Heb. 9.12 And 2 Cor. 5.18 19. a place which we have often mentioned the Apostle shewes that Christ by his death made such a reconciliation for us as that God thereupon did not impute our sins unto us which was long before any condition could be performed by us Elsewhere That Christ by himselfe purged and expiated our sins Heb. 1.3 and afterwards set downe as having finished that worke chap. 10·12 Now sin that is fully purged and expiated is not imputable to the sinner The same Apostle addes that Christ by his sacrifice hath for ever perfected all them for whom it was offered Heb. 10.14 And in another place that he hath made them compleat as to the forgivenesse of their sins Col. 2.10 13 14. In Rom. 8.33 34. He argues from the death of Christ to the non-imputation of our sins Who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect it is God that justifieth it is Christ â—hat dyed whereas notwithstanding sin would have been chargeable upon them and they condemnable if the death of Christ had not procured their discharge without the intervention of any condition performed by them CHAP. XV. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Replyes to the second Objection as he cals it concerning our being Justified in Christ as a common person are examined THe Argument was proposed by me at the time of our Conference in this manner They that were in Christ as a common person before they beleeved were Justified before they beleeved But many were in Christ as a common person before they beleeved Ergo Mr. W. denyed both Propositions The major I proved in this wise If Christ was justified before many â—hat are in him doe beleeve then they that are in him were â—â—stified before they beleeved But Christ was justified before many that are in Christ do beleeve Ergo. His answer hereunto as I remember was I deny all And therefore the Assumption was confirmed from Isa. 50.8 9. in this manner Christ was justified at his resurrection but that happened before many of them who are in Christ as a common person doe beleeve Ergo That Christ was justified at his resurrection is clear from this Text He is near that justifieth me c. Which words I said were uttered by the Prophet in the person of our Saviour in the time of his greatest humiliation who comforted himselfe with this that the Lord would shortly justifie him which was to be done at his Resurrection when the Lord publickly declared to all the world that he was acquitted and discharged from all those sins which were laid upon him and which he as a Surety undertook to satisfie The sequel of the major was also proved by this Enthymem The acts of a common person doe belong unto them whom he represents whatsoever is done by or to a common person as such is to be attributed to them in whose stead he stands and therefore if Christ were justified all that were in him were justified also For seeing that he was not justified from his own but from the sins of others all they whom he represents were justified in his Justification Whereunto hee replyed That Christ was not justified according to the tenor of the New Covenant which did lead us to that discourse of the New Covenant which is afterwards mentioned of which in its place § 2. We shall now take a view of his Replyes to this Argument which we find in his printed copy And 1. he distinguisheth of a threefold Justification 1 Purposed 2 Purchased and 3 Exemplified all which are before Faith So then by his own confession Justification in a Scripture sense goes before Faith Which is that horrid opinion he hath all this while so eagerly opposed It may be he will say as Arminius doth that neither of these were actuall Justification which were a poor put off for as Dr. Twisse observes Omnis Justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de Justificatione actuali Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato When we speak of Justification simply there is no man but understands it of actuall Justification And first That which he cals Justification purposed in the Decree of God is reall and actuall Justification for if Justification be Gods will not to punish or to deal with his Elect according to their sins as both the Psalmist and Apostle do define it then when Gods Will was in actual being their Justification was actual It is absurd to say That God did decree or purpose to will any thing whatsoever his Will being his Essence which admits no cause either within or without God 2 We have shewn before that Justification being taken for the effect of Gods Will to wit our discharge from the Obligation of the Law it was actually because solely and absolutely obtained by the death of Christ there being no other cause out of God which concurs to the producing of this effect § 3. The third Branch of his distinction Justification exemplified is terminus redundans a member that may well be spared for 1 there is not the least hint thereof in Holy Writ the Scripture no where calls our Saviour the example or pattern of our Justification For though he is proposed to us as an example in acts of Moral Obedience yet in his works of Mediation he was not so in these he was not an exemplary but a meritorious procuring cause an example is proposed to be imitated and therefore we are frequently exhorted to imitate our Saviour in works of Sanctification but we are no where bid to imitate him in our Justification or in justifying our selves It was needless he should be a pattern of our Justification for this pattern must be of use either unto us or unto God Not to us because we do not justifie our selves not unto God because he needs no pattern or example to guide or direct him 2 He that payes our debts to the utmost farthing and thereupon receives a discharge is more then a pattern of our release Our real discharge is in his as our real debt was upon him And therefore his Grand-father Parker said well That Christs Resurrection was the Actual Justâ—fication both of him and us 3 If Christ were onely a pattern and example of our Justification then was he justified from his own sins and consequently was a sinner which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered The reason of the consequence is evident for if Christ were but a pattern of our Justification then was he justified as we are Now we are justified from our own sins which we our selves have committed and therefore his Justification must be from his own sins or else the example and counterpart do not agree 4 This expression intimates that as Christ was justified by performing the conditions required of him so we