essence of it whereunto alone respect is had in this Law by any thing that can fall out And although God might superadd unto the original Obligations of this Law what Arbitrary commands he pleased such as did not necessarily proceed or arise from the Relation between him and us which might be and be continued without them yet would they be resolved into that Principle of this Law that God in all things was absolutely to be trusted and obeyed 7. Known unto God are all his Works from the foundation of the World In the constitution of this order of things he made it possible and foresaw it would be future that man would rebell against the preceptive power of this Law and disturb that order of things wherein he was placed under his moral Rule This gave occasion unto that effect of infinite Divine Righteousness in constituting the punishment that man should fall under upon his Transgression of this Law Neither was this an effect of Arbitrary will and pleasure any more than the Law it self was Upon the supposition of the Creation of man the Law mentioned was necessary from all the Divine Properties of the nature of God And upon a supposition that man would Transgress that Law God being now considered as his Ruler and Governour the Constitution of the punishment due unto his Sin and Transgression of it was a necessary effect of Divine Righteousness This it would not have been had the Law it self been Arbitrary But that being necessary so was the penalty of this Transgression Wherefore the constitution of this penalty is liable to no more change alteration or abrogation then the Law it self without an alteration in the state and relation between God and man 8. This is that Law which our Lord Jesus Christ came not to destroy but to fulfil that he might be the end of it for Righteousness unto them that do believe This Law he abrogated not nor could do so without a Destruction of the Relation that is between God and man arising from or ensuing necessarily on their distinct Beings and Properties But as this cannot be destroyed so the Lord Christ came unto a contrary end namely to repair and restore it where it was weakned Wherefore 9. This Law the Law of Sinless perfect Obedience with its sentence of the punishment of Death on all Transgressors doth and must abide in force for ever in this World For there is no more required hereunto but that God be God and Man be Man Yet shall this be farther proved 1. There is nothing not one word in the Scripture intimating any alteration in or Abrogation of this Law so as that any thing should not be duty which it makes to be duty or any thing not be sin which it makes to be sin either as unto matter or degrees or that the thing which it makes to be sin or which is sin by the Rule of it should not merit and deserve that punishment which is declared in the sanction of it or threatned by it The wages of sin is Death If any Testimony of Scripture can be produced unto either of these purposes namely that either any thing is not sin in the way of Omission or Commission in the matter or manner of its performance which is made to be so by this Law or that any such sin or any thing that would have been sin by this Law is exempted from the punishment threatned by it as unto merit or desert it shall be attended unto It is therefore in universal force towards all mankind There is no Relief in this case But behold the Lamb of God In exception hereunto it is pleaded that when it was first given unto Adam it was the Rule and Instrument of a Covenant between God and man a Covenant of Works and perfect Obedience But upon the entrance of sin it ceased to have the nature of a Covenant unto any And it is so ceased that on an impossible supposition that any man should fulfil the perfect Righteousness of it yet should he not be justified or obtain the benefit of the Covenant thereby It is not therefore only become ineffectual unto us as a Covenant by reason of our weakness and disability to perform it but it is ceased in its own nature so to be But these things as they are not unto our present purpose so are they wholly unproved For 1. Our Discourse is not about the Foederal adjunct of the Law but about its moral nature only It is enough that as a Law it continueth to oblige all mankind unto perfect Obedience under its Original penalty For hence it will unavoidably follow that unless the commands of it be complied withal and fulfilled the penalty will fall on all that Transgress it And those who grant that this Law is still in force as unto its being a Rule of Obedience or as unto its requiring Duties of us do grant all that we desire For it requires no Obedience but what it did in its Original constitution that is sinless and perfect and it requires no Duty nor prohibits any sin but under the Penalty of Death upon disobedience 2. It is true that he who is once a sinner if he should afterwards yield all that perfect Obedience unto God that the Law requires he could not thereby obtain the Benefit of the Promise of the Covenant But the sole Reason of it is because he is antecedently a sinner and so obnoxious unto the Curse of the Law And no man can be obnoxious unto its Curse and have a right unto its Promise at the same time But so to lay the supposition that the same person is by any means free from the Curse due unto sin and then to deny that upon the performance of that perfect sinless Obedience which the Law requires that he should not have right unto the Promise of Life thereby is to deny the Truth of God and to reflect the highest dishonour upon his Justice Jesus Christ himself was justified by this Law And it is immutably true that he who doth the things of it shall live therein 3. It is granted that man continued not in the Observation of this Law as it was the Rule of the Covenant between God and him The Covenant it was not but the Rule of it which that it should be was superadded unto its Being as a Law For the Covenant comprized things that were not any part of a Result from the necessary Relation of God and Man Wherefore man by his sin as unto Demerit may be said to break this Covenant and as unto any Benefit unto themselves to disannul it It is also true that God did never formally and absolutely renew or give again this Law as a Covenant a second time Nor was there any need that so he should do unless it were declaratively only for so it was renewed at Sinai For the whole of it being an Emanation of Eternal Right and Truth it abides and must abide in full force for
believe is represented in the words of the Apostle He doth therefore use his utmost endeavor to wrest and deprave them And yet although most of his Artifices are since traduced into the Annotations of others upon the place he himself produceth nothing material but what is taken out of Origen and the Comment of Pelagius on this Epistle which is extant in the Works of Jerome and was urged before him by Erasmus The substance of what he pleads for is That the actual transgression of Adam is not imputed unto his posterity nor a depraved nature from thence communicated unto them Only whereas he had incurred the penalty of death all that derive their nature from him in that condition are rendred subject unto death also And as for that corruption of nature which is in us or a proneness unto sin it is not derived from Adam but is an habit contracted by many continued acts of our own So also on the other hand that the Obedience or Righteousness of Christ is not imputed unto us Only when we make our selves to become his Children by our obedience unto him he having obtained eternal life for himself by his obedience unto God we are made partakers of the benefits thereof This is the substance of his long Disputation on this subject De Servator lib. 4. cap. 6. But this is not to expound the words of the Apostle but expresly to contradict them as we shall see in the insuing consideration of them I intend not an Exposition of the whole discourse of the Apostle but only of those passages in it which evidently declare the way and manner of our Justification before God A comparison is here proposed and pursued between the First Adam by whom sin was brought into the World and the Second Adam by whom it is taken away And a comparison it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things contrary wherein there is a similitude in some things and a dissimilitude in others both sorts illustrating the truth declared in it The general Proposition of it is contained in Ver. 12. As by one Man sin entred into the World and death by sin and so death passed on all Men for that all have sinned The entrance of sin and punishment into the World was by one Man and that by one sin as he afterward declares Yet were they not confined unto the person of that one Man but belonged equally unto all This the Apostle expresseth inverting the order of the Effect and Cause In the entrance of it he first mentions the cause or sin and then the effect or punishment By one Man sin entred into the World and Death by sin But in the Application of it unto all Men he expresseth first the effect and then the cause Death passed on all Men for that all had sinned Death on the first entrance of sin passed on all that is all Men became liable and obnoxious unto it as the punishment due to sin All Men that ever were are or shall be were not then existent in their own persons But yet were they all of them then upon the first entrance of sin made subject to death or liable unto punishment They were so by vertue of Divine Constitution upon their foederal existence in the one Man that sinned And actually they became obnoxious in their own persons unto the sentence of it upon their first natural existence being born children of wrath It is hence manifest what sin it is that the Apostle intends namely The actual sin of Adam the one sin of that one common person whilest he was so For although the corruption and depravation of our nature doth necessarily insue thereon in every one that is brought forth actually in the World by Natural Generation yet is it the guilt of Adams actual sin alone that rendred them all obnoxious unto death upon the First entrance of sin into the World So death entred by sin the guilt of it obnoxiousness unto it and that with respect unto all Men universally Death here compriseth the whole punishment due unto sin be it what it will concerning which we need not here to dispute The wages of sin is death Rom. 6.23 and nothing else Whatever sin deserves in the Justice of God whatever punishment God at any time appointed or threatned unto it it is comprised in death In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death This therefore the Apostle lays down as the foundation of his discourse and of the comparison which he intends namely that in and by the actual sin of Adam all Men are made liable unto death or unto the whole punishment due unto sin That is the guilt of that sin is imputed unto them For nothing is intended by the imputation of sin unto any but the rendring them justly obnoxious unto the punishment due unto that sin As the not imputing of sin is the freeing of Men from being subject or liable unto punishment And this sufficiently evidenceth the vanity of the Pelagian Gloss that Death passed upon all meerly by vertue of natural propagation from him who had deserved it without any imputation of the guilt of sin unto them which is a contradiction unto the plain words of the Apostle For it is the guilt of sin and not natural propagation that he affirms to be the cause of Death Having mentioned sin and death the one as the only cause of the other the guilt of sin of the punishment of death sin deserving nothing but death and death being due unto nothing but sin he declares how all Men universally became liable unto this punishment or guilty of death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in quo omnes peccaverunt in whom all have sinned For it relates unto the one Man that sinned in whom all sinned which is evident from the effect thereof in as much as in him all died 1 Cor. 15.22 Or as it is here on his sin Death passed on all Men. And this is the evident sense of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not unusual in the Scripture See Matth. 15.5 Rom. 4.18 Chap. 5.2 Phil. 1.3 Heb. 9.17 And it is so often used by the best Writers in the Greek Tongue So Hesiod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 modus in omnibus rebus optimus So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vobis situm est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc in me situm est And this reading of the words is contended for by Austine against the Pelagians rejecting their eo quod or propterea But I shall not contend about the reading of the words It is the artifice of our adversaries to perswade Men that the force of our Argument to prove from hence the imputation of the sin of Adam unto his posterity doth depend solely upon this interpretation of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by in whom We shall therefore grant them their desire that they are better rendred by eo quod propterea or quatenus
in all Ages and that derived from and founded in express Testimonies of Scripture with all the Promises and Presignations of his Exhibition in the flesh from the beginning cannot now with any Modesty be expresly denied Wherefore the Socinians themselves grant that our sins may be said to be imputed unto Christ and he to undergo the punishment of them so far as that all things which befell him Evil and Afflictive in this life with the Death which he underwent were occasioned by our sins For had not we sinned there had been no need of nor occasion for his suffering But notwithstanding this concession they expresly deny his satisfaction or that properly he underwent the punishment due unto our sins wherein they deny also all Imputation of them unto him Others say that our sins were imputed unto him quoad reatum poenae but not quoad reatum culpae But I must acknowledge that unto me this distinction gives inanem sine mente sonum The substance of it is much insisted on by Feuardentius Dialog 5. pag. 467. And he is followed by others That which he would prove by it is That the Lord Christ did not present himself before the Throne of God with the burden of our sins upon him so as to answer unto the Justice of God for them Whereas therefore reatus or guilt may signifie either Dignitatem poenae or obligationem ad poenam as Bellarmine distinguisheth de Amiss Grat. lib. 7. cap. 7. with respect unto Christ the latter only is to be admitted And the main Argument he and others insist upon is this That if our sins be imputed unto Christ as unto the guilt of the fault as they speak then he must be polluted with them and thence be denominated a sinner in every kind And this would be true if our sins could be Communicated unto Christ by Transfusion so as to be his inherently and subjectively But their being so only by Imputation gives no countenance unto any such pretence However there is a notion of legal uncleanness where there is no inherent defilement So the Priest who offered the Red Heifer to make Atonement and he that burned her were said to be unclean Numb 19.7 8. But hereon they say that Christ dyed and suffered upon the special Command of God not that his Death and Suffering were any way due upon the account of our sins or required in Justice which is utterly to overthrow the satisfaction of Christ. Wherefore the design of this distinction is to deny the Imputation of the guilt of our sins unto Christ and then in what tolerable sense can they be said to be imputed unto him I cannot understand But we are not tyed up unto Arbitrary distinction and the sense that any are pleased to impose on the terms of them I shall therefore first enquire into the meaning of these words guilt and guilty whereby we may be able to judge of what it is which in this Distinction is intended The Hebrews have no other word to signifie guilt or guilty but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this they use both for sin the guilt of it the punishment due unto it and a Sacrifice for it Speaking of the guilt of Blood they use not any word to signifie guilt but only say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is Blood to him So David prays deliver me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Blood which we render Blood-guiltiness Psal. 51.14 And this was because by the Constitution of God he that was guilty of Blood was to dye by the hand of the Magistiate or of God himself But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ascham is no where used for guilt but it signifies the Relation of the sin intended unto punishment And other significations of it will be in vain sought for in the old Testament In the new Testament he that is guilty is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3.19 that is obnoxious to Judgment or vengeance for sin one that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they speak Act. 28.4 whom vengeance will not suffer to go unpunished And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.27 a word of the same signification Once by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 23.18 to owe to be indebted to Justice To be obnoxious liable unto Justice Vengeance Punishment for sin is to be guilty Reus guilty in the Latine is of a large signification He who is Crimini obnoxius or Poenae propter Crimen or Voti debitor or Promissi or officij ex sponsione is called Reus Especially every sponsor or Surety is Reus in the Law Cum servus pecuniam pro libertate pactus est ob eam rem Reum dederit that is sponsorem expromissorem quamvis servus ab alio manumissus est Reus tamen obligabitur He is Reus who ingageth himself for any other as to the matter of his ingagement And the same is the use of the word in the best Latine Authors Opportuna loca dividenda Praefectis esse ac suae quique partis tutandae reus sit Liv. de Bello Punic lib. 5. That every Captain should so take care of the Station committed to him as that if any thing happened amiss it should be imputed unto him And the same Author again at quicunque aut propinquitate aut affinitate regiam contigissent alienae culpae rei trucidarentur should be guilty of the fault of another by Imputation and suffer for it So that in the Latine Tongue he is Reus who for himself or any other is obnoxious unto Punishment or payment Reatus is a word of late Admission into the Latine Tongue and was formed of Reus So Quintilian informs us in his Discourse of the use of obsolete and new words lib. 8. cap. 3. Quae vetera nunc sunt fuerunt olim nova quaedam in usu perquam recentia Messalla primus Reatum munerarium Augustus dixerunt To which he adds Piratica Musica and some others then newly come into use But Reatus at its first Invention was of no such signification as it is now applied unto I mention it only to shew that we have no reason to be obliged unto mens Arbitrary use of words Some Lawyers first used it pro crimine a fault exposing unto Punishment But the Original Invention of it continued by long use was to express the outward state and condition of him who was Reus after he was first charged in a cause criminal before he was acquitted or condemned Those among the Romans who were made Rei by any publick Accusation did betake themselves unto a poor squalid Habit a sorrowful countenance suffering their Hair and Beards to go undressed Hereby on Custome and Usage the people who were to judge on their cause were enclined to compassion And Milo furthered his sentence of Banishment because he would not submit to this custom which had such an appearance of Pusillanimity and baseness of Spirit This state of sorrow and trouble so expressed they called Reatus and nothing else It came
in as much because Only we must say that here is a reason given Why Death passed on all Men in as much as all have sinned that is in that sin whereby death entred into the World It is true Death by vertue of the original constitution of the Law is due unto every sin when ever it is committed But the present inquiry is how Death passed at once on all Men how they came liable and obnoxious unto it upon its first entrance by the actual sin of Adam which cannot be by their own actual sin Yea the Apostle in the next Verses affirms That death passed on them also who never sinned actually or as Adam did whose sin was actual And if the actual sins of Men in imitation of Adams sin were intended then should Men be made liable to Death before they had sinned For Death upon its first entrance into the World passed on all Men before any one Man had actually sinned but Adam only But that Men should be liable unto Death which is nothing but the punishment of sin when they have not sinned is an open contradiction For although God by his sovereign Power might inflict Death on an innocent Creature yet that an innocent Creature should be guilty of death is impossible For to be guilty of death is to have sinned Wherefore this expression In as much as all have sinned expressing the desert and guilt of death then when sin and death first entred into the World no sin can be intended in it but the sin of Adam and our interest therein Eramus enim omnes ille unus homo And this can be no otherwise but by the imputation of the guilt of that sin unto us For the act of Adam not being ours inherently and subjectively we cannot be concerned in its Effect but by the imputation of its guilt For the communication of that unto us which is not inherent in us is that which we intend by imputation This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the intended collation which I have insisted the longer on because the Apostle lays in it the foundation of all that he afterwards infers and asserts in in the whole comparison And here some say there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his discourse that is he layeth down the Proposition on the part of Adam but doth not shew what answereth to it on the contrary in Christ. And Origen gives the reason of the silence of the Apostle herein namely Lest what is to be said therein should be abused by any unto sloth and negligence For whereas he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as which is a note of similitude By one Man sin entred into the World and Death by sin so the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or reddition should be So by one Righteousness entred into the World and Life by Righteousness This he acknowledgeth to be the genuine filling up of the comparison but was not expressed by the Apostle Lest Men should abuse it unto negligence or security supposing that to be done already which should be done afterwards But as this plainly contradicts and everts most of what he further asserts in the Exposition of the place so the Apostle concealed not any Truth upon such considerations And as he plainly expresseth that which is here intimated Ver. 19. So he shews how foolish and wicked any such imaginations are as suppose that any countenance is given hereby unto any to indulge themselves in their sins Some grant therefore that the Apostle doth conceal the Expression of what is ascribed unto Christ in opposition unto what he had affirmed of Adam and his sin unto Ver. 19. But the truth is it is sufficiently included in the close of Ver. 14. where he affirms of Adam that in those things whereof he treats He was the Figure of him that was to come For the way and manner whereby he introduced Righteousness and Life and communicated them unto Men answered the way and manner whereby Adam introduced sin and death which passed on all the World Adam being the Figure of Christ look how it was with him with respect unto his Natural Posterity as unto sin and death so it is with the Lord Christ the Second Adam and his Spiritual Posterity with respect unto Righteousness and Life Hence we argue If the actual sin of Adam was so imputed unto all his posterity as to be accounted their own sin unto condemnation then is the actual obedience of Christ the Second Adam imputed unto all his Spiritual Seed that is unto all Believers unto Justification I shall not here further press this Argument because the ground of it will occur unto us afterwards The two next Verses containing an Objection and an Answer returned unto them wherein we have no immediate concernment I shall pass by Vers. 15 16. The Apostle proceeds to explain his Comparison in those things wherein there is a dissimilitude between the comparates But not as the offence so is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the Grace of God and the gift by Grace by one Man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many The opposition is between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the one hand and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other between which a dissimilitude is asserted not as unto their opposite effects of Death and Life but only as unto the degrees of their efficacy with respect unto those effects 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the offence the fall the sin the transgression that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the disobedience of one Ver. 19. Hence the first sin of Adam is generally called the fall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is opposed hereunto is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Donum Donum gratuitum Beneficium id quod Deus gratificatur that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is immediately explained The grace of God and the free gift by grace through Jesus Christ. Wherefore although this word in the next verse doth precisely signifie the Righteousness of Christ yet here it comprehends all the causes of our Justification in opposition unto the fall of Adam and the entrance of sin thereby The consequent and effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the offence the fall is that many be dead No more is here intended by many but only that the effects of that one offence were not confined unto one And if we inquire who or how many those many are the Apostle tells us that they are all Men universally that is all the posterity of Adam By this one offence because they all sinned therein they are all dead that is rendered obnoxious and liable unto death as the punishment due unto that one offence And hence also it appears how vain it is to wrest those words of Ver. 12. In as much as all have sinned unto any other sin but the first sin in Adam seeing it is given as the reason why death passed on them it being here plainly affirmed That they
so in the translation of the guilt of the sinner unto it as is fully declared Levit. 16.20 21. Only I must say that I grant this signification of the word to avoid contention For whereas some say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sin and a sacrifice for sin it cannot be allowed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Kal signifies to err to sin to transgress the Law of God In Piel it hath a contrary signification namely to cleanse from sin or to make expiation of sin Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is most frequently used with respect unto its derivation from the first conjugation and signifies sin transgression and guilt But sometimes with respect unto the second and then it signifies a sacrifice for sin to make expiation of it And so it is rendered by the LXX sometimes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ezek. 44.27 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 30.10 Ezek. 43.23 A Propitiation a Propitiatory Sacrifice Sometimes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 19.19 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purification or Cleasing But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutely doth no where in any good Author nor in the Scripture signifie a Sacrifice for sin unless it may be allowed to do so in this one place alone For whereas the LXX do render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constantly by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it signifies sin where it denotes an Offering for sin and they retain that word they do it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Elliptical expression which they invented for that which they knew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of its self neither did nor could signifie Lev. 4.3 14 32 35. Chap. 5.6 7 8 9 10 11. Chap. 6.30 Chap. 8.2 And they never omit the preposition unless they name the Sacrifice as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is observed also by the Apostle the new Testament For twice expressing the Sin-offering by this word he useth that phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 8.3 Heb. 10.6 But no where useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that purpose If it be therefore of that signification in this place it is so here alone And whereas some think that it answers Piaculum in the Latine it is also a mistake for the first signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is confessed to be sin and they would have it supposed that thence it is abused to signifie a Sacrifice for sin But Piaculum is properly a Sacrifice or any thing whereby sin is expiated or satisfaction is made for it And very rarely it is abused to denote such a sin or crime as deserves publick expiation and is not otherwise to be pardoned so Virgil Distulit in seram commissa Piacula mortem But we shall not contend about words whilest we can agree about what is intended The only enquiry is how God did make him to be sin He hath made him to be sin so that an act of God is intended And this is elsewhere expressed by his laying all our Iniquities upon him or causing them to meet on him Isa. 53.6 And this was by the Imputation of our sins unto him as the sins of the people were put on the Head of the Goat that they should be no more theirs but his so as that he was to carry them away from them Take sin in either sense before mentioned either of a Sacrifice for sin or a Sinner and the Imputation of the guilt of sin antecedently unto the punishment of it and in order thereunto must be understood For in every Sacrifice for sin there was an imposition of sin on the Beast to be offered antecedent unto the Sacrificing of it and therein its suffering by death Therefore in every offering for sin he that brought it was to put his hand on the head of it Lev. 1.4 And that the transferring of the guilt of sin unto the offering was thereby signified is expresly declared Lev. 16.21 Wherefore if God made the Lord Christ a Sin Offering for us it was by the Imputation of the guilt of sin unto him antecedently unto his suffering Nor could any Offering be made for sin without a Typical translation of the guilt of sin unto it And therefore when an Offering was made for the expiation of the guilt of an uncertain Murther those who were to make it by the Law namely the Elders of the City that were next unto the place where the man was slain were not to offer a Sacrifice because there was none to confess guilt over it or to lay guilt upon it But whereas the neck of an Heifer was to be stricken off to declare the punishment due unto Blood they were to wash their hands over it to testifie their own Innocency Deut. 21.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. But a Sacrifice for sin without the Imputation of guilt there could not be And if the word be taken in the second sense namely for a sinner that is by imputation and in Gods esteem it must be by the imputation of guilt For none can in any sense be denominated a sinner from mere suffering None indeed do say that Christ was made sin by the imputation of punishment unto him which hath no proper sense But they say sin was imputed unto him as unto punishment which is indeed to say that the guilt of sin was imputed unto him For the guilt of sin is its respect unto punishment or the obligation unto punishment which attends it And that any one should be punished for sin without the imputation of the guilt of it unto him is impossible and were it possible would be unjust For it is not possible that any one should be punished for sin properly and yet that sin be none of his And if it be not his by inhaesion it can be his no other way but by imputation One may suffer on the occasion of the sin of another that is no way made his but he cannot be punished for it for punishment is the recompence of sin on the account of its guilt And were it possible where is the Righteousness of punishing any one for that which no way belongs unto him Besides imputation of sin and punishing are distinct acts the one preceding the other and therefore the former is only of the guilt of sin Wherefore the Lord Christ was made sin for us by the imputation of the guilt of our sins unto him But it is said that if the guilt of sin were imputed unto Christ he is excluded from all possibility of merit for he suffered but what was his due And so the whole work of Christs satisfaction is subverted This must be so if God in judgment did reckon him guilty and a sinner But there is an ambiguity in these expressions If it be meant that God in judgment did reckon him guilty and a sinner inherently in his own person no such thing is intended But God laid all our sins on him and in judgment spared him not as unto what was due unto them And so he suffered
grant what is the proper Work and Duty of a surety and who the Lord Jesus was a surety for and it is evident that nothing more proper or pertinent could be mentioned by him when he was in the Declaration of that office 2 He confesseth that by his Exposition of this suretiship of Christ as making him a surety for God he contradicteth the nature and only notion of a surety among men For such a one he acknowledgeth doth nothing but in the defect and unability of them for whom he is ingaged and doth undertake He is to pay that which they owe and to do what is to be done by them which they cannot perform And if this be not the notion of a surety in this place the Apostle makes use of a word no where else used in the whole Scripture to teach us that which it doth never signifie among men which is improbable and absurd For the sole Reason why he did make use of it was that from the nature and notion of it amongst men in others cases we may understand the signification of it what he intends by it and what under that name he ascribes unto the Lord Jesus 3 He hath no way to solve the Apostles mention of Christ being a surety in the description of his Priestly Office but by overthrowing the Nature of that Office also For to confirm this absurd notion that Christ as a Priest was a surety for God he would have us believe that the Priesthood of Christ consists in his making effectual unto us the Promises of God or his effectual communicating of the Good things promised unto us the falshood of which notion really destructive of the Priesthood of Christ I have elsewhere at large detected and confuted Wherefore seeing the Lord Christ is a surety of the Covenant as a Priest and all the sacerdotal Actings of Christ have God for their immediate Object and are performed with him on our behalf he was a surety for us also A Surety Sponsor Vas Praes Fidejussor for us the Lord Christ was by his voluntary undertaking out of his rich Grace and Love to do answer and perform all that is required on our parts that we may enjoy the Benefits of the Covenant the Grace and Glory prepared proposed and promised in it in the way and manner determined on by Divine Wisdom And this may be reduced unto two Heads 1. His answering for our Transgressions against the first Covenant 2. His purchase and procurement of the Grace of the New He was made a Curse for us that the Blessing of Abraham might come upon us Gal. 3.13 1 15. 1. He undertook as they surety of the Covenant to answer for all the sins of those who are to be and are made partakers of the Benefits of it That is to undergo the punishment due unto their sins to make atonement for them by offering himself a propitiatory sacrifice for the Expiation of their sins redeeming them by the Price of his Blood from their state of misery and bondage under the Law and the Curse of it Isa. 53.4 5 6 10 Math. 20.28 1 Tim. 2.6 1 Cor. 6.20 Rom. 3.25 26. Heb. 10.5 6 7 8. Rom. 8.2 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 20 21. Gal. 3.13 And this was absolutely necessary that the Grace and Glory prepared in the Covenant might be communicated unto us Without this undertaking of his and performance of it the Righteousness and Faithfulness of God would not permit that sinners such as had Apostatized from him despised his Authority and rebelled against him falling thereby under the sentence and curse of the Law should again be received into his Favour and made Partakers of Grace and Glory This therefore the Lord Christ took upon himself as the surety of the Covenant 2. That those who were to be taken into this Covenant should receive Grace enabling them to comply with the Terms of it fulfill its Conditions and yield the Obedience which God required therein For by the Ordination of God he was to procure and did merit and procure for them the Holy Spirit and all needful supplies of Grace to make them new Creatures and enable them to yield Obedience unto God from a new principle of spiritual Life and that faithfully unto the End So was he the surety of this better Testament But all things belonging hereunto will be handled at large in the place from whence as I said these are taken as suitable unto our present occasion But some have other notions of these things For they say that Christ by his Death and his Obedience therein whereby he offered himself a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour unto God procured for us the New Covenant or as one speaks all that we have by the Death of Christ is that thereunto we owe the Covenant of Grace For herein he did and suffered what God required and freely appointed him to do and suffer Not that the Justice of God required any such thing with respect unto their sins for whom he died and in whose stead or to bestead whom he suffered but what by a free Constitution of Divine Wisdom and Soveraignty was appointed unto him Hereon God was pleased to remit the Terms of the Old Covenant and to enter into a New Covenant with mankind upon Terms suited unto our Reason possible unto our Abilities and every way advantageous unto us For these Terms are Faith and sincere Obedience or such an Assent unto the Truth of Divine Revelations as is effectual in Obedience unto the Will of God contained in them upon the encouragement given thereunto in the Promises of Eternal Life or a future Reward made therein On the performance of these Conditions our Justification Adoption and future Glory do depend For they are that Righteousness before God whereon he pardons our sins and accepts our persons as if we were perfectly Righteous Wherefore by this procuring the New Covenant for us which they ascribe unto the death of Christ they intend the abrogation of the old Covenant or of the Law or at least such a Derogation from it that it shall no more oblige us either unto sinless Obedience or Punishment nor require a perfect Righteousness unto our Justification before God and the Constitution of a new Law of Obedience accommodated unto our present state and condition on whose observance all the Promises of the Gospel do depend Others say that in the death of Christ there was real satisfaction made unto God not to the Law or unto God according to what the Law required but unto God absolutely That is He did what God was well pleased and satisfied withall without any respect unto his Justice or the Curse of the Law And they add that hereon the whole Righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us so far as that we are made Partakers of the Benefits thereof And moreover that the way of the Communication of them unto us is by the New Covenant which by his Death the Lord Christ procured For the Conditions
have proved and they were so in him who learned obedience by the things that he suffered Heb. 5.8 2. In this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 19. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 18. are the same Obedience and Righteousness By the Righteousness of One and by the Obedience of One are the same But suffering as suffering is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Righteousness For if it were then every one that suffers what is due to him should be righteous and so be justified even the Devil himself 3 The Righteousness and Obedience here intended are opposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the offence By the offence of One But the offence intended was an actual Transgression of the Law so is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fall from or a fall in the Course of Obedience Wherefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Righteousness must be an actual Obedience unto the Commands of the Law or the force of the Apostles Reasoning and Antithesis cannot be understood 4. Particularly it is such an Obedience as is opposed unto the disobedience of Adam One man's Disobedience one man's Obedience But the disobedience of Adam was an actual Transgression of the Law and therefore the Obedience of Christ here intended was his active Obedience unto the Law which is that we plead for And I shall not at present farther pursue the Argument because the force of it in the confirmation of the Truth contended for will be included in those that follow CHAP. XIII The nature of Justification proved from the difference of the Covenants THat which we plead in the third place unto our Purpose is the Difference between the two Covenants And herein it may be observed 1. That by the two Covenants I understand those which were absolutely given unto the whole Church and were all to bring it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto a compleat and perfect State that is the Covenant of Works or the Law of our Creation as it was given unto us with Promises and Threatnings or Rewards and Punishments annexed unto it and the Covenant of Grace revealed and proposed in the first Promise As unto the Covenant of Sinai and the New Testament as actually confirmed in the Death of Christ with all the Spiritual Priviledges thence emerging and the differences between them they belong not unto our present Argument 2. The whole intire Nature of the Covenant of Works consisted in this That upon our personal obedience according unto the Law and Rule of it we should be accepted with God and rewarded with him Herein the essence of it did consist And whatever Covenant proceedeth on these terms or hath the nature of them in it however it may be varied with Additions or Alterations is the same Covenant still and not another As in the Renovation of the Promise wherein the Essence of the Covenant of Grace was contained God did oft-times make other Additions unto it as unto Abraham and David yet was it still the same Covenant for the substance of it and not another so whatever Variations may be made in or Additions unto the Dispensation of the first Covenant so long as this Rule is retained Do this and live it is still the same Covenant for the Substance and Essence of it 3. Hence two things belonged unto this Covenant 1. That all things were transacted immediately between God and Man There was no Mediator in it no one to undertake any thing either on the part of God or Man between them For the whole depending on every ones Personal obedience there was no place for a Mediator 2. That nothing but perfect sinless obedience would be accepted with God or preserve the Covenant in its Primitive state and condition There was nothing in it as to pardon of sin no provision for any defect in Personal obedience 4. Wherefore this Covenant being once established between God and Man there could be no new Covenant made unless the Essential Form of it were of another nature namely that our own Personal obedience be not the rule and cause of our Acceptation and Justification before God For whil'st this is so as was before observed the Covenant is still the same however the Dispensation of it may be reformed or reduced to suit unto our present state and condition What Grace soever might be introduced into it that could not be so which excluded all Works from being the cause of our Justification But if a new Covenant be made such Grace must be provided as is absolutely inconsistent with any Works of ours as unto the first ends of the Covenant as the Apostle declares Rom. 11.6 5. Wherefore the Covenant of Grace supposing it a new real absolute Covenant and not a Reformation of the Dispensation of the old or a Reduction of it unto the use of our present condition as some imagine it to be must differ in the Essence Substance and Nature of it from that first Covenant of Works And this it cannot do if we are to be justified before God on our Personal obedience wherein the essence of the first Covenant consisted If then the Righteousness wherewith we are justified before God be our own our own Personal Righteousness we are yet under the first Covenant and no other 6. But things in the new Covenant are indeed quite otherwise For 1. it is of Grace which wholly excludes Works that is so of Grace as that our own works are not the means of Justification before God as in the places before alledged 2. It hath a Mediator and Surety which is built alone on this Supposition That what we cannot do in our selves which was originally required of us and what the Law of the first Covenant cannot inable us to perform that should be performed for us by our Mediator and Surety And if this be not included in the very first notion of a Mediator and Surety yet it is in that of a Mediator or Surety that doth voluntarily interpose himself upon an open acknowledgment that those for whom he undertakes were utterly insufficient to perform what was required of them on which Supposition all the Truth of the Scripture doth depend It is one of the very first notions of Christian Religion that the Lord Christ was given to us born to us that he came as a Mediator to do for us what we could not do for our selves and not meerly to suffer what we had deserved And here instead of our own Righteousness we have the Righteousness of God instead of being righteous in our selves before God he is the Lord our Righteousness And nothing but a Righteousness of another kind and nature unto Justification before God could constitute another Covenant Wherefore the Righteousness whereby we are justified is the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto us or we are still under the Law under the Covenant of Works It will be said that our Personal obedience is by none asserted to be the Righteousness wherewith we are justified before God in the