for the making this good I proceed To constitute Christ's satisfactory and meritorious righteousness according to Scripture we must suppose 1. That he was sinless and perfectly Holy in his very Nature Luke 1 35. 2. He must be sinless and perfectly Holy in the whole tract of his Life 1 Peter 2. 22. 3. That he was perfectly Holy in his sufferingâ— Hebr. 9. 14. 4. That his righteousness might be a satisfactory and meritorious righteousness the conjunction of his Divine righteousness was necessary and this did result from the personal union of both natures John 1. 14. I will grant then upon the matter that this righteousness the whole of it is the satisfactory and meritorious righteousness relating to my Person i. e. that which satisfied offended Justice removed the punishment due mark my explication for the violation of the Law of innocent Nature and hath mâ—erited all good and for which I and others have a right to and interest in all saving good promised upon true Repentance and unfeigned Faith which Repentance and Faith I and others have wrought in us if we have it for and upon the account of the merits of his righteousness But then that this righteousness of Christ is the formal righteousness of mine or anothers Person here is my stick for to me if this righteousness of Christ above described be the sole formal righteousness of my Person then it is only this that must constitute my Person righteous and by which I am denominated righteous and if so it must be my inherent as well as my imputed righteousness for if it be the righteousness of the Person it must be the righteousness of the Nature and if it be the righteousness of the Nature than it must be inherent seeing it is that which makes the very Nature righteous and from whence it is so accounted And can any Man that is well in his Wits think that Christ's perfectly Holy habits acts spotless sufferings all in conjunction with his righteousness as God is the righteousness and the sole righteousness of every individual Believer and so inherent if so then every individual Believer must either be the proper subject of this righteousness and so it must not be Christ's at all or else the common and so it must be attributed to Christ and them as a generical or specifical Nature let what part will be taken it is gross and irrational therefore we must until further light stick to this that if God do account the righteousness of Christ to be the very righteousness of our Persons he must also account it to be the righteousness of our Nature for to say that Thomas is personally righteous by such a righteousness and yet not righteous by it in his Nature is to say that Thomas is a Person without the specifical and individual Nature of Man than which nothing can be more absurd seeing that the Nature goes to the constituting of the Person There may indeed as in Christ be the individual Nature without the personality but there cannot be the Person without the Nature So that if Persons will have the righteousness of Christ above described to be the only formal righteousness of their Persons it must also be the righteousness of their Natures and so inherent And thus that which is called sanctifying Grace is taken away as needless for if Persons be righteous in their very Natures subjectively by the righteousness of Christ which it is evident they must be if it be the formal righteousness of their Persons it cannot be avoided but in God's account and so really and indeed they must be sinless and perfectly Holy unless they imagin the righteousness of Christ to be imperfect so that I have cleared this that such as hold the righteousness of Christ in their Justification is made by God or accounted by him to be the very formal righteousness of their Persons must also hold it to be the righteousnss of their Nature and so inherent and as such themselves to be the subjects of it But to advance a little further upon this thus then agreeable to the righteousness of the Nature such must be the acts which proceed from that Nature so or after such a sort righteous If therefore the righteousness of Christ be the righteousness of our Nature which it must be if it be the formal righteousness of our Persons as hath been proved then they â—ust not only be sinless but satisfactory and mâ—â—â—toriouâ— acts of which that righteousness is the principle which we in our own persons exert and put forth yea such as do answer the infinite Justice of God they being acts of which not only an Humane but a Divine righteousness in conjunction is the principle for such was Christ's righteousness Now it is no small matter of wonder that Men should be charging me and others with holding merit and setting up our selves and making Saviours of our own Duties all which we deny while they themselves must hold merit and satisfaction in the strictest sense in their own persons they expresly affirming they have a righteousness to be the formal righteousness of their persons which hath this efficacy and if this be not more gross than ever any merit was that the Papists held I will leave to any thinking unprejudiced Person to determine One would think Men professing the Knowledge of Christ above many bearing the name of Christians above all about them should know and acknowledge the righteousness of Christ above described to be essential and so proper to him as Mediatour and how or after what manner then this same righteousness must be the personal righteousness and that only of every particular Believer I profess is strange But if it be said they affirm it to be the personal righteousness of a Believer by God's Imputation I Answer God in this Imputation they speak of either communicates after some sort the righteousness of Christ or he doth not if he do then it cannot be essential and proper to Christ if he do not after any sort communicate it then how can it be the formal righteousness of any Man's Person Can a Man's Person be righteous with a righteousness that is altogether incommunicable except in its fruits and effects Will God impute that same righteousness to me so as to account me to be only righteous formally in my Person by it which he knows â— neither have nor can have in whole or in part it self it being essential and proper to his Son as Mediatour Men that shall endeavour to perswade me this is so or that it may be so must deprive me of the free exercise of my Reason first I have made it appear that if Christ's righteousness be the formal righteousness of our Persons then it must be the righteousness of our Nature if any contradict it they must know they have this to prove i. e. that God in justifying Peter or any other doth account them to be formally righteous by Christ's righteousness as Persons but not
all Men though in a special distinguishing sort of those that believe 12. I believe saith he that the obediential righteousness of Christ is by the act of God's free grace counted imputed and reckoned to the Elect as the material formal cause of their Justification in the sight of God and yet we are not Godded with God nor Christed with Christ as such an one saith mentioning me for I believe saith he that in Christ there is four sorts of righteousness three of which cannot without blasphemy be said to be imputed unto us First there is the righteousness of his Godhead Secondly Of his Manhood They are Essential to his two natures and cannot be imputed Thirdly The righteousness of both natures united together in one Person which is the righteousness that qualifies fits and makes him meet for the Work and Office of a Mediatour and is Essential to his Office as such and thus he is God's righteous Servant Jesus Christ the righteous a faithful High Priest Fourthly There is the righteousness of his obedience in his life and death to the holy and just Law of God and this is that righteousness which is imputed to sinners for Justification Now he hath led us into the clouds to purpose here is darkness and confusion with a witness yea and such as we have his own testimony for as will be manifest 1. He intimates the Elect are justified but whether as such only while in a state of impenitency and infidelity he tells us not If he intend they are while in that state then they must be justified and condemned at the same time for he that believes not is condemned already John 3. 18. 2. He saith that Christ's Righteousness is counted imputed and reckoned to the Elect as the material formal cause of their Justification and yet saith he we are not Godded with God and Christed with Christ I grant indeed neither he nor any other whoever they be are or ever shall be Goded with God or Christed with Christ but that this must be the consequence which is the thing I say if they hold the Doctrine of being formally personally Righteous with Christ's Righteousness this I have given reason for above Touching his distribution of Christ's Righteousness into four sorts his first and second sort supposeth that the humane nature of Christ did once exist seperate from the Divine seeing he saith the third sort is the righteousness of both natures united Now if the humane nature after it did exist never did exist but in Union with the Divine what ground can there be for this distinction First The Divine Righteousness Second The Humane Third The Righteousness of both Natures united I would know when and where they were disunited after the humane nature had once an existence I deny not that Christ's Righteousness as God is distinct from his Righteousness as Man as well as humane nature is distinct from the Divine though united in one and the same Person But this is that I desire to know when or where there was a Righteousness of both these natures considered as existing disunited If not to what purpose then is that which he calls his two first sorts of Christ's Righteousness I mean the distinction of his Righteousness into Divine and Humane from the Righteousness of both natures united And how can he make three sorts go we upon his own supposition for he saith there is the Righteousness of Christ as God and his Righteousness as Man and then the Righteousness of both natures united Now if he consider the natures as divided and if again as united He hath but still the Righteousness of the Divine and the Righteousness of the Humane nature which righteousness is but twofold where now is his third sort or where will he find it His fourth sort of Christ's Righteousness as he calls it is his obedience in Life and Death and this saith he is the Righteousness which is imputed Now as he makes this a fourth sort and so specifically distinct from the other then this obedience of Christ according to him must neither be his righteousness as Man nor his righteousness as God nor his righteousness as God and Man united for it is blasphemy quoth he to say that any of these sorts of Righteousness as he calls them are imputed and if Christ's Obedience in Life and Death be none of these what or whose Righteousness must it be it cannot according to what he saith be the Righteousness of our Lord Jesus for he is both God and Man and his Righteousness then must be the Righteousness of that Person who is both God and Man And if this Obedience in Life and Death which he saith is the Righteousness imputed be neither the Obedience of the Divine nor the Obedience of the Humane nature as he supposeth in seperation nor the Obedience of the Divine and Humane nature in union then it is manifest it cannot be Christ's according to his Doctrine Hath not this Man thinkest thou Reader run divisions to a pâ—rpose in Christ's Righteousness until he hath whoâ—ly cut off and cast away from him his active and passive Righteousness besides his dividing the Righteousness of his Divine and Humane nature which are but two into three Consider consider I beseech you you that are so stiff for such an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as to be formally in your own Persons righteous with it what this Doctrine leads to shut not your Eyes against clear light The Lord make it a conviction unto you when you hear that Men will have the active and passive obedience of Christ to be that they are materially and formally righteous with and yet will not have this active and passive obedience to be either the righteousness of Christ as God or the righteousness of Christ as Man or the righteousness of Christ as God and Man and so to be none of Christ's Righteousness at all So that now according to this Man we must have a righteousness and a righteousness imputed for our Justification which is the active and passive obedience of some Person but whose I cannot tell seeing he excludes the righteousness of Christ as God Man Mediatour saying it cannot without blasphemy be said to be imputed to us and without doubt the active and passive obedience of Christ was a righteousness and the righteousness of Christ God Man Mediatour and such a righteousness as was Essential to his Office seeing he would not have been a Mediatour without it But some may say Christ's active and passive obedience was essential to the execution of his Office as Mediatour but not to the constitution I Answer yes to the constitution as an actual and perfect Mediatour so far as respected his undertaken work both upon Earth and now in Heaven Heb. 5. 8 9 Though he were a Son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered And being made perfect he became the Author of eternal Salvation unto all them that obey him Heb. 9. 14. 15.
the account of that forgiveness and so Pardon of Sin should be a condition of it self and be in order of Nature before it self which I know not how to free from a contradiction 4. They differ in the different formality of the Subject to which they do relate for the Law of Grace in justifying considers Persons as conformed to its commands and upon that accounts them through and for Christ righteous but in pardoning it considers them previously as transgressors though yet as those who have right to Pardon by reason of their Conformity through Grace unto its Precepts and therefore for Christ's sake assures them of Pardon hereupon for upon Confession and forsaking of Sin and turning unto the Lord God by his gracious Promise assures us of Pardon And that the Gospel Law in pardoning doth previously consider the Person as a transgressor appears for asmuch as it Pardons not only such as have right to Pardon but those who have need of it and who have need but such as before Pardon are altogether in a special sort unpardoned transgressors 5. There is a difference betwixt Justification and Pardon as touching the Moral Efficiency of the Law of Grace justifying and pardoning for in the one it asserts a Person 's right but in the other it conveys that which it asserted his right unto These things being laid together and duly considered to me 't is evident that Justification and Pardon cannot be the same nor yet that Pardon can be our justifying Righteousness but a special benefit immediately following our Justification But it may be said Condemnation and Justification are opposed and therefore as Condemnation consists in the Laws Sentence of a Sinner to punishment so Justification must consist in acquitting the Sinner by Law Sentence from punishment and if so Is not here Pardon and if Pardon Then must not Justifi-fication consist in Pardon 1. I Answer First Justification and Condemnation are opposed materially for as the matter of Justification must be a Righteousness so the merit of Condemnation must be Unrighteousness or thus the matter of Justification must be Conformity to a Law the merit of Condemnation must be the violation of that Law 2. They are opposed in the different account of the Law for whom the Law Condemns them it accounts Guilty But whom it Justifies those it accounts Righteous But now though Justification and Condemnation be thus opposed yet it doth not follow that what is the form of the one the contrary to that is the form of the other or it doth not follow that as Condemnation consists in bearing the Laws Sentence to Punishment so Justification in acquitting from Punishment Indeed all justified Persons are most certainly acquitted but Justification in its own nature is not an acquitment Pardon and Condemnation are thus formally opposed but not Justification and Condemnation But it may be said further must he not be innocent who is acquitted and is not every innocent Person righteous I Answer an acquitment implies the Person who is now acquitted was once guilty of that from which he is now acquitted and so by Innocent here can only be meant one that is discharged from deserved punishment and such an one is clear indeed but then this his clearing doth imply a right by some pardoning act or act of Grace Every justified person is discharged from the Condemnation of the Law or the Execution of the Law 's Sentence but then this discharge implies a previous Righteousness not for which but upon which he is accounted to have right to that discharge and without which he might not have it for he that believes not is condemned and the wrath of God abides upon him so then a Person is righteous formally by this previous Righteousness and not by his discharge for that is only as is plain the immediate fruit of his Righteousness SECT VIII How our right to Pardon and Life is through Christ and how he is our Surety and hath procured the New Covenant for us I Come now to shew that it is through Christ that Sinners have right to Pardon and Life upon believing and it is through Christ in a double regard In regard to a Ransom paid and Covenant obtained It is through Christ in the first place as having paid the Ransom for Sinners Redemption Matth. 20. 28. Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministred unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many 1 Tim. 2. 5 6. For there is one God and one Mediatour between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus Who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time We are all by Nature Sin 's Slaves Satan's Captives loving the World and the things of the World cursed and condemned by the Law being Transgressors liable to the intollerable wrath of an Almighty God Christ paid a sufficient Ransom by his Obedience and Sufferings From the power and dominion of Sin Titus 2. 14. Who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purifie unto himself a peculiar People zealous of good works From the thraldom of Satan Coloss 2. 15. And having spoiled principalities and powers he made a shew of them openly triumphing over them in it Heb. 2. 14. Forasmuch then as the Children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the Devil From this present evil World Galat. 1. 4. Who gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from this present evil world according to the will of God and our Father From the Curse of the violated Law Galat. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree From the wrath of an offended God This ransom paid by Christ gave such satisfaction to an offended God as that he deals with none of the Sons and Daughters of Men now upon terms of the violated Law of works but is so far through this satisfaction given reconciled as that he grants them a reprieve from Hell and much riches of goodness and mercy to lead them to repentance yea and reveals himself further willing in a saving manner to be at peace with and reconciled unto Sinners upon their subjection to the Gospel Law who have the explicit offer And this satisfaction given by Christ's sufferings was no strict fulfilling of the Law threat but a fulfilling the Law of Mediation or Redemption for the Soul that sinned was to die though for the satisfaction given by Christ a stop was put to the execution of the Law threat When Persons say that the satisfaction Christ gave by his sufferings was a fulfilling of the threatning part of the Law of Innocency which Man had broken 't is a great mistake for in what was threatned by the Law was included corporal distempers and
Christ hath purchased Titus 2. 14. Who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purifie unto himself a peculiar People zealous of good Works This I have also proved that what is required on our part Christ hath also purchased and if Christ have purchased all that which constitutes the Covenant i. e. God's gracious promises and grace to enable us to perform the duties required to give us a right to and interest in the above mentioned benefits then let the Reader judge whether he be of the foundation that holds Christ hath purchased the Covenant or he that denies it It is through Christ furthermore that Souls have right to Pardon and Life upon true Faith as God upon the account of his Meritorious Righteousness and all prevailing Intercession communicates still further and further aids of Grace for Believers perseverance As Faith and Repentance are required by the Gospel to our initial Justification or right to Christ and the benefits of Pardon and Life through him so perseverance in Grace is required to our continued and final Justification He that endureth to the end the same shall be saved And Christ hath merited persevering Grace John 10. 10. The thief cometh not but for to steal and to kill and to destroy I am come that they might have Life and that they might have it more abundantly Ephes 5. 25 26 27. Husbands love your Wives even as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it That he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word That he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Heb. 2. 19. For it became him for whom are all things and by whom are all things in bringing many Sons unto glory to make the Captain of their Salvation perfect through sufferings From what hath been said we shall Observe That none of Mankind now can be accounted righteous and so have Justification by the Law that injoins sinless perfect Works for if so we must in the account of the Law be sinless and perfectly righteous And if so it must either be by having such a Righteousness of our own but this cannot be there being no meer Man that hath such a sinless perfect Righteousness of his own as this Law requires or Secondly It must be by having such a Righteousness of anothers but this cannot be for there is no Righteousness of another that can answer the Law of Innocent Nature but Christ's and this Law neither doth nor can account us sinless and perfectly righteous with Christ's Righteousness for if it should or could account us perfectly righteous by accounting the Righteousness of Christ in it self to be ours or accounting us perfectly to have obeyed and fulfilled it in Christ's Obedience It must account us to be thus righteous either absolutely or upon performance of some condition by it required If upon the performance of some condition it must either be the condition it required of sinless Man which is personal perfect and perpetual Obedience and if we could perform this we should not need Christ's Righteousness at all for there had been no necessity of Christ's Righteousness if Man had continued to have performed a personal perfect Righteousness or it must be upon the performance of the condition of a sincere Repentance and Faith But the Law of Innocent Nature reveals not and therefore cannot prescribe such a condition upon the performance of which it will account us perfectly righteous through or by Christ's Righteousness for if it did 't is evident there would have been no need of God's publishing the new Covenant or of promulgating the Gospel If it account us to be thus righteous absolutely without any condition at all then it either accounts all Mankind to be perfectly righteous by Christ's perfect Obedience or only some part of Mankind if it account all Mankind to be perfectly righteous through Christ's Righteousness then all must have Justification or a right to Life and none of Mankind must perish and if so then we must have universal Salvation If it account only some to be perfectly righteous with Christ's Righteousness then it must consider them either as Elect or non-elect if it do not consider them as Elect then the forementioned consequence is established If it consider them as Elect then the Law of Works must consider them as Sinners and so make provision for the Salvation of some and none for the Salvation of others that which I do not know any that will undertake to prove But if it should be granted that the Law of Innocent Nature absolutely without requiring any condition of them should account the Elect righteous upon Christ's perfect Obedience or fulfilling of it then it must follow that Christ's sufferings are a meer nullity and there is no need of them for if upon Christ's active Obedience the Law do account all the Elect sinless and perfectly righteous which it must do if it account them righteous personally with Christ's Righteousness and justifie them as such who have perfectly obeyed Christ's perfect Obedience then it cannot require suffering too seeing that it only calls for suffering in case it have not the actual Obedience it requires And it must follow further that there is no need of a Covenant of Grace nor Repentance and Faith commanded therein if the Law of sinless Works do account us perfectly righteous in Christ's perfect obeying it for us But none of these things can be as is plain if Persons will lay aside prejudice and consider And if so that cannot be sound and true which some have affirmed that Christ and we are one Legal Person or that Christ and Believers are one Person in Law Sense the Law accounting that what Christ did they did But it may be said when Persons become true Believers then the Law of Works 〈◊〉 them righteous with the Righteousness of Christ this is as much as to say the Law of Works justifies upon Persons performing of the condition of the Gospel and it knows nothing of nor doth it prescribe any such condition and so if it justifie it must justifie upon terms unknown and therefore unprescribed in it self and thus it is made a sort of a blind justifying Instrument SECT IX Faith described and explicated in order to our Justification by it HAving shewn how it is through Jesus Christ that God doth assert and will maintain our right to Pardon and Life I shall proceed to shew what Faith is which is the thing required to give us right John 3. 16. Acts 13. 39. Acts 16. 31. An acute Author gives us this Description of it 't is a believing acceptance of Christ a Saviour it is a short one but yet a full one for it implies First Assent Secondly Consent and Thirdly our resolved following of Christ in his way trusting and relying upon him whatever we meet withal First It
intercession of Christ Luke 22. 31 32. And the Lord said Simon Simon behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sist you as wheat But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren And that Christ is the Head of his Church which is called his Body I deny not But then that Christ was a publick Person in such a sense as that the Law of Innocency accounted what Christ did the Elect did and what he suffered they suffered I deny and have shewed the vanity of this above And though this Man speak not out plainly yet this seems to be at the bottom and the comparison betwixt Christ and Adam will afford him no such thing I grant that as all mankind were seminally in Adam as the common root so in that respect they fell in him as the prime progagator of a guilty and corrupt nature to his posterity to all that were to proceed from him by natural Generation yet that if Adam had stood and had propagated an Holy Seed that this Seed thus propagated had been secured in their standing by their Parent standing and had not any of them fallen this I want a word from God for its warrant I dare not make it an Article of my Creed Let him find me a promise in the Bible that runs thus or to this purpose either expresly or implicitely Adam if thou keep thy standing then an Holy Seed proceeding from thee by virtue of thy standing shall most certainly stand too and then I will be of the same Faith with him but until then he must excuse my dissent for this is certain to me that though Adam had stood and propagated an Holy Seed yet that Seed would have been under the same Law with their Parent and must have performed in their own Persons the same obedience that Law required of their Parent or else the Law would have condemned them notwithstanding the obedience of their Parent see then if his obedience would have secured their standing without their own personal obedience and that all mankind should have performed a personal constant obedience to the Law of Innocency suppose Adam in his own person had never fallen this we want proof for And so that Christ hath secured by what he hath done and suffered the state and standing of all the Elect without obedience to the Law of Grace I speak of the Adult i. e. though they live and die impenitent disobedient Infidels I deny for all such shall most certainly be brought to Heaven in the way of Repentance Faith and sincere Obedience and the reason is because the Lord Jesus Christ hath merited this for them but let it be proved by them that can that Adam besides his own Justification had he continued Obedient would over and above have merited assuredly grace and strength for the infallible standing of all his posterity which this Man's notion and the notion of others with him upon this point implies Men talk against and decry works of Superarogation holden by the Papists and see not how near they come to this themselves in attributing so much to a meer Man and to his Righteousness 8. I believe saith be that the Lord Jesus Christ the second Person in the blessed Trinity did when the fulness of time was come according to God's purpose and promise for the fulfilling of the conditions and bringing forth of the Grace and Life of this Covenant take upon himself the Nature Flesh and Humanity of the Elect and become God-man having both Natures in the unity of his Person the Godhead and Manhood I grant that Christ the Son of God did in time take upon him Man's Nature and united that Nature into one and the same Person with his Divine Nature but he would have done well if he had shewn first the difference betwixt Christ's Nature Flesh and Humanity considered as Man and secondly how the Nature Flesh and Humanity of the Elect differ from these in other Men. 9. I believe saith he according to the Scriptures that as Christ the Covenant head of the Elect was made under the Law so he was thus made and constituted in the room and stead of his Elect. There is nothing in this Article of his Creed but what I have spoken to before 10. I believe saith he according to Scripture he should have said so far as I understand it that the Father by way of Imputation laid all the iniquity and sin of the Elect upon Christ the Son of his love that he was made sin in a Curse for them and that he bore their sin in his own Body upon the Tree My reply is that Christ who suffered for us was an Holy Innocent Person Holy Harmless Undefiled seperate from Sinners He knew no Sin neither was guile found in his mouth The Sacrifices under the Law they were to be without blemish and without spot and as such were types of the sinless purity of Christ the great Sacrifice He by the eternal Spirit offered up himself without spot to God The Apostle Peter saith the just suffered for the unjust and we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot Therefore Christ as our Mediatour did not take our Sin upon him so as to be accounted by his Father as some say guilty of our faults and offences nor did God the Father account and reckon him as such indeed by his free and voluntary undertaking to satisfie offended justice for us he obliged himself to suffer for our Sins but he never so took our Sins upon him as to be accounted and esteemed by God one that was wicked or a Sinner for if God his Father had thus accounted him as such he must have hated him but did God hate Christ either in his own Person or as our Surety Surely no. The contrary is plain this is my beloved Son and we are said to be accepted in the beloved He was the Holy and Just one in his sufferings yea as our Mediatour for he suffered as such Whereas then it is said Isaiah 53. that God laid upon him the iniquities of us all and by the Apostle Peter that he bore our Sins in his own body upon the tree we are to understand by sin and iniquity punishment for Christ's satisfactory sufferings were a punishment tho' not inflicted upon him considered as a Sinner or transgressor of any Law but voluntarily undertaken and suffered by him in our place and stead for the making our attonement A punishment Christ's sufferings were but yet not with relation to any Sin in or upon himself as our Mediatour but with relation to our Sins which were the remote occasion and procuring cause of his suffering though not as God did account them to be his but as he voluntarily suffered for them which would not have been had we never sinned Christ was not immediately obliged by or upon our sinning to suffer whether he
would or no as a surety in the same bond is immediately obliged in Law to discharge the debt whether he be willing or no in case of the failure of the principal Debtor No for it so his undertaking to suffer would not have been in its nature voluntary and free which undoubtedly it was By this little Readers you may understand in what sense Christ's sufferings were a punishment when therefore you read of our Iniquities and Sins being laid upon Christ you are to understand that punishment which he suffered for us in the sense above It is like some Men at this day do esteem Christ to have been stricken smitten of God and afflicted as he was reputed by God to be the greatest Sinner but God tells such that he was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed Isaiah 53. 3 4 5. Now whereas it is said according to our Translation in Isa 53. 6. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all we shall find the like in very many places of Scripture translated punishment To instance in some Levit. 26. 41. If then their uncircumcised Hearts be humbled and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity â—â—NRâ—â— the very same word with that in Isaiah translated iniquity is translated punishment only the affix is added In 1 Sam. 28. 10. Saul speaking to the Witch of Endor assures her that no punishment should happen unto her for that thing useth the very same word â—â—NRâ—â— which we have in Isaiah translated iniquity But it may be said what will you say to that Isa 53. 10. When thou shalt make his Soul an offering for Sin The word translated an offering for Sin is â—â—NRâ—â— guilt and so some read the words when thou shalt make his Soul guilt or guilty and doth not this clearly hold forth that Christ had our Sins translated upon him and was really reputed the Sinner the guilty Person instead of the Elect I Answer no for it is manifest the trespass offering was denominated or called â—â—NRâ—â— guilt not because it was guilty or reputed so to be by God but because by its Blood as a typical Sacrifice it was to expiate and make attonement for the Sin and guilt of the Person for whom it was to be a Sacrifice as many things both in our common acceptation and in the Holy Scriptures receive their denomination from their end and use And further the Learned tells us when this word â—â—NRâ—â— is applied to Christ and to the offerings for trespass as types of him it signifies an expiatory Sacrifice a Piaculum a Sacrifice to attone for heinous crimes These words in Isaiah when thou shalt make his Soul an offering for Sin Musculus reads thus Si posuerit vel posita fuerit anima ejus â—â—NRâ—â— sacrificium pro peccato i. e. if he shall lay down his Soul or if his Soul be laid down a Sacrifice for Sin And in his application of the Text he further saith Utitur Propheta voce legali â—â—NRâ—â— quae in Levitico cap. 5. pro oblatione sumitur quae offerenda erat pro delicto The Prophet useth this Law term â—â—NRâ—â— which in Levit. 5. is taken for an oblation which was to be offered for a fault or trespass And he goes on cum ergoâ—hic dicit ubi posuerit se anima ejus â—â—NRâ—â— nihil aliud intelligit quam sacrificium pro peccato fecit hoc Christus in cruce in quâ semet ipsum Deo Patri pro peccatis nostris sacrificicium expiatorium obtulit When therefore he saith in this place when his Soul shall make her self â—â—NRâ—â— he intends no other but a Sacrifice for Sin and this Christ performed on the Cross upon which he offered up himself an expiatory Sacrifice to God the Father for our Sins Another thus upon the words cum subjecerit seipsum paenis when he shall subject himself to punishments or sufferings And Buxtorf himself a Person familiarly acquainted both with the Rites and Dialect of the Jews reads this word â—â—NRâ—â— oblatio pro reatu an offering for guilt or for the guilty But it is said Verse 12th he bore the sins of many and the word in the Original translated Sin is â—â—NRâ—â— and where do you find that this is translated punishment I Answer In Zechar. 14. 19. This shall be the punishment of Aegypt the word in the Hebrew for punishment is â—â—NRâ—â— And let it be observed this very word translated punishment here is the very same in form with that which is translated Sin-offering denoting that it was so called because it suffered and was offered up for and instead of the Sinner to attone for him And thus and upon this account did Christ the great Sacrifice suffer and was offered up of whom all the Legal Sacrifices were types But it may further be said was not Aaron the High Priest a type of Christ our great High Priest I Answer Yes If so then it is said that Aaron as a type of Christ was to bear the iniquity of the holy things of the Children of Israel which imports that Christ was to have the Sins of all the Elect charged upon him and be accounted by God the Sinner I Answer It is a manifest mistake in this sc that the Persons of Believers are accounted by God clean and their services clean and holy by their having the Sins of those services and duties laid and charged by God upon Christ and reputed his But it is manifest that the Persons of Believers and their duties are accepted by God and the Sins that attend them and their duties pardoned upon the account of Christ's Sacrifice his holy Merits and spotless Mediation and Intercession If Christ take away the filthy garments of his People so as I have shewn when they approach the presence of God and rebuke Satan for them I dare not say let them that will that either God or he puts them upon himself And it is to be observed the word â—â—NRâ—â— translated to bear Exod. 28. 38. hath various acceptations in Scripture and among the rest it signifies deportavit he hath born away or exiled and not only so but condonavit he hath pardoned Numb 14. 19. Pardon I beseech thee the iniquity of this People according unto the greatness of thy Mercy and as thou hast forgiven this People from Aegypt even until now The word in the Hebrew translated thou hast forgiven is â—â—NRâ—â— the same as to the root we have in the Text before quoted so that the intent of the Holy Spirit therein comes to this that the Lord Jesus Christ our great High Priest and so our Intercessor by the sweet Incense of his Mediation obtains Pardon for all the Sins and iniquities which attended the Holy things of his People so that all their iniquities are hereby born away and as it were exiled and their spiritual performances made acceptable to God But say
Sin of Man if it was not accounted his own and so laid upon him I Answer can we think that Men can be ignorant this might very well be in this case and was so when many of the Servants of God were greatly afflicted for the Sins and Miseries of others as David and Jeremiah and those that were mourners in Jerusalem though they were not as Christ to suffer in their stead for them If they say they do not think that God accounted his Son in himself to be a Sinner but as he was our Surety I Answer If God did account Christ as our Surety a Sinner and so guilty pray what did he account him guilty of as our Surety there are these things in Sin the Act the Pollution and the Punshment If then God the Father did account Christ as our Surety guilty of the Act then he must account him the actual Sinner If of the Pollution then one that was morally impure in his Nature If of the Punishment so far as it includes his suffering to satisfie for our Sins and make our attonement from his own free and voluntary obligation this I grant For if this were so that God the Father did account our Lord Jesus Christ considered in relation to us as Mediatour to have been guilty of the Sins of all the Elect then as such as I have said he must have been odious to God and if so how could those acts respecting our Redemption and Reconciliation performed by him as our Surety or Mediatour have been of a sweet smelling savour to God It would be as much as to say God the Father loved superlatively his Son in himself but abhorred him considered as Man's surety and Mediatour and if so those acts which were of the greatest moment performed by him in this relation to us such as giving himself to be a Sacrifice must have been odious to God and if so where must we state our hopes of Salvation It is certainly a vain and ungrounded distinction to say that God accepted of the act of Obedience as they were acts of the Person without Sin but condemned him as standing in the relation of our Mediatour as a Sinner â—eeing that whatever acts are relative acts those also are the acts of the Person standing in that relation for actiones sunt suppositorum And besides the very typical Sacrifices which the Adversaries allow are a clear evidence of this i. e. that Christ the great Sacrifice and our Sacrifice to be offered for expâ—ation and making attonement must not be so much under that notion as reputed a Sinner much less the greatest Sinner for these were to be without blemish and without spot as hath been said and as such offered up unto God Surely they will not say here they were to be so considered in a Physical but not in a Legal sense for God did repute them so in a Legal sense seeing they were appointed by the Law for the Peoples typical expiation we find Levit. 6. 25. the Sin-offering by God is called most Holy or as the words in the Original are Holiness of Holiness â—â—NRâ—â— and the LXX â—â—NRâ—â— now how dare any Man contradict the word and say these were by God accounted legally unclean what reputed by God Holiness of Holiness legally most holy and yet also uncleanness of uncleanness legally most unclean Let them reconcile this that can And if so be those typical Sacrifices were accounted by the Lord legally most Holy then undoubtedly the Antitype the great Sacrifice for expiation i. e. our blessed Lord Jesus must be so accounted in the offering up of himself As Christ's Righteousness say some is imputed to us so our Sins are imputed to Christ They that affirm this some of them say that it is not only passive but the habitual and active Righteousness of Christ which is imputed Pol. Syntagma p. 457. If therefore our Sins be imputed to Christ as Christ's Righteousness in his sense is imputed to us then from this Doctrine it must follow that our habitual and actual Sins must be imputed to Christ i. e. both the corruption of our nature and all our actual transgressions seeing then that to impute signifies to judge account or reckon the sense of these Persons must be that God did account and reckon the Lord Jesus Christ as our Surety or Mediatour to be both an habitual and actual Sinner and was Christ so in God's account Christ is said to be made a Curse for us as Mr. B. saith by suffering as a Sacrifice for us a cursed death not that he was under either in himself or as our Mediatour a Spiritual or Eternal Curse or as some may mean cursed by the Law as a Sinner which is all one for the Law of Innocency justified him 11. I believe saith he that Christ by his obedience active and passive in his holy life and bitter death of the Cross hath compleatly fulfilled the Law and perfectly satisfied the offended justice of God for all the Elect. I Answer Christ did both obey and suffer he yielded conformity to the Law and suffered and satisfied the offended justice of God for Sinners and this in their place and stead The sufferings of Christ were a full satisfaction to an offended God and the principal way and means for the securing the Glory of his Justice and Holiness and for the manifestation of the Glory of his Wisdom and Mercy in the Salvation of Sinners But then that Christ did properly fulfil by his sufferings the threat of the Law of Innocency which we had violaâ—ed this I deny for if so then he should have suffered the same Spiritual and Eternal as well as Corporal punishment in kind which was due unto transgressions and if so where had our Redemption been our Divines generally have said Christ did not suffer the Idem or the same that we should have suffered but the Tantundem what did avail yea infinitely avail to make satisfaction for our offences for any Man to say the Laws threat was properly and perfectly fulfilled in Christ's suffering it includes a contradiction for eternal sufferings were included in the Laws threat but seeing Christ's sufferings were long since finished they cannot be said to be eternal Now for any Man to affirm that Christ properly and perfectly fulfilled the Laws threat without suffering such a death as the Law threatned if it be not a contradiction it looks as like one as ever Man saw But of this I shall say no more having spoken of it above Only there is this which seems intimated further in this Article of his Faith i. e. that what Christ did and suffered was only for the Elect and that others have no benefit thereby which if intended by him I must make bold to tell him it is a great mistake as I have also shewn above for I do not think that any in the World enjoy any Mercy but upon the account of Christ's undertaking upon which he is said to be the Saviour of
e. that the Law of Innocency approves and accepts of Christ's Righteousness Grant I must that Christ as Man was conformed to the Law of Innocency both in Nature and Life and that his Sufferings were in the place and stead of those Sufferings which were due unto us in Law for our Violation thereof and that both his active and passive Obedience was for us in a way of Mediation and Redemption But then that either the active Obedience of Christ considered as our Mediatour was approved and accepted by this Law for that Obedience which was due unto it from us in our own Persons or his passive Obedience for those sufferings which were due unto us by this Law threat this I deny for this Law knows nothing of a Mediatour for us for if so provision should have been made for such an one â—y it and in it but who will say this It is then the great Lawgiver that approves and accepts of the Righteousness of Christ for us as satisfactory and meritorious having left himself a liberty to dispence with his own Law as to the strict exaction and execution of it upon valuable consideration given by a Mediatour whose Obedience should be of infinite worth For if the Law of Innocency violated by Man's Sin should approve and accept Christ's Righteousness for Sinners as their Surety and Mediatour instead of that Obedience they were bound to perform then it must account them righteous in Christ's performance and if it account them righteous then it must justifie them and if it justifie them it must account them such as are sinless and perfectly Holy in Nature and Life for it will justifie none else Let me not be mistaken here I deny not but affirm that the Law of Innocency did both approve and accept of the Obedience of Christ or else he had not been justified by it But then that this Law did approve and accept of this Obedience of Christ as our Surety and Mediatour as to account it was so for us as that we obeyed in him this I deny For if so it cannot chuse but discharge us and we must need no Pardon for he cannot be said to have a Pardon that in the Laws own sense and acceptation pays the whole of what it requires either by himself or by another the Law allowing And he adds that the exact justice and free Grace of God do not only agree and kiss each other but that they are both exalted and glorified in the Justification of a Sinner I grant him the whole of this for it is of Faith that it might be by Grace and it is by Faith in such a way as justice hath full satisfaction yea and all the glorious perfections of God shine forth and must do for ever Further saith he how any Man can find his consequence I suppose he either would or should have said his conscience free from the accusation of the Law without such a â—â—ghteousness I cannot yet see To this I shall say we have all transgressed the Law it has concluded us all under Sin and as such condemns us and if we be convinced our Consciences do and must accuse us as guilty and bear witness for the Laws equity in this its process so that there is no stopping the execution of the Laws sentence by the procuring of Pardon or an act of Grace by any thing but by the satisfactory and meritorious Righteousness of Christ and this Righteousness shall not actually avail any for the purpose above but the penitent Believer for he that believeth not remains condemned and he that repents not continues unforgiven as to special Pardon as the Scripture is plain for the purpose Our Consciences then accusing us as Sinners for non-conformity unto and violation of this Holy Law of God which we must acknowledge so long as we live we are justly accused of or else we must deny our selves to be Sinners and affirm we are counted by this Law to be sinless and perfectly righteous that which must quiet our Consciences here and free us from fear and terror of having the Laws curse inflicted as to its full and eternal extent must be only the satisfactory and meritorious Righteousness of Christ by which we are delivered from the execution of its curse But if our Consciences accuse us of Impenitency and Infidelity and so to be such as have no actual interest in or right to Christ and his Righteousness for the purpose above spoken of there is nothing can quiet our Consciences here or remove our fear but our having of true Repentance and Faith found in us But again faith he nor can I see without such a Righteousness how the Doctrine of Faith establisheth the Law I grant him that without the Righteousness of Christ the Doctrine of Faith neither doth nor can establish the Law But then how wants explication I say then upon this Although the Doctrine of Faith or the Doctrine of Justification by Faith doth make void the Law suppose we the Law injoining perfect sinless works as a Covenant of Life and so as an instrument of our Justification not from any default in it self but from our moral infirmity or weakness yet the Doctrine of Faith doth not make it void as a Rule of Obedience seeing the Gospel which is the Law of Faith besides its own proper precepts hath also this proper unto it self to injoin us sincere Obedience to the Moral Law which shall for Christ be accepted instead of strict Legal perfection and thus the Law is established by Faith But if this may not content I shall shew him and others another way of Faiths establishing the Law and that is thus God accepting now the Obedience of Faith according to the Gospel Law which includes sincere Obedience to the precepts of that which is ordinarily called Moral as we consider Faith practical and this for the alone satisfactory and meritorious Righteousness of Christ hath hereby manifested that he could not so dispence with this his righteous and Holy Law as to pardon the violation or transgression of it without full satisfaction given to his governing Justice which satisfaction he hath had so that now in his justifying of a Sinner through Christ by Faith he keeps up the repute and credit of this his Law and so hath established it as a righteous and holy Law according to the Scripture Isa 42 21. The Lord is well pleased for his Righteousness sake he will magnifie the Law and make it honourable Rom. 3. 25 26. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood to declare his Righteousness for the Remission of Sins that are past through the forbearance of God To declare I say at this time his Righteousness that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus He concludes this Article thus yet are we not justified by the Law though in a way of Law and Justice but freely by grace through the Redemption that is
natures or did God make a Covenant of Grace with a Covenant of Grace Christ indeed was given of the Father to reconcile God to Sinners by his Blood and Sinners to God by the Holy Spirit given Ephes 2. 13. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ Coloss 1. 21. And you that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your minds by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled And so he is the Efficient and meritorious cause of the Covenant of Grace and the gift of the Covenant so far as he makes over himself and the blessed fruits of his purchase thereby to his People but to talk of Christ being the Covenant it self and so to purchase himself if he purchase the Covenant of Grace who could have thought that any Man should have offered such raw conceptions for certainly the end of Christ's Death was to reconcile God and Sinners and are God and Sinners reconciled so long as Sinners continue in actual rebellion against him If not then are not Sinners to cast away their weapons their Sins whereby they have been warring against God And are they not to come in upon his Proclamation of Grace and humbly submit themselves to his sacred Majesty promising through Grace to be his loyal Subjects for the time to come And is not this an engagement on the returning Sinners part to be the Lords when he saith implicitly herein and so answers Gods call as it is said Jerm 3. 22. Return ye backâ—sliding Children and I will heal your backslidings Behold we come unto thee for thou art the Lord our God Isa 26. 13. O Lord our God other Lord besides thee have had dominion over us but by thee only will we make mention of thy name And hath not God promised to accept receive pardon c. for Christ's sake such a Sinner and is not this God's gracious engagement on his part and is not here the form of a Covenant But was there ever such a Covenant made betwixt God and Christ True indeed it is in and through the merits of Christ that God thus condescends but plain it is this Covenant which is a Covenant of Grace to Sinners is made betwixt God and them Can these Persons understand the nature of Mercy and Grace as they should who talk of a Covenant of Mercy and Grace made with Christ Well but say they it was made with Christ for us and with us in him I Answer If they speak of the Covenant of Redemption I grant it was though made with Christ yet so for us as that it was in order to our Redemption and Salvation by him but if they speak of the Covenant of Grace such a Covenant as I have described above that this was made with Christ for us this I deny for if so then Christ must be bound to perform that duty on his part which God in the Gospel requires of Sinners and will they say this That he hath ingaged himself in the Covenant of Redemption to give Grace to all the Father hath given him I speak of the Adult to inable them to perform the duty which the Gospel injoins and if this be all they intend by the Covenant of Grace being made with Christ for Believers they do not differ from me in the thing though yet observe their notion confounds in the matter the Covenant of Redemption made with Christ making it the same with that which is made with Sinners which is strictly in its own nature and in the very matter of it a Covenant of Grace and Mercy And further when they say the Covenant of Grace as such in its own nature was made with us in Christ If they mean with us in Christ as the purchaser which this Man denies in scorn or the great mean of conveyance of the blessings hereof or with â—s in Christ as we have interest in it after a special sort upon our Union with him by Faith I am of the same mind But if they mean it was made with us in Christ as that he is the only Confederate for us who obliged himself to perform what is required of us and so to repent believe and obey the Gospel for us this I deny and so the Assembly as appears in their Answer to this Question i. e. How is the Grace of God manifested in the second Covenant A. In that he freely provideth and offereth to Sinners a Mediatour and Life and Salvation by him and requiring Faith as the condition to interest them in him promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his Elect to work in them that Faith with all other saving Graces and to enable them to all Holy Obedience as the evidiâ—nce of the truth of their Faith and thankfulness to God and as the way he hath appointed them to Salvation Q. 3. If Faith be our formal justifying Righteousness then how is Christ the Lord our Righteousness or all the Seed of Israel justified in him A. This I have fully answered above and from thence he may know by Efficiency and Merit Q. 4. If God justifie the Elect by a Righteousness which answereth not the Law of Innocency then how doth he administer grace in a way of justice or what doth he justifie them from or how is he just in justifying him that believeth in Jesus and faithful and just to forgive us our Sins seeing what he doth seems to interfere with Law and Justice A. He supposeth first That God justifieth the Elect if he mean only as such before Faith and so without Faith it is not true 2ly He supposeth that God justifieth by a Righteousness that answereth the Law of Innocency If he mean by such a Righteousness as is the Merit I grant but if he mean by such a Righteousness a Righteousness which we are personally righteous with this I deny If God saith he doth not justifie the Elect by a Righteousness which answereth the Law of Innocency How then saith he doth he administer grace in a way of justice I Answer God doth justifie by that Righteousness which answereth the Gospel or God's Law of Grace if he mean by answering a conformity to the precepts of a Law i. e. the Righteousness of Faith And in this he administers Grace in the way of Justice 1. As he accepts Faith for Righteousness and gives us an actual right thereupon to Pardon and Life for Christ's sake whose active Righteousness was a conformity to the Law of Innocency as it required sinless perfect rectitude both in Nature and Life and his Sufferings which are called his Passive Righteousness which were instead of the penalty due unto us for our violation of this Law both which are meritorious and satisfactory on our behalf and thus the Law is answered for us in the account of the Lawgiver and justice fully satisfied And thus Readers you must understand me when I speak of Christ's fulfilling the Law and in what I have spoken of that 2.
is no spot in thee The meaning is she was so in an Evangelical but not in a Legal sense sincerity or true grace was the prevailing Principle and in that respect he accounted her for his Merits all fair and without spot When Christ said concerning Nathaniel an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile he intended no more but an upright sincere Soul Christ such is his love he denominates his People from the better part If therefore his meaning be that God seeth no Sin in his People so far as they are sincerely conformed to the Gospel Law this Conformity in it self being no Sin but a Righteousness or that God seeth no Sin which he hath fully pardoned to be unpardoned or that God doth not so see Sin as everlastingly to condemn a true Believer for it in denying him Repentance Faith Pardon through the merits of Christ I am of his mind But then if he intended which I suppose he doth that God seeth no Sin in his People as they are accounted personally righteous for their Justification with Christ's Righteousness that there is any such thing as this I deny and therefore there cannot be the other upon that account or for that The rest of his Texts are not to the purpose 25. I believe saith he that such an one still naming me ought to let Men state their own judgments and give their own sense of what they say and hold and not state the same for them and draw his own absurd consequences and fight with them against he knows not who This is a pretty Article of a Man's Faith in the point of Justification but I must say something unto it Well then either this Man's judgment if he know what he holds himself doth upon the matter in question contradict what I affirm or it doth not If it do not why doth he oppose me If it do why doth he complain as though I did him wrong And when he talks of drawing absurd consequences â—tis well if he know what an absurdity is although he himself be guilty enough in this kind in what he hath writ But let him find me if he can that any of the consequences of which he speaks do contradict the Doctrine I draw them from and if he disown the Doctrine and hold the contrary I charge not the consequences upon him But then he must first retract that which he makes an Article of his Creed i. e. that Christ's acts works doings and obedience in themselves for that he must mean or elâ—â— he contradicts not me are imputed and counted to the Elect for their personal justifying Righteousness But he faith further I sight with my consequences against I do not know who If I do not it is like he doth or else why should he take himself concerned to oppose unless he hath a mind to kick before he be prick'd But he goes on and tells us he believes that I am guilty of the breach of the 9th Command in bearing false witness But let me tell him here if he were no more guilty upon the matter in Question of false Accusation against me than I am against him or others upon the point I should have been ashamed to have said thus much by him I desire him then to consider if he be not very guilty of that which he chargeth me with while he insinuaâ—es 1. That I hold that some of the Elect being Adult shall live and die Insidels 2. That I in the point of Justification am one with the Papists Arminians Socinians and Quakers 3. That I contradict the 11th 13th and 17th Articles of the Church of England 4. That my consequences are absurd with relation to the Doctrine they are dedâ—ced from 5. That I am guilty of the breach of the 9th Command in applying that Doctrine to any when plain it is it hath been held and still is by many that Christ is one Legal Person with the Elect and that Christ obeyed and suffered in the account of the violated Law not only as a Mediatour but as a common publick Person representing all the Elect and this he saith himself in what he did and suffered so as by the same Law what he did for us is reckoned or imputed to us as if we our selves had done it and what was done to him tending to our Justification and Salvation is reckoned as done to us And doth not this agree with the Doctrine I draw the consequences from 6. That I affirm Faith to justice as an act without relation to its object Christ with others I might mention none of which he can prove against me and who is it that beareth false witness now I or he But he hath more yet quoth he speaking after a scornful sort concerning me he matters not that he means the breach of the Ninth Command being now got under a new Law which will be more favourable than the old This new Law he scoffs at I have shewn is the Gospel or Covenant of Grace and have proved above that there is such a thing and that it is a Law and that Christ hath purchased it though the Socinians deny it and so he with them And therefore I must make bold to tell this Man and that not without warrant from the Holy Scriptures that he must either be brought under this new Law which he derides or he perisheth for ever for if he think to be justified and saved upon the terms of the Old Covenant he will find himself wretchedly mistaken Galat. 3. 10. For as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse for it it written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to â—o them 2 Theâ— 1. 7 8. And to you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven with his mighty Angels in flaming Fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ And let him not think that the Gospel Law or the Gospel which is a Law giveth liberty to Sin or exempts from a due and sincere Obedience to all God's Holy Commands for the contrary is plain Tâ—us 2. 11 12. For the grace of God that bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all Men Teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present World But if he look for no favour from God but in the way and upon the terms of the Law of Innocency he never shall have any nay he never would have had any so much as common 26. I believe saith he that that Righteousness wherewith God justifies the Elect is a Righteousness which his Holy Law approves and accepts of Though he make no distinction yet by Righteousness I take it for granted he intends the Righteousness of Christ and by Law the Law of Innocent Nature violated by Man's Sin This then is that which he must intend i.