transacts still as Mediator but he obliging himself to these great Performances in order to our doing what we are personally obliged to do and our receiving what we are necessitated to receive if ever we be saved even in a Gospel-way tho it supposeth him already crucified he is properly called a Surety of the New Covenant yet still connoting him a Mediator I need not suggest that if in this new Covenant Christ's Suretyship will not infer our being one foederating Party with Christ and hence that we covenanted in him it will far less follow we did so in the Covenant of Redemption which treated of things so improper to be once propos'd to us as undertaking Parties much less as Principals which to strictly legal Sureties always are supposed But of this I have treated in Man made righteous and in Answer to the Report and P. S. to Gospel-Truth THE OTHER SIDE think Christ with the Father's consent came into the Covenant of Works considered as a Bond as unviolated say some as violated say others and therein became one foederating Party with us as Elect some say as Believers say others even such a Surety as made the Covenant of Works run thus If thou Christ my Son or you the Elect or Believers do obey all the Law you shall live But if they sin thou or they shall die or they having sinned thou shalt die And they conceiving Christ to be as a strict pecuniary Surety in this one Bond with us they esteem him one legal Person and Representative in such a sense as that we did covenant in him and are legally esteemed to do and suffer what he did and not only secured of Salvation in his right and for his sake This may be accounted by some a dangerous Difference and so it were on our part if we did not own that Christ's fulfilling of the Law was an Article in the Covenant of Redemption and that we are as fully assured of Salvation if we accept of Christ as if we had covenanted in him and that he hath engaged the Elect should accept of him tho they did not covenant in him and that Believers have as inviolable an Interest in the Benefits of Christ's Death both in his right and by the Gospel-promise as if they were legally esteemed to suffer what he did suffer But all this we acknowledg It would be as dangerous on our Brethrens part to say we covenanted in Christ and obeyed in him if they did not renounce all proud assuming Boasts as if they were as righteous as Christ or stood on terms with God needing no more Acts of Mercy than that one of appointing Christ to be Mediator but after that they are on terms of strict Justice and above Forgiveness c. The like Danger would ensue their Position if they did not acknowledg the necessity of Faith to Justification and this Faith to be always accompanied with Repentance and persevering Holiness But our Brethren renounce the former and own the latter Matters standing thus will afford no ground to hereticate each other We think a mediating Surety obliged in a distinct Bond to perform the utmost which our Brethren affirm Christ to have done doth as well secure our State and support our Faith as if in the same Bond and better account for the sapiential Methods of Divine Government towards Man since the Fall with God's judicial Procedures towards Man as under Gospel-offers and his suspending Christ's merited Benefits till Men believe as also his recorded Pleadings with Sinners The Brethren think not that Christ did more for our Salvation than we allow but that we did more in Christ and thence judge our Faith more supported and the Law of Works more honoured in their way But did each side perceive all the aforesaid respective Ends alike provided for and evil Consequences equally avoided the Notion in debate could for its own sake admit no Dispute on either side And is it not pity to hate each other for mistaking the best Scheme to avoid the same Evils which both would prevent and secure that same Good which both honestly aim at by their respective Hypotheses Forbearance is the juster in this point because it turns upon a Solution of this Question When Adam is called a Figure of Christ Rom. 5. 18. is there not some disparity in their Representation of Men as well as in those other things there instanced Our Brethren think Christ so fully prefigured by Adam as a Representative that we as truly obeyed and suffered in Christ as we sinned in Adam We think the Figure as to Representation is to be explained thus As no man becomes a Sinner or dieth whose Depravedness and Death were not procured and merited by Adam's first Sin and tho the Pagan Sinners who died did not actually sin against a revealed positive Law as Adam did yet he was the Root of Death to them as well as to the Jews under Moses's Law So no men are quickned justified sanctified or saved but Christ is a Root of Life Grace Justification Holiness and Glory to them in all these by his Merits in some also by his Spirit and Power But yet we conceive Christ may as well answer Adam's Figure here intended by our being quickned justified and saved by Christ's Obedience imputed to us without our being esteemed to have obeyed and suffered in him as Christ was condemned and died for Adam's Sins imputed to him tho he was not esteemed to have sinned in Adam As he was condemned by our Disobedience so we are justified by his Obedience viz. the first by his own Compact with the Father the last by that and the Gospel too He was not condemned by any imputation that made him by the Law a Sinner unless he sinned in Adam neither are we justified by being legally judged Sufferers or Obeyers in him It avails not to say Christ was legally a Sinner and yet not reputed to sin in Adam because Christ was our Root for tho he was our Root as to Grace Acceptance Pardon and Glory and whatever else did proceed from him to us as our Saviour nevertheless if he was a Sinner he could not as to this be our Root unless we derive Sin from him but surely that Denomination must have its Root not in him but in those that were Sinners before him and whose Sins were imputed to him they must denominate that one legal Person into which he came a sinful guilty Person as he doth that one obeying satisfying Person into which we are admitted which Terms our Brethren espousing I argue from Finally we are enclined to set the foresaid Limit to Christ's Representation by this among many other Reasons for in that Rom. 5. 18. where Adam is called a Figure the Death of those Heathens was merited by their own personal Transgressions as well as by Adam's Disobedience But the Elect even when Believers do not merit Life by their own personal Obedience and therefore we are not represented altogether in the
foreknown predestinated and called effectually according to the purpose of his Grace shall fall away either totally or so as not to be finally glorified 5. That Faith Repentance a holy Conversation or any Act or Work whatever done by us or wrought by the Spirit of God in us are any part of that Righteousness for the sake of which or on the account whereof God doth justify any Man or entitle him to Eternal Life Then follows a Testimony against the other Extreams viz. Antinomian Errors Again Anno 1696. in a Paper call'd The second Paper sent to our Brethren we thus give our sense 1. Concerning Iustification That altho the express Word of God doth assert the necessity of Regeneration to our entring into the Kingdom of God and require Repentance that our Sins may be blotted out and Faith in Christ that we may be justified and Holiness of Heart and Life without which we cannot see God yet that none of these or any Work done by Men or wrought by the Spirit of God in them is under any Denomination whatsoever any part of the Righteousness for the sake or on the account whereof God doth pardon justify or accept Sinners or entitle them to Eternal Life that being only the Righteousness of Christ without them imputed to them and received by Faith alone 2. Of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us As we are to consider our Lord Jesus Christ in his Obedience and Sufferings as God and Man invested with the Office of Mediator so it is apparent this Commutation of Persons with us was not natural in respect of either Nature by which his individual Substance should become ours and ours his nor moral in respect of Qualities or Actions whereby he should become inherently sinful and we immediately sinless nor was it any change whereby his Office of Mediator should be transferred on us but it is to be understood in a legal or judicial sense as we may call it viz. He by Agreement between the Father and him came into our room and stead not to repent and believe for us which the Gospel requires of us as our Duty tho he hath undertaken the Elect shall in due time be enabled thereto but to answer for our Violation of the Law of Works he being made Sin for us that knew no Sin that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5. 21. 3. Of God's being pleased or displeased with Christ as standing and suffering in our stead We judg that God was always pleased with Christ both in his Person and Execution of all his Offices which is exprest most particularly in that of his Priestly Iohn 10. 17 18. Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my Life and no otherwise displeased than as having a dispassionate Will to inflict upon him the Punishment of our Sins which he had undertaken to bear that God might without Injury to his Justice or Honour pardon and save penitent Believers for his Satisfaction and Intercession founded thereon Note It was declared that by the words under any Denomination we exclude all Righteousness from being meritorious or atoning yea or a procuring Cause of these Benefits none is at all so but the Righteousness of Christ But we intended not to exclude what the Gospel requireth in order to our Interest in those Benefits given for the sake of Christ's Righteousness We also in 1697 delivered our Iudgment in this Proposal to our Brethren 1. That Repentance towards God is commanded in order to the Remission of Sins 2. That Faith in Christ is commanded by the Gospel in order to the Justification of our Persons before God for the sake of the alone Righteousness of Christ. 3. That the Word of God requires Perseverance in true Faith and Holiness that we may be Partakers of the Heavenly Glory 4. That the Gospel promiseth Pardon through the Blood of Christ to the Penitent Justification before God to the Believer and the Heavenly Glory to such as persevere in Faith and Holiness and also declareth that God will not pardon the Impenitent justify the Unbeliever nor glorify the Apostate or Unholy 5. That justifying Faith is not only a Perswasion of the Understanding but also a receiving and resting upon Christ alone for Salvation 6. That by Change of Person is meant that whereas we were condemned for our Sins the Lord Jesus was substituted in our room to bear the Punishment of our Sins for the Satisfaction of Divine Justice that whoever believes on him may be acquitted and saved but it is not intended that the Filth of Sin was upon Christ nor that he was a Criminal in God's account 7. That by Christ being our Surety is meant that Jesus Christ our Mediator obliged himself to expiate our Sins by his Blood and to purchase eternal Life for all that believe and Faith and every saving Grace for the Elect but it 's not intended that we were legally reputed to make Satisfaction or purchase eternal Life 8. That by Christ's answering for us the Obligations of the violated Law of Works is intended that whereas the Law obliged us to die for our Sins Christ became obliged to die in our stead and whereas we were after we had sinned still obliged to yield perfect Obedience Christ perfectly obeyed the Law that upon the account of his Active and Passive Obedience Believers might be forgiven and entituled to eternal Life but it is not intended that the sense of the Law of Works should be that if we or Christ obey'd we should live and if Christ suffered we should not die tho we sinned nor that Believers are justified or to be judged by the Law of Works but by the Gospel altho the Righteousness for the sake of which they are justified be as perfect as that Law of Works required and far more valuable CHAP. III. The State of Truth and Error published in the Congregational Ministers Declaration against Antinomian Errors about December 1698. Error 1. THat the eternal Decree gives such an Existence to the Justification of the Elect as makes their Estate whilst in Unbelief to be the same as when they do believe in all respects save only as to the Manifestation and that there is no other Justification by Faith but what is in their Consciences Error 2. That the Elect considered as in their natural Estate or as in the first Adam are not under the denunciation of Wrath by the Law as well as other Unbelievers and impenitent Sinners Truth 1. That there is a difference between the state of the Elect whilst in Unbelief and when Believers besides what is manifestative to their Consciences p. 13. Truth 2. That before they believe they are not personally and actually justified in the Court of Heaven p. 13. and none may expect to be pardoned in a state of Unbelief and Impenitence p. 47. Error 3. That pardoned Sin is no Sin and therefore God cannot see Sin in his People to be displeased
same manner in Christ as in Adam 2. From the former another point ariseth referring expresly to the Satisfaction viz. in what sense our Sins were imputed to Christ. One saith our Sins were imputed to Christ only as to Guilt or Obligation to bear the Punishment which we deserved for them which Punishments tho he obliged himself to endure in our stead to reconcile God to us yet that did not render him a Sinner in God's account because that Title results from the violation of the Precept abstractedly from a respect to the threatning and conceiving he was not a Sinner in our stead tho he suffer'd in our stead the punishments due to our sins they think he was esteemed by God what in truth he was viz. the holy innocent Mediator punishable by his own consent for the Sins he came to expiate and were not expiable without his dying in our stead But our Brethren think our Sins were so imputed to Christ as to give him the Denomination and judicial acceptation of a Sinner in the esteem of God and the Law Yet lest the difference should appear greater than it is it 's fit I inform you that our Brethren deny that Christ had any Sin or Defilement in him or had any Sin of his own they were our Sins only imputed to him and he was a legal Sinner by being one political Person with those Sinners whom the Law esteemed real Sinners and condemned as such On the other hand we own that supposing the Covenant of Redemption he was as truly obliged and God the just Rector at as full liberty to punish him for our Sins as if he had been reputed a Sinner Nay Divine Justice required the inflicting those Punishments on him if the Sinner was to be redeemed from them for his sake Now Reader can this difference justify mutual Censures or Alienation What is a Sinner without Filth yea or any Fault of his own above a Sponsor obliged to bear the Punishments of other mens Sins in the stead of the Offenders And they who acknowledg him to be this what less say they of him than the others mean tho scrupulous of that harsher Denomination At least it would appear strange to revile each other for a different explication of that Text 2 Cor. 5. 21. he was made Sin for us One thinks he was made a Sacrifice for Sin after the Hebrew Custom for we find very oft the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify a Sin-Offering as well as Sin Lev. 7. 1 2. and cap. 4. 28 29 33. And this very Apostle follows the same Usage calling an Offering or Sacrifice for Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 8. Heb. 10. 5. The other side will have it meant that Christ was made a Sinner but a Sinner that 's holy undefiled and never offended which Notion of being made Sin is too diminutive to admit harsh thoughts of such as entertain it An unconcerned Observer will be apt to say These who call Christ a Sinner are intent to renounce Socinianism and they who call him a Sacrifice for Sin are as sollicitous to confute Socinianism and Antinomianism too by withholding an advantage which both these Errors receive by the use of that Word But where 's the Christian Charity or Prudence of the condemning Side when both contend for what seems the best Defence of the Doctrine of Satisfaction The other Phrases accounted for in the 6th Chapter admit the same Mitigation as this and upon the same Grounds 3. The third point wherein there appears some difference refers to the Doctrine of Iustification But before I insist on this permit me to offer a few hints 1. Any Difference in this matter seems to proceed from want of an equal Consideration of the Covenant of Redemption which fixed the terms of Satisfaction and Impetration of saving Benefits which Christ alone was thereby obliged to perform and the Gospel-Covenant wherein the Method of giving us a personal Interest in the Blessings impetrated by Christ is ordained By the former all that belongs to Satisfaction and Merit are confined to Christ and Pardon Adoption and eternal Life put in the hand of our Saviour as his Reward By the latter a way becoming our fallen State and rational Nature is appointed to apply to us a Right to the purchased Blessings nor can the Scripture-Account of God's Calls Pleadings and judicial Proceedings be explained without it I think the not distinguishing these two Covenants or fixing the Mind upon either of them with too little regard to the other contribute much to our Debates 2. With Humility I propose to Consideration whether such can dangerously err as to the way of Salvation and particularly in the Doctrine of Justification who do honestly adhere to our foregoing account of Christ's Satisfaction and in subordination thereto assert a Gospel-Law or Covenant wherein is enacted a Rule by which the saving Effects of that Satisfaction are given forth it seems to me highly improbable For in the account given of Satisfaction we ascribe the whole Impetration of Pardon Acceptance and all saving Benefits only to the Atonement and Merits of Christ expresly excluding all our own Graces and good Works from the least place therein And by our Judgment of the Gospel-Law we secure the Method and Rule of the personal Application of these merited Benefits and that conformably to the scope of the Bible in its most explained Parts as well as in full consistency with an apt Ministry and a judicial Sentence against impenitent Infidels to whom those Benefits are not applied notwithstanding Gospel-Offers Whereas if we conceived never so fitly and with greatest Soundness concerning the Satisfaction of Christ and denied a Gospel-Law or what 's equivalent to it we apprehend no small Danger inevitably to ensue and that in no less a matter than Mens Salvation for if this Gospel prove a Rule of Iudgment and that Christ gives forth Pardon and such merited Benefits thereby will not our Ministry be useless and ensnaring to Souls which doth not explain and press the Gospel Conditions in order to an Interest in those Benefits And must not those secure Sinners be destroyed who submit not to those Conditions however confident they be upon Orthodox Apprehensions of what Christ hath done to satisfy Justice and merit eternal Life The Boundaries therefore I would propose to my self are that Christ be not rivalled in his atoning or meriting Performances on the one hand nor rejected in his enacted Rules of dispensing his purchased and offered Benefits on the other for he is truly dishonoured and Souls undone by both But I would not be mistaken as if this were suggested to reflect on the Brethren who are seriously intent upon the first for it already appears and will be more evident that they neglect not the last but affirm what to this purpose is equivalent to a Gospel-Law 3. It is very evident that when Protestants express great Zeal for Christ's alone Righteousness
shall be absolved tho you have sinned therefore we rather conceive the justifying Sentence to be the Sentence of the gospel-Gospel-Law yet connoting the Law of Mediation and presupposing a Satisfaction made to the Law of Works which we conceive to be to this purpose Thou believing Sinner I judicially esteem and pronounce thee to be one that I promised to my Son in the Covenant of Redemption to pardon adopt and glorify in Reward of his perfect Obedience to my Law and Satisfaction to my Justice which I acknowledg he hath performed As also to be one of those Persons to whom I made a Promise of Pardon Adoption and eternal Glory when I offer'd these Blessings to all Sinners who would believe on him Thou art therefore in the virtue of the Promise made to Christ and the Promise made thee adjudged to receive Forgiveness Adoption and Glory and to have a right to plead the Righteousness of Christ for thy safe and comfortable Enjoyment of them in the prevailing Efficacy of his Merits who alone procured both these Blessings and that Faith upon which thy Estate is so much altered Charity obligeth me to think that some well-meaning Persons who talk of eternal Justification in Christ intend no more than this Promise made to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption and by not distinguishing between this Promise that all who should believe on him should be justified and that other Article all the Elect shall believe on him which is a distinct thing they consider not that by the first no Man can be justified till he be a Believer and the last Article only assures that the Elect will be Believers and by the Consequence of the first that they shall all be justified but yet not before they are Believers Isa. 53. 10 11. He shall see his Seed and by his Knowledg or Faith in him he shall justify many are not the same thing The former ascertains the Elect shall believe the latter that they shall be justified when they believe nor could it be otherwise even when Christ upon the Cross paid that for the sake of which these Promises were made to him he must then pursuant to the Compact die that Believers might be justified and the Elect become Believers otherwise the Articles of the Covenant of Redemption must be altered and not direct his engaged Performances and Rewards nor can I chuse but wonder to see our Divines in their Dispute against the Papists proving that Justification is a forensic or judicial Act and yet find many using terms so improper to such an Act and omitting yea condemning those which are proper But to digress no further you see what is this part of the difference about Justification yet remember our Brethren do not say we our selves did personally obey or suffer or are reputed so to do but are reputed to have done it in Christ who was one legal Person with us in the account of the Law nor do they deny the Pardon of Sin but own it whatever others think of the difficulty of reconciling such things they do deny also that we can be said to satisfy in Christ tho we died in him or that we merited in him tho he merited Further there 's no difference about the Effects of the imputed Righteousness of Christ nor yet about the Righteousness it self as including both his active and passive Obedience nor the time of its Imputation viz. when we believe And shall we condemn each other notwithstanding this Agreement in almost every thing besides the manner of Imputation and this is about what God accounts us to have done in Christ and not what Christ hath done for us Shall Men rend each other because one thinks there can be no Imputation beyond what he grants the other suspects it is not an Imputation unless it be in his words and yet both grant an Imputation effectually available to all the same real Purposes viz. the Honour of Christ and Grace the Accomplishment of God's Decree and the Acceptance and Salvation of Believers as if they had never been unrighteous with ground of believing hopes about it equally strong and quieting 2. The other Point undecided is what Title or Name we should give to that Faith which is required in the Person on whom God's justifying Act doth terminate our Brethren scruple our calling it a Qualification a Condition or a Righteousness Others of us think each of these properly ascribed to it a Qualification as it distinguisheth one Man described by the Word which declares who shall be justified from another who according to the Rule of the Word and the Incongruity of the thing is not to be justified unless the Divine Perfections and the Methods of Grace should be reflected on for by the Gospel-Rule he that hath not Faith is to abide under Wrath. And how unbecoming and of ill Consequence would it be to entitle a Man to Glory and receive him to favour for Christ's sake while he rejecteth Christ and is resolved to tread under foot his Blood tho it 's from God's Promise and not any Merit of Congruity that the Accepter of Christ should be justified They call it a Condition not to signify any Merit or Compensation which they abhor but to connote God's Offers of these Blessings to more than do accept of them as also a Divine Authority injoyning a Compliance with the Terms on which the Blessing is offered tho that be no more than a meet Acceptance And to shew the manner of God's conferring them upon that Acceptation they think it may be called a Gospel-Righteousness not as meritorious of the Blessing no nor a full Conformity to the Gospel-Precept but as it is the performed Condition of the offered Benefit according to the Tenor of the Gospel Promise which always supposes Christ's Satisfaction and his paying the impetrating Price of all such offered Blessings And they are more induced to account the performed Condition a Gospel-Righteousness because the Gospel so very often speaks of a subjective Righteousness in us and denominates imperfect Men righteous so expresly with respect to that Righteousness they also think that this cannot be from Obedience to the Law of Works unless it were perfect which it is not nor yet from full Obedience to the Precepts of the Gospel which enjoyn no less as a Duty than doth the Law it self therefore they can find no ground of that Denomination besides a Conformity to what the Gospel-Promise appointeth as a Condition of the Good it entitles a Person to yet still as a means of giving us in a way of governing Grace what was promised to Christ for us as a Reward of his full Satisfaction to Legal Iustice. But our Brethren think these Terms too high and prefer calling Faith an Instrument as many Protestants do who also call it a Condition Some chuse to call it a means I suppose to note a physical Influence in opposition to what 's moral and expressive of any Law both which by the
imputed to us in Justification against the Popish Doctrine the generality of the Learned among them do only exclude every thing besides that Righteousness of Christ from being meritorious of Acceptance Pardon Life and any other Blessing and from being any Satisfaction or Compensation for any Sin affirming that this alone can atone the Anger of God for the sake of this alone will he absolve us and nothing below this is perfect enough for us to stand in before the Bar of his Justice And therefore the Work of Faith it self can be no justifying Righteousness in that sense they took justifying Righteousness all which we heartily own and hence they oft appropriate the justifying Aptitude and Office of Faith mostly to a Reliance on that sole meriting Righteousness of Christ and its receiving Forgiveness Acceptance and a Right to Life of meer Mercy for the sake of Christ's alone Merits All which is justly and truly spoken as they accommodate it to the defence of Christ's Righteousness as the only thing appointed or fit for the fore-described Purposes and in opposition to the Popish Doctrine of Merit The Dispute they had with the Popish Church was about this meriting atoning satisfying Righteousness and you I find them often propose that if the Papists would grant that this Righteousness was that of Christ alone the great Controversy about Justification was at an end But at the same time most Protestants and our Homilies do fully grant that Repentance was necessary and required to Forgiveness and Faith to Justification and these Blessings promised to those Graces tho they were not led to dispute whether these were to be called a Righteousness as qualifying the Subject on whom God's justifying Act terminated But whether in that Act God regarded any thing as a meriting absolving satisfying Righteousness any thing as a Satisfaction to Justice any thing as an impelling Motive or valuable Consideration besides the Righteousness of Christ. To this their Debates were confined in their day and this they were intent to maintain as all Christians ought to be Whereas the reason of debating the Name of that by which the Subject of Justification was determined in opposition to such whom God did not justify was not so much before them as before others of later years assaulted by such as went into another Extreme from the Doctrine of Popish Merit Nor was this matter otherwise stated by our able Divines who contend against such Arminians as affirmed the Tò credere to be our justifying Righteousness for by Righteousness such Arminians mean the Righteousness which is part of Payment and stands in the place of and answers the same Ends in our Justification as perfect Obedience served for to sinless Man which we have before stated and renounced Were there need abundant Testimonies offer by which this Head is easily proved tho I grant some Men may be found to vent some Inconsistent Expressions Having premised these things I reassume the Difference about Justification that seems to continue which lies 1. In the manner of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Both agree it is imputed but how is not so universally assented to One side thinks the sense of imputing Christ's Righteousness to be that God reckons us to have legally done and suffered what Christ did and this to the full Satisfaction of Justice and the Law of Works and therefore are reputed to have perfectly obeyed the Precepts of this Law and fully endured its Curse and for our legally doing so God judgeth and pronounceth us righteous in full Conformity to the Law and therefore entituled to Pardon Adoption and eternal Life If you ask Is this justifying Sentence the Sentence of the Law of Works viz. it s premiant Sanction applied to us by God as the righteous Judg judging us by the Law of Works They answer It is the Sentence of the Law of Works but it is of Gospel-Grace that God allowed Christ to be one Person with us in the Covenant of Works whereby we are thus accounted to obey and suffer in him But others think that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed in the following manner viz. 1. They consider that the Father promised to Christ in Reward of his Obedience and Suffering that they who believed on him should be pardoned adopted dealt with as righteous Persons who had not sinned and be eternally sav'd Hence the Lord Iesus has a right to Believers obtaining these things And as Faith describes the Persons in this Covenant who shall obtain them so when we become Believers we are accounted and adjudged to be such Believers and such as are to obtain those Blessings in Christ's Right 2. They consider God in Christ for sapiential Ends making in the Gospel an Offer of Pardon Adoption and eternal Life to poor Sinners if they believe and promising these Blessings when they believe and still as Blessings bought by Christ's Obedience and Sufferings and promised to him for Believers tho withal used in his Gospel as Motives to inforce his Command of Faith and Calls to it These things thus considered we apprehend that when God in Christ justifieth us he doth not only give us Pardon Adoption and Life but he adjudgeth and sentenceth us to be the Persons that by the Covenant of Redemption were to be pardoned adopted and saved in the right of Christ and to whom the Gospel by its Promise gives a personal Right to that Pardon Adoption and Life as purchased by Christ And he esteems and adjudgeth that the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ in their full virtue is our pleadable Security for the enjoyment of them whereby we have a right to plead his Death and Merits with God as what procured these for us as well as God's Fidelity who promised them to us in his Gospel You see by this account that we rise not so high as to say we are accounted to do and suffer what Christ did and to be absolved immediately by the Sentence of the Law of Works nor fall we so low as a mere Participation of the Effects of Christ's Righteousness but assert an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness it self relatively to those Effects Christ's Right is applied and his very Obedience reckoned to us as what pleads with God for those Effects and secures us against all condemning Obstacles and Challenges The justifying Sentence is not the Sentence of the Law God saith not You have perfectly obeyed therefore you shall live you have satisfied the Curse therefore you shall not die Yet the Righteousness which procured our Salvation and is our adjudged pleadable Security of enjoying this promised Salvation includes an Obedience as perfect as that to which the Law promised Life if we had not sinned and Sufferings equivalent to what the Curse pronounced against us when we sinned But because we apprehend not where this Law includes such a Sentence as this viz. because Christ obeyed you shall live tho you obeyed not and because Christ who sinned not did suffer for your Sins you