The Covenant of Life Opened, Part 2 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Wherein stands our right to Christ and the satisfaction made for us by Christ? 2. Faith is not the cause of our right. 3. Christs incarnation and dying are not favours merited by Christ. 4. How Adams sin and Christs righteousnesse are ours.
OUr right to CHRIST must be considered more accurately then ordinarily it is. Whether it floweth from 1. the merite of Christ: Or 2. from the grace of predestination: Or 3. faith in Christ.
1. Conclusion. Grace is either objectivè, out of us as the free love of God having mercy on whom he will; Or subjectivè merited by Christ to us and bestowed upon us.
As touching our right to God as incarnate. 2. As dying for us.Christs incarnation and death cannot be a fruit of the Mediators death. 3. As his satisfaction is made ours, are of diverse considerations. For if God out of free love sent his Son in the world, Joh. 3.16. and if he, out of free-grace that separateth the race of man from Angels, took upon him the nature of man, to wit, of Abraham, and not the nature of Angels, Heb. 2.16. Then sure by the merits of Christs death it cannot come that God came in the flesh to save sinners. For the effect cannot but come from the cause; but the cause flowes not from the effect, nor is the effect, to wit, Christs Incarnation and his dying, the cause of that love and free-grace of God which moved God to send his Son in the flesh, but posterior unto, and latter then that love: for because he loved us, he sent his Son in the flesh to die for us.
2. This cannot then be true (Christ by his dying for the Elect, merited and deserved, that God should be made Man for us) for this should be true also (by the blood of Christ, and by the redemption that is in Christ, God sent his Son in the flesh, and the Son took on him our nature, by the blood of the Covenant) nor can this be true (Christ merited by his death, that he should die for us) for so it should be true, that Christ by his blood shed his blood for us: Where as because he loved his Church freely, he gave himself for her. Eph. 5.15. Who loved me and gave himself for me, Gal. 2.20. Hence 1. though grace be the cause of grace, as because he of grace ordained us to glory, therefore of grace he calls, and because of free-grace he calls, of free-grace he carries on his work, and gives of grace, perseverance and glory. Yet there is a fountain-grace of election to glory, which hath no cause nor merit, not the merit of Christ for its cause; but is the cause of causes and of Christs merits. As one fire may produce another, but the element of fire was not produced by another element of fire, but by God in creation. And one Vine Tree brings forth another, but the first Vine Tree was created by the Lord only.
2. Conclus. Nor have we (to speak acurately) right to Christs satisfaction nor to his righteousnesse by faith.We have not properly right to Christs satisfaction by faith. 1. Because the Lords free-grace in laying our sins on Christ, Isa. 53.6. and his making him sin for us, 2 Cor. 5.21. does rather give the right to his satisfaction. God would have Christ to stand for so many chosen of God upon the Crosse, and for no other. 1 Cor. 1.30. Ye are of him through Jesus Christ, who is made foreign of God, to us, wisedom, and righteousnesse, and sanctification, and redemption. Nor is there any act of faith interveening by which Christ became our surety and ransone-payer upon the Crosse, and not the surety of others.
2. It is ordinary to our Divines to say, by faith we do apply Christ and his righteousnesse: but if we speak properly, application is possession and a putting on of Christ and his righteousnesse. Now title or Law-right to an inheritance, and possession of it, are different natures, and have different causes: but faith gives not law-right to Christ and his righteousnesse not so much as instrumentally. My receiving with my hand gold, my eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ by faith, Joh. 6.53, 54, &c. doth presuppone some right to that gold: but no man can say that receiving of gold, and eating of bread and putting on of garments, gives a man right to gold, bread or garments. He that poss…sseth an inheritance hath some right to the inheritance by birth, buying, purchase or gift: the possession in its nature and causes may be unjust, yet it is possession. Nor can it be shown what causative influence, even instrumentall faith, hath in our Law-right to Christs satisfaction and righteousnesse, except it were a meritorious cause of our right by way of instrument, which can hardly be said.
CHRISTS death cannot be applicable to the Reprobate, by faith, except faith be merited to them by that death. Davenantius, dissert. de morte Christi, pag. 49. Respectu mortis Christi voluntas Dei aliter est comparata ad omnes & singulos, quam esset absque ea, nam hoc ipso quod Christus passus est in natura humana, sine alio ullo medio interveniente, hoc saltem apud Deum effectum, ut velit … homini▪ (Caino) credenti & poenitenti reconciliari, peccata remittere, vitam aeternam conferre … — tolle respectum hunc mortis Christi — promissionibus quoad non-ele…tos nihil serii, nihil solidi aut veri subesset — illud certum quemlibet hominem beneficio mortis Christi hoc juris sibi vendicare pos…e (Ergo hoc jus est impetratum morte Christi etiam reprobis.)3. We may ask how Christ so died for the Reprobate, as his death is a remedie applicable to them by the ordination of God, so as they shall have life eternall, if they believe. For 1. there is either a jus and a Law-right to pardon and life eternall merited b… Christs death to the Reprobate, or no such thing is merited. If neither be procured by Christs merite, the Patrons of this way shall say there is no serious offer made to them: yea there is a jus, a title to life eternall and remission, which all the reprobate may challenge, even a right to remission and life eternall, so they beleeve. Well then, it is the same right conditional to life and pardon which is purchased to the Elect: yea this must be purchased whether they believe or not. Then there is no more in the kind of the Law-right to Redemption and life eternall and remission of sins purchased to Peter, then to Judas or Cain; And therefore hath Christ bestowed as much tender love in dying for the Reprobate as in dying for his friends. And Christ saith there is no greater love then this, Joh. 15.13. As for the efficacious intention of applying of Christs death to Peter, when as God had no such intention of applying it to Judas, that is an act of eternall predestination, not a fruit of Christs death, and as for the grace of beleeving, it was purchased to all, Reprobate and Elect, only the Lord applyes not his death, and bestowes not the grace of beleeving upon the Reprobate, but for right to faith, to remission, to perseverance, to life eternall, this right must be purchased, but faith it self is never bestowed upon them. But there is a ransome of blood given for faith, and purchased by CHRISTS merit: But CHRIST is never called the Head of all men, Elect and Reprobate, but the Head of the Body the Church, Eph. 1.22. Col. 1.18. And whereas the Head hath merited faith to the Reprobate, and that absolutely (for a condition is not possible) he should bestow it absolutely, else there is no seriousnesse in the command of beleeving. And since faith is no meritorious cause of right to remission and life eternall, nor a cause in part, or in whole, of our compleat and actuall reconciliation, it may well be said, that they all are compleatly reconciled, pardoned, justified, washen in Christs blood, when nothing is wanting, that compleats the nature of remission and justification, for faith is only a condition applying, not a cause buying, nor satisfying for us, and no cause giving in part, or in whole, any new right.
3. Conclus. Should we, by faith, have right to the promise of a new heart, by beleeving,We have not a new heart by beleeving. we should have a new heart before we have a new heart, for none can beleeve savingly any promise, and so neither can he beleeve that promise that God shall give a new heart, untill the habit of faith, which is a speciall part of the new heart, be infused: For actuall faith must flow from habituall faith. Therefore right to that promise must be absolutely purchased by the death of Christ to the elect before they beleeve.
Quest. How is it that not only, penally, but intrinsecally and formally we sinned in Adam, and are inherenter sinners in him, but we are righteous in Christ only imputativè, and why should not Christ be named formally the sinner, since he is made by imputation the sinner? As Adams sin is ours by imputation, and we formally and inherently are sinners in Adam?
Ans. How we sinned in Adam is a point of greater difficulty: For this first sin the tottering and reeling of the specifick common nature in Adam is ours,Adams sin is ours, not because Adam is our father by nature, but because he is our father both by nature and by law not because he is our father foreign by nature (though that be a ground of the imputation also) but because he is such a father by Covenant, and Law, the Law and Covenant of Works being laid in pawnd in his hand. There be three parts of Originall sin: A partaking of the first sin of Adam, we all sinned in him, Rom. 5.12, 14, 15. (2.) The want of the Image of God, called the Glory of God, Rom. 3.23. (3.) Concupiscence and a bentnesse of nature to sin, Rom. 7.7, 14, 17, 18, 23, 24. As to the first, Adams sin is ours really and truely, not so much because it is ours,Three parts of original sin. as because it is imputed to be ours by God, who so contrived the Law of Works, as it should be made with Adam, not as a single father, but with Adam as a publick person representing all man, and having our common nature as a father both by nature and Law, which came from the meer free-will of God.
1. Who might so have contrived the first Covenant of Works, that sin should only have been Adams own sin, not the sin of his posterity.The free-will of God the ground of the Lords imputeing Adams sin to us. For by no necessity of nature, which is antecedent to the free decree of God, are all mankind legally in Adams loins, though naturally they be.
(2.) But children are as naturally in their nearest fathers loines, as we are all in the loines of Adam, and all men are equally of that same specifick nature with their nearest Parents, as with their first Parents: Yet the sins of the nearest Parents, by no necessity, are alwayes charged upon the children, but now all have sinned in Adam, Rom. 5.12, 18.
(3.) Where a sin is inherently and personally, there is no need of imputation, which is a free Act of God, had Christ been inherently and personally the sinner, God needed not make him, or impute our sins to him: as Isai. 53.6, 2 Cor. 5.21. and if we had been intrinsecally sinners in Adam, his sin had been ours as intrinsecally as it was Adams; and as Adam was not the first who sinned by imputation, but personally and intrinsecally, so neither should Adams sin have been our sin by imputation, but intrinsecally and personally, now the Scripture saith, Rom. 5.19. By one mans disobedience, many were made sinners, foreign, then they were not intrinsecally sinners, before they were made, that is, before they were reputed sinners in Adam, or before Adams sin was imputed to them: as we are not intrinsecally righteous in Christ, before we be justified, and made or reputed righteous in Christ: When therefore our Divines say, wee are as guilty of eating the forbidden fruit, as if our hands were there and our teeth, and we did eat in him,The difference between the imputation of Adams sin to us, & of the righteousnes of Christ to us the speech cannot be taken physically, personally (for we were not then born) but morally and legally: but our nature was legally there. But when the Elect does sin, Christ is not said to have been in our loines legally, but he was made sin, he was punished so as if he had been the sinner; though there was in Christ no formall guiltinesse, no reatus culpae, but reatus paenae.
But we are deprived of the Image of God, and inclined to all sin, not by imputation, as the young Lion and the young Serpent have not the bloody and the stinging nature of the old Lion and the old Serpent by imputation, but by naturall and intrinsecall inherencie▪ Now our holie, harmlesse, and undefiled High Priest hath no sin in him by inherencie.
3. A legall satisfaction and paying of a summe, yea more then the debter was owing,Christs imputed righteousnesse cannot remove inherent sin, or make us such as never sinned. can never take away a morally inherent guiltinesse, nor inherently justifie and make innocent the sinner and make him one, who hath never borrowed the money and wasted it, or one who hath never sinned in Adam, and who hath never sinned in his own person: Yea the Law of Works standing, as it is most spiritual and holy; It is … impossible that he who hath once broken the Law, though he be made inherently most holy, and perfectly sanctified▪ can be made righteous, which requires there shall never be one the least sin committed, and what is done cannot be undone.
2. The suffering of another, as of the Man Christ, may well stand for what we should have suffered, but cannot remove the inherent blot of sin, and remove fundamental guiltinesse. The paying a thousand Crowns for him who borrowed five hundreth Crowns and spent them on harlotry and drunkennesse, may free the debter from being in Law, lyable to pay the five hundreth Crowns, but can never free him from being an unjust borrower, and a profuse waster.
3. The two Covenants of Works and of Grace standing, its impossible that the active obedience of Christ can make us actively and inherently righteous, or restore to us our lost innocency.