The Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Christs Righteousness Part 2, Tract · Chapter 3

The Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Christs Righteousness Part 2 · Tract · Chapter 3

p. 45CHAP. III. More Arguments to prove the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to us.

Argument 3.

THirdly, I argue from thoſe Scriptures which call Chriſt our Righteouſneſs, and ſay we have Righteouſneſs in him. He is not our Righteouſneſs inherently, his Righteouſneſs is not implanted in us, therefore it is ours by imputation or not at all, Iſai. 45.24, 25. Surely ſhall one ſay in the Lord have I Righteouſneſs and Strength. This is a Propheſie of Chriſt and Salvation by him, which is to be brought about by this means, viz. having Righteouſneſs and Strength in him. If we tranſlate it as ſome do, In the Lord there is Righteouſneſs and Strength; the ſence is the ſame; but our Tranſlation agrees beſt with the following Verſe. Now how have we ſtrength in Chriſt? Surely he communicates grace and life to us, and doth not only procure and grant a Covenant of Grace; he muſt likewiſe communicate Righteouſneſs to us, and that his own, not a Righteouſneſs wrought in us, or elſe it is not diſtinct from grace or ſtrength mentioned in the Text, which the next words alſo confirm, In the Lord ſhall all the Seed of Iſrael be juſtified, and ſhall glory. It is a juſtifying Righteouſneſs diſtinct from Grace or p. 46Strength infuſed into us which we have in Chriſt, and this cannot be ours but by Imputation.

Jeremiah 23.5, 6. This is the Name whereby Iſrael ſhall call him, The Lord our Righteouſneſs. Who this is, the former words ſhew, ſc. the Righteous Branch to be raiſed up to David, i. e. Chriſt: as alſo the Reaſon of this Name, becauſe in his days, his People ſhall be ſaved, and chiefly with a Spiritual Salvation; this is becauſe he is Jehovah our Righteouſneſs. Our Salvation ſprings primarily from hence, That we are made righteous or juſtified before God, and this righteouſneſs comes from Chriſt. As God is our Wiſdom, our Strength, &c. becauſe he is the Author of it in us and to us, as alſo our Guide and Protector; ſo Chriſt is our righteouſneſs, i e. the Author of righteouſneſs to us, and that he will juſtifie us by it.

Object.Some object againſt this, That in chap. 33. v. 15, 16. Jeruſalem the Church ſeems to be called by the ſame Name: This is the Name whereby ſhe ſhall be called, The Lord our Righteouſneſs.

Anſw.But the Context ſheweth that it ſpeaketh of the ſame Perſon, and almoſt in the ſame words, ſc. the righteous Branch of David, &c. And therefore learned men tranſlate it, This is the name of him, who ſhall call her, viz. The Church, The Lord our Righteouſneſs: So Junius tranſlates p. 47it, alſo the Geneva and the Dutch Annotions and others; but if it be meant of the hurch, as Mr. Gataker contends it muſt,Gataker in locum. it only becauſe the Name of Chriſt is put upon or, as being clothed with his Righteouſneſs the New Jeruſalem, the Goſpel Church, named Jehovah Shammah, the Lord is there, …om his Preſence in her, and as God himſelf pleaſed to take upon himſelf the Name of …s People. Pſ. 24.6.Ezek. 48.35.Ezek 48:35 This is the Generation … them that ſeek thy Face O Jacob, i. e. the …d of Jacob.

Dan. 9.24. Seventy weeks are determined …on thy People, and upon thy Holy City to finiſh the Tranſgreſſion, and to make an end of …ins, and to make reconciliation for Iniquity, and … bring in Everlaſting Righteouſneſs. Daniel …d prayed for the deliverance of the Jews, …d the forgiveneſs of their Sins, and that not …r the ſake of their own Righteouſneſs, but …ods great Mercy, v. 18, 19. He is anſwer…d that the City ſhall be built again, and the …eople ſaved by the Meſſiah, v. 25. and that … his being cut off, not for himſelf, v. 26. …plying that it ſhould be for them, and that …en ſhould be brought in everlaſting Righteouſneſs whereby Iſrael ſhould be juſtified and …ved. This is the Righteouſneſs of the Meſ…ah, for none elſe is a ſtanding and everlaſting …ighteouſneſs: Ours is mutable and ſubject … fail, Hoſ. 6.4. Neither was our righteouſneſs in ſpecial manner to be brought in by …e Death of Chriſt, it had been before in the p. 48Sanctified in all Ages of the Church. It was a new Righteouſneſs then to be wrought and brought in at the Death of Chriſt; though by the Virtue of it the former Saints were ſaved, yet it was not actually wrought, and Juſtification by it diſtinctly declared till now. Therefore it is all one with finiſhing tranſgreſſion, making an end of ſin, making reconciliation for the people, which is plainly Juſtification to be had by this Everlaſting Righteouſneſs.

Rom. 5.18, 19. As by the offence of one, Judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even ſo by the righteouſneſs of one, the free gift came upon all men unto juſtification of life. All men were condemned by the offence or ſin of Adam: So they that believe ſhall be juſtified by the righteouſneſs of Chriſt; the free gift o… grant of life comes by the righteouſneſs of Jeſus Chriſt, as the ſentence of death came by Adams unrighteouſneſs. The 19 v. makes it clearer: As by the diſobedience of one many are made ſinners, ſo by the obedience of one many ſhall be made righteous. Adam did not make way by his Sin for mens condemnation, he did not only render them liable to death if they ſhould ſin as he did and break the ſame Covenant: But he brought them under the Curſe and Sentence of death abſolutely by and for his Sin, ſo that all that are of his Seed are under the Judgement of Condemnation ipſo facto as ſoon as they have a Being: In like manner Chriſt muſt not only make way for mens Juſtification, p. 49or procure them a Covenant, whereby they ſhall be juſtified if they perform it, as he performed the Covenant of a Mediator; but he muſt alſo juſtifie them, intitle them to life, ſo ſoon as they believe in him, by and for his own Righteouſneſs and Obedience. One Exception againſt this place hath been anſwered in the former Chapter.

Another excepteth:Object. The Apoſtle doth not ſay, IN one mans obedience many ſhall be made righteous,Juſt. Evang. p. 72. but BY one mans obedience (as a conſequent and effect of it) many ſhall be made righteous. As the effect of one mans diſobedience, many come to be ſhapen in iniquity, and brought forth in a ſinful condemned nature; ſo as the effect of one mans obedience many come to be new born and brought forth in a Righteous and Saving State.

Anſw.The vanity of the exception from the word BY hath been manifeſted before. The Prepoſition foreign here uſed, ſignifieth BY or WITH, which is the proper ſence of the place; the term IN would be more obſcure: And thus foreign is tranſlated, Rom. 14.20. To him that eateth, foreign, with offence; but the Sum of this Exception is as it is largely proſecuted, p. 68. &c. That Adams perſonal diſobedience is not imputed to his Poſterity; but he virtually containing all men in his Nature and Sinning before the Act of Propagation, he did corrupt his Nature, and ſo begat Children in a ſinful mortal State. But I have before proved the Imputation of his p. 50Actual Sin. I now add, Do Mankind derive a ſinful mortal Nature from Adam by meer neceſſity of Nature, ſeeing the effect muſt be like the cauſe? or by virtue of Divine Conſtitution that his Poſterity ſhould inherit the Fruits of his Sin? If by neceſſity of Nature (as this Author ſeems to intimate) then the Soul of Man muſt be ex traduce derived from the Parents; elſe it could not be born ſinful by neceſſity of Nature, and then it muſt be corrupted with the Body, and cannot exiſt without it, and at beſt muſt be raiſed with the Body, and ſleep in the duſt till the laſt day (as the Socinians teach:) Nor would the want of original righteouſneſs, no nor poſitive diſpoſitions to ſin in our Nature as derived from Adam be ſinful in us, they be poena & cauſa peocati, the Puniſhment of Adams Sin, and the cauſe of Sin in us, but not peccatum, our Sin, no more than the natural Diſeaſes of the Body, which we derive from our Parents; For that which comes by meer natural neceſſity cannot be a Sin: But if it be by Divine Conſtitution, then the meaning muſt be, either that God appointed that if Adam ſhould ſin that one Sin, then not only he ſhould periſh, but that he ſhould alſo propagate a ſinful, mortal Nature to all his Seed without exception; and then the ſin and miſery of all Mankind is directly and properly the puniſhment of Adams perſonal ſin only: which, beſides the horrour of the thing, that ſo many millions in all Ages ſhould be made miſerable both here and for ever, as the puniſhment of p. 51another mans Sin, in which they were no way concern'd, is alſo againſt Gods own Law. The Children ſhall not be put to death for the Fathers, nor the Fathers for the Children, but …very man for his own ſin, Deut. 24.16. Or …lſe this Conſtitution muſt mean that God appointed that Adam ſhall ſtand or fall for all his …oſterity, and then his Obedience or Diſobedience muſt be imputed to them and be Cauſe …f their life or death, even the immediate Cauſe.

Object.Some ſay this Obedience of Chriſt is only is Sufferings according as he is ſaid to be obedient to the death, Phil. 2.6. and to have …me to do the Will of God in offering up his …wn Body, Heb. 10. v. 6. to the 11th.

Anſw. 1.This maketh nothing againſt our main poſi…on, viz. That the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is …puted to us, and we juſtified by it: For …hether it be his Death only, or his Life and …eath both, for which we are accepted and …ſtified it is all one in this Queſtion, ſo long … imputation of that Righteouſneſs to us be …e way whereby it juſtifies us: And if they …ean that his Sufferings are his only obedience here mentioned to make us righteous by …ocuring a Covenant of Grace to be fulfilled … us; then they might as well have ſaid, His …tive Obedience without his Sufferings doth …ake us righteous: For the Text leads to …e no more than the other. And Mr. True…an when he had diſputed againſt the Imputation p. 52of Chriſts Active Obedience, and for the Paſſive only, and yet that muſt be only to procure a Law of Grace; afterwards fairly grants, That in this ſence, viz. of procuring the Covenant of Grace, both Active and Paſſive may be ſaid to be imputed to us.

22ly. But the words will not bear this ſence Adam's Actual diſobedience made us formally Sinners, and guilty of death: So the Obedience i. e. the Sufferings of Chriſt, procureth right to life for us. Thus they muſt run, but when is the Parallel? The Sufferings of Chriſt can not be ſaid to make us righteous formally, a… this Author tells; Sufferings are not righteouſneſs; much leſs ſuffering the Penaltys o… the Law for the breach of it; but Chriſt ſuffered the Curſe of the Law for our ſin againſt it his Sufferings delivered us from the Curſe o… the Law, it having been born by him; but could not make us righteous according to th… Law, that we ſhould obtain the reward … Life: It is true Chriſt was obedient in his Sufferings, and did the Will of his Father in offering himſelf; if they had not been voluntary and obediential, they could not have been meritorious, but that his Sufferings as ſuffering of the Penalty of the Law are his only Obedience that juſtifies us, or that he performe… no other obedience for us, doth not follo… at all.

p. 531 Cor. 1.30. Chriſt is made unto us of God, Wiſdom, Righteouſneſs, Sanctification and Redemption, that he that glorieth, may glory in the Lord. Here is expreſt that God hath made Chriſt our righteouſneſs, ſc. by giving him to ſatisfie the Law for us; and accepting us for his righteouſneſs: And here we may obſerve, that the Apoſtle purpoſely proveth againſt the deſpiſers of Chriſt; the Greeks who boaſted of their own Wiſdom, and the Jews who truſted in their own Works, v. 22, 23. that Believers have all in Chriſt, v. 24. and that they are in themſelves, weak, fooliſh, nothing, v. 25.28, 29. all their excellency is in, and from Chriſt, and therefore their righteouſneſs and Juſtification, as well as their Sanſtification. Farther obſerve, that Righteouſneſs here is diſtinguiſhed from Wiſdom and Sanctification, and therefore muſt mean that Chriſt is our juſtifying Righteouſneſs, or that we are juſtified by Chriſt as our righteouſneſs; …f we were to be juſtified by our habitual and …ctual holineſs as the Condition of the Goſpel, …hen righteouſneſs and ſanctification are all …ne.

Laſtly, The Apoſtle ſaith we have all theſe …n Chriſt, that he that glorieth, may glory in the Lord: We may glory in Chriſt, in that we …ave all grace from him; but how ſhall we glory in him as to our Juſtification, if we be not juſtified by his Righteouſneſs, but by our own, though wrought by the help of his grace; even as Adam if he had kept the Law of Works, would have been juſtified by his own p. 54righteouſneſs, and might have gloried in himſelf, that he had done his duty, though it was by the power of the grace and aſſiſtance of God.

2 Cor. 5.21. Chriſt was made ſin for us, that we might be made the righteouſneſs of God in him. Here righteouſneſs by a uſual Hebraiſm is put for righteous: we are made the righteous of God, i. e. before God, or acceptable with him in Chriſt, by or through Chriſt, as foreign with a Dative caſe is often uſed: and how are we made righteous by Chriſt? even by his being made ſin for us, as he ſatisfied for our ſin, ſo by that ſatisfaction are we made righteous; as he that knew no ſin was ſacrificed, puniſhed for our ſins: ſo we that had no righteouſneſs, are made righteous by him, and this muſt be by imputation. Thus B, Ʋſher out of Claud. and Sedul. in locum. That this righteouſneſs therefore is not ours, nor in us, but in Chriſt, in whom we are conſidered as Members in the Head: Non noſtra, non in nobis, ſed in Chriſto quaſi Membra in Capite. Rel. Juſt. p. 15.

Object.Againſt theſe two Scriptures it is excepted, that in the former it is only ſaid, that Chriſt is made our righteouſneſs, Hotchkis, p. 191.not that his obedience is imputed to us for righteouſneſs.

p. 55Anſw.Chriſt cannot be made our Righteouſneſs any other way, than by imputing his perfect Obedience to us, and therefore the Scripture in ſaying the one in words ſayeth the other alſo in ſence.

Object.To the latter place, 'tis ſaid, That it ſaith only that we are made righteous by Chriſt being made a Sin Offering for us, not by imputing his Obedience to us.

Anſw.If Chriſt was made a Sacrifice for our Sins, then our Sins were ſo imputed to him as that he was puniſhed for them; and if this make us righteous, then his bearing the Puniſhment of Sin is imputed to us, and ſo his Righteouſneſs is imputed.

Phil. 3.8, 9. That I may win Chriſt, and be found in him not having my own Righteouſneſs which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Chriſt, the Righteouſneſs which is of God by Faith. The Apoſtle in this place exhorteth to rejoyce in the Lord, i. e. Chriſt, v. 1. and to beware of Judaiſing Chriſtians who joyned the Works of the Law with Chriſt, v. 2. ſaying, That true Believers are the true Circumciſion, the true people of God, even they who rejoyce in Chriſt and have no confidence in the Fleſh, i. e. their own Works, v. 3. And then reckoning up what he had to alledge for himſelf from the obſervation of the Ceremonial and Moral Law, v. 4, 5, 6. he ſaith, That he counted all this loſs for Chriſt, v. 7. p. 56and not only what might be alledged from obſerving the Law, but whatever elſe might be thought excellent or a ground of ſelf-confidence and rejoycing, v. 8. Yea doubtleſs and I count all things but loſs for the excellency of the Knowledge of Chriſt Jeſus, &c. that I may win Chriſt and be found in him, &c. From hence it appeareth that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of Juſtification by Chriſt in oppoſition to being juſtified by any thing elſe, and of rejoycing in him contrary to any rejoycing in our ſelves. In the 9th. v. therefore he oppoſeth being found in Chriſt, to having his own Righteouſneſs which is of the Law, ſc. of any works whatſoever, and explaineth it by having the Righteouſneſs of Faith, the Righteouſneſs which is of God by Faith: What can the Righteouſneſs of God mean when oppoſed to his own Righteouſneſs of the Law, but either the Righteouſneſs of him which is God, or a Righteouſneſs which God provideth for him, and which he did not work himſelf, which is Chriſt's. Alſo the Righteouſneſs of Faith is oppoſed to the Righteouſneſs of the Law, and the Righteouſneſs of God by Faith oppoſed to the ſame Righteouſneſs of the Law, muſt be a Righteouſneſs which God gives us by believing; and this is the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt imputed.

Object.It is excepted, By the Law he means the Jewiſh Law, and by his own Righteouſneſs he means that which was his own when a Jew,Hotchkis, p. 190. not that which was his own when a Convert to p. 57the Chriſtian Faith; and that the things there oppoſed are Judaiſm and Chriſtianity, or Judaical Obſervances, and the practical knowledge of Chriſt; ſo that our own Evangelical Righteouſneſs is not there oppoſed to the Obedience of Chriſt.

1.Anſw. If the Apoſtle here only compare the Jewiſh and Chriſtian Religion, then all he meaneth is that the Chriſtian Religion is far more excellent than the Jewiſh; but he cannot oppoſe them properly in the matter of Juſtification. For the ſincere Practice of the Jewiſh Religion did juſtifie the Jews (according to this opinion) as well as the Practice of Chriſtian Religion juſtified Chriſtians. Yea methinks theſe Authors who (ſome of them) can allow the Idolatrous Heathens to be juſtified by their obedience to the Law of Nature, and hope in God's Mercy, though they have no expreſs knowledge of Chriſt, ſhould not deny that Jews may be ſaved by their Religion and their Hope in the Meſſias, if they be only ignorant who he is and not malicious againſt him: If ſo, there muſt be more meant by oppoſing Faith to the Works of the Law, then the Law meerly as Jewiſh.

2ly. The Apoſtle doth not only renounce the Works of the Jewiſh Law, but all other things which may be thought matter of confidence in our ſelves, v. 8.

p. 583ly. There is the ſame reaſon for the renouncing Chriſtian, as Jewiſh Works in Juſtification, and thoſe are Works of the Fleſh when truſted and rejoyced in as well as theſe. For the Moral Law is the ſame to Chriſtians as it was to the Jews, and all the Evangelical Precepts were the ſame to the Jews as to us; if then they could not juſtifie them, they cannot juſtifie us. But if this Author intend only the Ceremonial Law, it is contrary to the Text; for after mention of the External Rights and Privileges, the Apoſtle ſaith, He was blameleſs as touching the Righteouſneſs of the Law; which muſt mean the Moral Law: and the Ceremonial Law, when in force, had its part in juſtifying as well as the Moral, and now it is abrogated it cannot be damning if practiſed out of ignorance only.Acts 21.20, &c.Acts 21:20 But that the Righteouſneſs of the Law here doth by parity of reaſon exclude Chriſtian Obedience from Juſtifying, is thus proved: This is not the Righteouſneſs of God, ſc. of God's providing, but our own Righteouſneſs as well as Jewiſh Obedience was: It is alſo the righteouſneſs of a Law, the Goſpel Law, though not the Jewiſh Law, Melanct. in Rom. p. 8. Vocari lex debet ubicunque praecepta leguntur, ſive in libris Moſis, ſive in libris Apoſtolorum, &c. And further, It is not the righteouſneſs of Faith, or by Faith any more than the Works of Jews: For, No Law is of Faith, but be that doth it ſhall live by it, Gal. 3.12. It is ſpoken immediately of the Jewiſh Law, but the Reaſon extendeth it to every Law; he that p. 59is juſtified by obedience to any Law, liveth by it, is juſtified by doing it, not by believing. And it may be ſaid of the Goſpel in our Authors Sence, He that doth it ſhall live by it, as truly as of the Law of Moſes or Adam. It hath alſo been ſhewed, that the Law hath ſome Faith joyned with it, viz. the truſt to be juſtified by performing that Law, and therefore when doing and believing are oppoſed as irreconcileable extreams in Juſtification, believing muſt mean a truſt in anothers Righteouſneſs, not in our own, for that is doing; and thus the righteouſneſs of Faith here excludeth all our own Works, therefore muſt be the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt imputed to us. Add to all this, That the Apoſtle in this place doth not ſpeak of Chriſtian Religion (as this Author ſaith) or of the Doctrine of Chriſt, but of his Perſon and what he wrought for us: For having expreſt his deſire of being found in him not having his own righteouſneſs, &c. he ſubjoyneth immediately, v. 10, 11. That I may know him and the Power of his Reſurrection, and the Fellowſhip of his Sufferings, &c. If by any means I might attain unto the Reſurrection of the Dead. And v. 12. That I might apprehend that for which I am apprehended of Chriſt. Theſe things concern Chriſt himſelf, not the Precepts of his Religion.

Object.The general Evaſion whereby thoſe men wave the force of theſe and the like Scriptures, is this;Hotchkis, p. 44, &c. That Chriſt's Righteouſneſs or Obedience is ours in the Fruits and Effects of it, p. 60but not our Righteouſneſs properly, viz. That Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is not that for which we are accepted of God immediately, Trueman Gr. Prop. p. 116.but that it is the morally efficient, or meritorious Cauſe of our Righteouſneſs, i. e. that we ſhall be accepted with God if we fulfill the Commands of the Goſpel, becauſe Chriſt hath removed the Old Covenant of Works, and purchaſed this New Covenant for us.

1.Anſw. Here it may not be amiſs to advertiſe the Reader of the equivocation that lies in theſe Words (eſpecially as uſed by ſome Authors) whereby they hide their ſence and deceive many, ſc. when they oppoſe the Imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſs to the Fruits and Effects of it, which with us are not oppoſite. For by imputation of his righteouſneſs we do not mean that Chriſts righteouſneſs is transferred to us and made inherently ours, or that we can be denominated righteous by it as if we had wrought that righteouſneſs, but we mean that for the obedience of Chriſt God doth immediately pardon and juſtifie them that truſt in it, and give them a right to all the Fruits of it, as truly and validly as if it were their own perſonal righteouſneſs; ſo that God doth hereupon account the Law to be ſatisfied, and like to be purchaſed for them without any thing to be further done by them as a condition of life. But their true Sence is, That the Obedience of Chriſt is ours remotely only, ſc. that it hath merited a New Covenant which if we perform we ſhall live.

p. 612ly. According to this Sence Chriſts righteouſneſs is no way our righteouſneſs: It may be the means of benefit to us, but it doth in no ſence make us righteous, or is the cauſe of our righteouſneſs or juſtification, which the Scriptures alledged do intend. This is thus proved; It is none of the four kind of Cauſes, nor reducible to them; therefore it is no Cauſe. The Antecedent I thus prove; It is not the Material or Formal Cauſe, this they grant, For then we muſt be immediately juſtified by it, it muſt compoſe our righteouſneſs; they ſometimes call it the matter of our righteouſneſs, but without ſence: It is not the Final Cauſe, Chriſts righteouſneſs is not the end for which we are juſtified: It is not the Efficient, neither Phyſical, nor Moral: Not Phyſical, for then Chriſts obedience muſt actively work obedience, or righteouſneſs in us, which is abſurd. Not a Moral Cauſe, or Meritorious (which they moſt inſiſt on.) For Chriſt did not merit Grace, whereby we ſhould obtain the Goſpel, and ſo be juſtified as they acknowledge, ſeeing he died for all alike (though thus he would be but a remote meritorious Cauſe of Juſtification, meriting that for which we ſhould be juſtified) but he merited only the Covenant of Life upon ſincere obedience to the Law he ſhould preſcribe. All then that he is the Meritorious Cauſe of is the New Covenant; for when this Covenant is promulgated it is left to men whether they will obey or no, and ſo whether they will be juſtified or no: He hath merited nothing further. Now p. 62if any man come to be juſtified by performing the condition of this Covenant, can Chriſt be ſaid to merit this Juſtification for him, which as to his Merits was contingent, might or might not be, and depended wholly upon his own Will and Obedience? If a man procure a Charter for a Town, and make them a Corporation thereby, and by virtue of this Charter they that ſerve an Apprentiſhip ſhall have the Privileges and Freedom of this Town, ſhall it be ſaid of thoſe that thus come into the Freedom ſome hundred years after, that their Freedom was merited, bought or procured by him that procured the Charter? Surely they themſelves merit their Freedom, the other was but an Inſtrument of procuring the Charter. In like manner, if Chriſt only merited the Covenant, by performing whereof men ſhall be juſtified, ſurely men themſelves are the proper, meritorious, immediate cauſes of their own Juſtification, or Righteouſneſs; becauſe they fulfill the condition whereto it is promiſed, and which is the formal righteouſneſs for which they are juſtified; and Chriſt is but an Inſtrument of procuring the Covenant, and an improper remote, and contingent cauſe of their Juſtification, by their fulfilling it. And thus in their ſence Chriſt is no true Cauſe of our Righteouſneſs.

p. 63Argument 4.

Fourthly,Mat. 20.28.Matt 20:28 I argue from theſe Scriptures which ſay, Chriſt laid down his Life as a Ranſom for us, redeemed us, 1 Tim. 2.6. Col. 1.14. Tit. 2.14. Rev. 1.5. Iſa. 43.3. Exod. 30.10, 11. Num. 18.15.1 Tim 2:6Col 1:14Titus 2:14Rev 1:5Isa 43:3Exod 30:10Exod 30:11Num 18:15that in him we have redemption, and that he waſhed us from our Sins in his own Blood: From whence I argue, Redemption is of perſons, a ranſom and price is paid for perſons, not for Laws and Covenants; and this was typified by the redemption of Iſrael out of Aegypt, whom God ſaith he redeemed and gave Nations for them: By the Redemption of the Firſt Born, and of the whole People whenever they were numbred; and by the year of Jubilee, which is called the Year of Redemption. I ſubſume, Ranſoms and Redemptions if not paid and purchaſed by the Perſons themſelves who were in Bondage, are imputed to them, i.e. they are immediately delivered, ſet at liberty, by the payment of them, as much as if they had paid the Prize themſelves: Therefore if Chriſt properly redeemed, bought, purchaſed us, paid a Ranſom or Prize for us, then it is imputed to us: we muſt be delivered by that very prize and ranſom, as much as if we had paid it our ſelves. Our Oppoſites are loath to ſpeak down-right with the Socinians, and to deny that Chriſt's Death was a Prize and Ranſom for us, but they muſt and do interpret this Ranſom, Prize, Redemption, &c. to be all improper and metaphyſical: Thus Mr. Trueman ſaith, That the immediate Effect p. 64of Chriſt's Satisfaction was only a Satisfaction to Juſtice,Gr. Prop. p. 86. that God might be ju… though he ſhould pardon Sinners, and that he might pardon them ſalvâ justitiâ, upon what terms he pleaſes; not that he muſt pardon them come what will of it, or elſe be unjuſt not that Sinners ſhould ipſo facto be pardoner the Prize being undertaken, paid and accepted. And again,p. 89. Chriſt's Sufferings were not proper payment, but a valuable conſideration or you may call it a refuſeable payment, though it be not properly payment at all. And Mr. Hotchkis paraphraſeth foreign, 1 Tix. 2.6. not a Ranſom, but ſomething inſtead of a Ranſom; they do therefore implicitely yield, if Chriſts death was a Ranſom and Prize for us, that then we muſt be immediately delivered by it, which is all one with his Righteouſneſs being imputed to us, and in denying the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, they do deny, That his death was a Ranſom, Prize or Payment for us, againſt the current of the Scriptures. They make all the Effect of the Obedience of Chriſt to be only the removing of that neceſſity which lay upon God to condemn all men, for breaking the Firſt Covenant, ſo that he might if he pleaſed ſave Sinners by any other Covenant:p. 86. So Trueman exprefly. From whence it follows, That notwithſtanding the death of Chriſt God might have refuſed to have made a New Covenant, or to have ſaved any Sinner if he pleaſed: Which alſo the Synod of Dort charged upon the Dutch Arminians, Proprium & integrity p. 65finem mortis Chriſti fuiſſe, Act. Syn. Dordr. in Judic. Theol. Mag. Bri. Art. 2.ut Deo Patri acquireret jus & poteſtatem ſervandi homines quibus vellet conditionibus. How far then was Chriſt from redeeming men, if God after the death of Chriſt, would have been juſt though he ſhould have ſaved no man? Moreover, how can we be ſaid to be waſht with Chriſts Blood, if Pardon and Juſtification was not immediately procured by it? Under the Law, when the People were ſprinkled with the Blood of t e Sacrifice (in alluſion to which Chriſts Blood is called the Blood of Sprinkling, Heb. 12.24.) they were immediately diſcharged from g…ilt and reconciled. If then we are ſprinkled or waſht with Chriſts Blood, we muſt in like manner be juſtified and reconciled by it, which is imputation of his Righteouſneſs: If Chriſt only procure a Covenant, by fulfilling of which we may be juſtified, his Blood might ratifie and zeal the Covenant (as the Socinians teach) but it reacheth not our perſons, nor are we cleanſed by it, unleſs remotely and per accidens, as we are juſtified by fulfilling that Law, to the Truth whereof his Blood ſealed.

Argument 5.

5ly. I argue from the Prieſts and Sacrifices of the Law: The High-Prieſt at the time of Sacrificing wore a Crown of Gold,Exod. 29.36, 37.Exod 29:36Exod 29:37 whereon was engraven, Holineſs to the Lord, in token that he was to bare the Iniquities of the Peoples Services;v. 9, 10, 29. he alſo bore the Names of the People upon his Shoulder and Breaſt to preſent p. 66them before the Lord: Both the High-Prieſt and other Prieſts in their daily Sacrifices made reconciliation for the People, though few of them were preſent; and when the People were preſent to bring Sacrifices for themſelves, they confeſſed their Sins over the Head of the Sacrifice, putting their Hands upon it, and by this means reconciliation was obtained and preſerved for the People. What then the Prieſt did and was done unto the Sacrifices was imputed to the People, they were accepted by and for theſe things done for them immediately without further conditions, therefore Chriſts Righteouſneſs is immediately imputed to Believers, and they are reconciled by it, without further conditions.

Object.It is ſaid that theſe Prieſts and Sacrifices obtained only a Political Reconciliation, ſc. to the Church and Publick Aſſembly.

Anſw.However they were imputed to the People or elſe they could obtain no reconciliation at all. But why were thoſe Sacrifices means of Political or Eccleſiaſtical Reconciliation, more than the Sacraments of the Goſpel? Baptiſm admitteth into the Church, the Lord's Supper continueth Communion in the Church, and in caſe of Excommunication, a Re-admiſſion to the Supper is a Means of Reconciliation with the Church, and a Token of it. Will they ſay that theſe Sacraments ſignifie or convey nothing of Chriſt, but are meer Political and External things, as the Socinians. (whoſe notion p. 67this is) do? The truth is, as the Sacraments of the Goſpel repreſent Chriſt come in the Fleſh; ſo the Prieſts and Sacrifices of the Law repreſented him as to come: Therefore it is ſaid, Col. 2, 17. All the Services of the Law were a ſhadow of good things to come, but the Body (or ſubſtance) is of Chriſt. And Heb. 9. v. 7, to 14. They ſignified and were Figures of what Chriſt was to do, in making way into the Holieſt of all by his own Blood. The Prieſts and Sacrifices therefore were Types of Chriſt, and the Repreſentation of him lay chiefly in this, That as the Prieſts by their Service, and the Sacrifices by their Blood, did Symbolically reconcile men to God, and admit them to all the Privileges of his People: So theſe things were Pledges and Signs that they ſhould be really reconciled to God, and inherit the Promiſes by the Obedience and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, the Great High-Prieſt, and the Beſt-Sacrifice. Therefore as there was an Imputation in the Type ſo there muſt be in the Antitype: As the Prieſts and Sacrifices bore the Peoples Sins, made Atonement …or them, and ſo reconciled them to God; ſo …he Obedience and Sufferings of Chriſt muſt …uſtifie by being done for us, and ſo accounted or imputed to us. It is in compariſon with the Levitical Prieſt that our Saviour is …aid to be the Surety of a Better Covenant, Heb. 7.22. viz. a better Covenant than they were Sureties of; for with them he is compared throughout this Chapter: Now what the Surety doth is imputed or reckoned to him for p. 68whom he is Surety. The Socinians and Arminians from them interpret theſe words to mean only that Chriſt is God's Surety to us, in that he did ratifie the New Teſtament by his Blood and thereby confirmed to us all the Promiſes of God: but though Chriſt hath ratiſied God's Covenant, and hath undertaken that it ſhall be made good to us, yet he is our Surety, he undertaketh for us alſo to ſtand betwixt us and the Father, to procure reconciliation and acceptance for us and our ſervices. This is manifeſt from the compariſon of the Levitical Prieſt here made: For as Moſes and the ſetled Prieſts after him did repreſent God to the People, in covenanting with them, ſprinkling Blood upon the Book of the Law, and upon the People, whenever there was occaſion to make Atonement for them: So alſo did they repreſent the People to God: Moſes ſpoke for them, carried their Promiſes of Obedience to God, and receiv'd his Commands to them; wherefore when they ſinned in the Golden Calf, God ſaid to him, Thy People whom thou haſt brought out of Aegypt have ſinned, &c. And the Prieſts ſtood betwixt God and them, came into the Tabernacle to appear before God for them, which the People might not approach to, offer'd Sacrifice, made Atonement for them, and Interceſſions alſo both daily, and upon the ſolemn annual Expiation: Yea the Prieſt bore their Iniquities, Eat the Sin-offering in the Holy Place, as taking the Peoples Sin upon them, Levit. 6.26. Ch. 10.17, 18, 19. They were therefore Sureties for p. 69the People to God. In like manner Chriſt alſo muſt be our Surety in offering himſelf for us, in making reconciliation and interceſſion for us, yea and in performing the Law for us in his own perſon, that we might be pardoned and accepted and have new Hearts given us:Heb. 8.8.13.Heb 8:8Heb 8:13 elſe his Covenant would not have been a better Covenant than that of Moſes, and the Levitical Prieſt.

Argument 6.

If our ſins were imputed to Chriſt, then his Righteouſneſs is imputed to us: The Reaſon of the conſequence is, If Chriſt did immediately ſuffer and ſatisfie for ſin, ſo as to take away the deſerved Puniſhment of it, and to recompence the violated Law, this very obedience and ſuffering of his muſt be our righteouſneſs and juſtifie us, there needeth no more than a full ſatisfaction to Juſtice for our ſins, and the fulfilling of that Law which we had broken.Bradſhaw de Juſti. Ch. 16. Th. 2. Deus peccata noſtra Christo impoſuit quod Chriſtus pro nobis factus dicitur peccatum, non quia peccata à nobis commiſſa in illum revera tranſlata ſint, aut quaſi: Deus mentis ſuae conceptu (ut de Deo foreign loquamur Chriſtum exiſtimaverit ea ipſa peccata commiſiſſe, quae nos ipſi commiſſer amus; ſed quia apud Deum perinde habetur, ipſé que à Deo Chriſtus perinde accipiebatur ac tractabatur, ac ſi ipſe ex perſona propria ea omnia commiſiſſet. But this is not denied, we muſt therefore prove that our ſins are imputed to Chriſt, where we p. 70muſt firſt premiſe what we mean by it, and then prove it. When we ſay our ſins are imputed to Chriſt, we do not mean that they were tranſlated to and made inherent in him, o… that he was accounted to have ſinned, to have been the Author, or any way the Cauſe of our ſins, or that God lookt upon him as ſuch: Theſe things we account blaſphemous; but we mean that Jeſus Chriſt in all he did and ſuffered did intend to ſatisfie the Law of God which Man ſhould have kept, and particularly in his Sufferings did intend and actually bare the puniſhment due to our ſins, to ſatisfie the Law thereby; and that the Father in impoſing this Obedience, and in inflicting theſe Sufferings upon Chriſt, did intend that his Law which man had broken ſhould be ſatisfied thereby, and that Chriſt ſhould bear the Puniſhment of our Sins; and further, that God did accept of theſe Sufferings of Chriſt as a ſatisfaction for our Sins, and did look upon his Juſtice as executed and ſatisfied in him. Thus our ſins are ſaid to be imputed to Chriſt, becauſe he was truly, and in the Fathers, and in his own intentions puniſhed for them. He was not reckoned an Offendor, but he was reckoned and dealt with as he who had undertaken to bear the Puniſhment due to Offenders. Many labour to make this Poſition odious by miſrepreſenting it, and putting it into harſh and unſcriptural terms: But the Queſtion is plainly this, Whether the Sufferings of Chriſt were truly and intentionally the Puniſhment of the Sins of Man laid upon him; p. 71whether Chriſt was properly puniſhed for their Sins? And this the Scripture abundantly and expreſly affirmeth.

Iſaiah 53.4. He hath born our griefs and carried our ſorrows: Yet more plainly, v. 5. 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: v. 6. We have gone aſtray, &c. and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all: v. 8. For the tranſgreſſion of my people was he ſtricken: v. 10. His Soul was made an offering for ſin: v. 11. By his knowledge ſhall my righteous Servant juſtifie many: And the means whereby he cometh to juſtifie them is, becauſe he ſhall bear their iniquities, v. 12. He bore the ſin of many. Can any thing be more expreſs? If Chriſt was wounded, bruiſed, ſtricken, offered as a Sacrifice for ſin, then he was properly puniſht for ſin; and though the other terms, bearing of ſin, carrying our griefs, &c. may have a larger interpretation, yet being joyned with thoſe other more expreſs and ſignificant words, they are to be taken in the ſame ſence.

Galat. 3.13. He was made a Curſe for us, &c. The Curſe is the Puniſhment of Sin, laid upon a perſon in purſuance of the Sentence of the Law: Chriſt then was puniſht, the Sentence of the Law executed upon him with intention to ſatisfie the Law.

p. 722 Corinth. 5.21. He was made Sin for us: Our Authors paraphraſe this, He was made a Sacrifice for Sin; the Sin-offering being ſometimes in Hebrew called Sin: And the Interpretation is not much amiſs, but the Sacrifice for ſin died for the Sinner, and did typically bear the puniſhment of his Sin: Therefore Chriſt the Antitype did really undergo the puniſhment of Sin. It is to be obſerved that our Lord was put to death without the City, on purpoſe to anſwer the Type of the Sin offering in ſpecial above the reſt of the Sacrifices, which was to be carried out and burnt without the Camp, Lev. 6.3. Heb. 13.11, 12.

1 Peter 2.24. Who his own ſelf bare our ſins in his own Body on the Tree; by whoſe ſtripes ye were healed. Here it is expreſt that Chriſt in his own perſon foreign bore our ſins upon the Croſs, in his own Body, foreign: Therefore his Sufferings upon the Croſs were the puniſhment for our ſins.

Our Oppoſites interpret this to be ſpoken figuratively:Trueman …. …rop. p. 89. The Sufferings of Chriſt were not properly an Execution of the Law (though they may figuratively be ſo called) but a ſatisfaction to Juſtice, that the Law-threat might no be executed: They mean, That Chriſt's Sufferings were for ſin, i. e. to take away Sin by bringing in a Covenant of Grace, and poſſibility of Pardon, but not that he ſatisfied offended Juſtice, by bearing the Puniſhment of Sin, in his own perſon. Now this is not to p. 73die for ſin at all, nor to bare ſin, be wounded for it, or ſtricken for it, but only to ſuffer by occaſion of ſin, as ſin was the occaſion that Chriſt ſuffered to bring in a way of Pardon; and ſo as Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is not the cauſe of our Juſtification, but the occaſion of it, that which made ſome way for it (as we have proved above) ſo alſo by this Doctrine our ſins were not the cauſe, had no proper influence upon the death of Chriſt, but were an accidental occaſion of it; becauſe if we had not ſinned, he had not died to bring in a Covenant of Grace and pardon. What can be ſpoken full and clear enough, if theſe plain Scriptures may be ſo eaſily waved? The ſame Author ſaith,p. 86. That Chriſt's death was a Satisfaction to Justice, that God might be Juſt if he ſhould pardon, not an Execution of the Law, but a ſatisfaction to Juſtice that the Law might not be executed. I anſwer: The Juſtice of God is twofold, Abſolute and Eſſential, which is the infinite Holineſs of his Nature, whereby he can do nothing but what is becoming himſelf, or limited and ordinate, which is a voluntary Obligation, which God hath laid upon himſelf to proceed in his dealing with Creatures according to the Law which he hath preſcribed them. I demand which of theſe Chriſt ſatisfied, not the firſt, any further than as it is included in the ſecond, viz. as it is becoming God's infinite and eſſential Holineſs to proceed with his Creatures according to his own Laws, when he hath given them Laws to act by: For this Author and his Friends do p. 74not deny that Eſſential Juſtice might have been content to have pardoned and reſtored Adam, and us in him, without the death of Chriſt, it muſt therefore be limited and ordinate Juſtice, which Chriſt ſatisfied. Now by this Juſtice God is obliged to proceed according to his own Law, to ſee his Law fulfilled and executed, and that it attain the end for which it was made; therefore there is no ſatisfying of this Juſtice but by having the Law executed. To talk of ſatisfying Juſtice, of which the Law is the Rule, without executing the Law, yea that the Law might not be executed, but taken out of the way, is by fair conſequence a Contradiction.

Argument 7.

7ly. I argue; Either Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is imputed to us, we are juſtified immediately by believing in it, or Chriſt only purchaſed a Law of Grace by fulfilling whereof we ſhould be juſtified. There is no medium betwixt theſe two in the Queſtion about Imputation: but the latter is falſe, therefore the former is true. This is that our Oppoſites contend for, That Chriſt only purchaſed, that we ſhould be ſaved if we ſhould perform that new Law, which he ſhould give us: But this ſhall be particularly conſidered in the Sixth Chapter.