98
Chapter 10
Some arguments for the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness
vindicated from the exceptions of
John Goodwine.
The
truth concerning the imputation of Christ’s righteousness,
hath been hitherto asserted from Scripture; and several of these passages have
been vindicated from the exceptions of Mr. Goodwine, a main adversary
thereunto. For further clearing of the matter, we shall see what exceptions the
same man brings in against the argument, which are made use of by the orthodox
for the truth asserted.
Argument 1. If there be no standing in judgment before God,
unless we be endued with perfect righteousness; then
must the righteousness of Christ be imputed to us, in our justification. But
there is no standing for us in judgment before God, unless we be endued with a perfect righteousness. Ergo,
&c.
Against
this he excepts, page 192. Chapter
7. saying, That the consequence of the
former proposition is not good. And so doth Bellarmine answer de Justific. lib. 2.cap.7.
So do also the Socinians. But let us hear his reasons. Remission of sins
(says he) which is the purchase and procurement of the death of Christ, is a
perfect
100
righteousness, and is every way able to bear us out in judgment. Answer: Remission of sins neither is, nor can be
called righteousness; for a pardoned person is not the same with one, that hath
kept the law: though by virtue of this pardon, he is freed from the punishment,
due to the transgressors of the law; yet hath he no right to the reward,
promised to the keepers of the law. (2.) Remission of sins being the purchase
of Christ’s death and sufferings, cannot be had without the imputation of the
death and sufferings of Christ unto the believer: and so hereby one half of the
truth must be granted: but His sufferings and obedience going together and both
making up one Mediatory and Surety-righteousness, performed by Christ in His
estate of humiliation, both must be imputed, and made over to the believer, to
the end he may receive pardon, and right to glory.
Argument 2. He that is justified by the righteousness of
another, and not by his own, must needs be justified by the righteousness of
Christ imputed; because there is no righteousness to be found in any other, for
justification of a person, in the sight of God. But every man that is justified, is justified by the righteousness of another, and
not by his own. Ergo, &c.
He excepts 1. The Major is false, because the passive
obedience of Christ is the righteousness of another: and men may be and are
thoroughly and fully justified by the merit hereof, communicated to them in the
free pardon of their sins; and so need not the imputation of His active
obedience. Answer: (1.) We plead not for the sole imputation of Christ’s
active obedience; but for the imputation of all, that He did and suffered, for
and in the room and stead of His own. (2.) Where are Christ’s mere sufferings,
as distinguished from His obedience, called a righteousness?
or how can mere sufferings, as such, or bearing of the
punishment threatened by the law, be called a righteousness? doth
not righteousness denote the conformity of actions unto the law? (3.) When it
is said, the merit of Christ’s passive obedience is communicated unto us, the meaning must be one of these two; either that itself
is properly made over and imputed to us; or only in its effect, free pardon of
sins. If this latter be said, then no imputation is granted, than what Socinus
will yield unto: and how can it be said to be imputed, as to its effects, when
itself is not imputed, in order to the partaking of these effects? If the
former be said, then there is something, that is in
itself imputed, and not merely in its effects. And if Christ’s passion and
sufferings be imputed, abstracted from His righteousness and active obedience,
they shall be justified without a righteousness. And
it neither is, nor ever will be proved, that pardon of sins is the whole of
justification; or that a pardoned man is, eo ipso, that he is pardoned,
a righteous man; or that a pardoned man, merely as such, hath right to the
recompense of reward, promised to the fulfiller of the law.
Exception 2. to the minor, A man
may be said (says he) to be justified by the righteousness of another,
and not by his own, in a double sense. Either 1. by
way of merit; and then it is true, that everyone is justified by the
righteousness of another, that is, by the merit of the righteousness of
another, or 2. by way of form; and so it is altogether
untrue; for that righteousness, where with a man
100
is formally made righteous, is always a man’s own by
donation and possession. Answer: (1.)
When a man is justified by the merit of the righteousness of another, that
righteousness of the other must be imputed to the justified person; or we have
no other imputation, than what Socinians yield to. (2.) If the righteousness,
whereby one is formally justified, be his own by donation and possession, and
no other possession be thereunto requisite, then we may be said to be formally
justified by the righteousness of Christ: for we affirm, that believers are
possessed thereof by God’s free donation and imputation: and thus the whole is
granted; for notwithstanding hereof, that same righteousness, which is made
over to the believer, by free donation and imputation, is Christ’s inherently,
and so is the righteousness of another. Whereby we see, that
the members of this distinction thus explained, are not different. Yet,
we must not think, that this righteousness of Christ is so given to us, as that
it is inherent in us, and wrought in us, as faith and repentance are: for even
remission of sins, whereby he will have us formally justified, is not so in us,
as faith and repentance are in us: and through God’s imputation and donation,
the righteousness of Christ may be the believer’s, when it is received by
faith, as well as remission of sins: for, to speak in his own language, that
which is given unto man by God, may truly and properly be called his own. (3.)
That remission of sins is formal justification, will never be proved: and
seeing he will have remission of sins to be the pure effect of Christ’s
sufferings and death; so must justification be: and then, why does the Apostle
say, Romans 4: 25 Who was delivered (viz. to sufferings and death) for
our offenses, and raised again for our justification?
Argument 3. If believers have a true and real communion with
Christ, then is His righteousness theirs by imputation. But the former is true,
&c. It may be, he presupposes the argument, in such a mode and way, as may
be most to his own advantage; for who argueth thus, he nameth not. Yet it is
true, that the union, which believers have with Christ, is the ground of their
communion with Him in all things, which He was made of God to be for them, and
which their necessity called for; among which His whole surety-righteousness
does challenge a chief place. Nor would I argue from the union and communion in
general: but from such a particular union and communion, as is darkly shadowed
forth unto us in the Scriptures, by such and such similitudes; such as the
union between man and wife, who are one flesh, as Christ and believers are one
Spirit; as the union between the principal debtor and the cautioner; and
between the public head and representative, and the members represented; as
between the redeemer and the redeemed and the like. And to argue from such an union, for such a peculiar end, to such a communion, as
we here plead for, may stand against all his exceptions, page 195, &c.
Which are these following.
Exception 1. The Major wants truth, because a true and
real communion with Christ may stand, without His active obedience being made
theirs by imputation. There is a real union and communion between the head and
the feet, in the same
101
natural body; yet is not the brain, or the proper functions
and operations of the head, made the brain or functions of the feet. So between
the husband and the wife; yet is not the holiness,
strength and wisdom of the husband made over to the wife by imputation. Answer: Similitudes go not always upon four feet: and
as these similitudes come short of expressing the union and communion, that is
between Christ and believers; so they are not appositely here applied: for
neither is the end of the union and communion between head and feet, that the
brains and operations of the head should be communicated to the feet; but that
the head should use its proper operations and functions for the good of the
feet: nor do the feet stand in need of any other thing from the head. And thus
also is it in the other similitude, as to the particulars instanced: yet in
other particulars, this last similitude will come nearer to our business; for
though the husband’s wisdom, holiness or strength (which are not communicable)
be not imputable to the wife; yet his honor and riches can be and are imputed
or communicated: for, though before marriage, the woman was in a base
condition, yet being matched with an honorable person, she partakes of his
honor; and being, before the marriage, a person in debt, her husbands riches
are so imputed to her, that she may be and is made thereby solvendo, and
freed from her creditors pursuit, and her husband and she become one person in
law, and he becomes chargeable with her debt, and obliged to pay it. So that as
there is an imputation, or a real devolving by law of the debt of the wife upon
the husband; so his making payment and satisfaction for the same, is by law
accounted hers; and she is thereupon freed from all charge and trouble from her
creditors.
Exception 2. The Major wants reason; for there is no
color of truth in it, that that union and communion, which believers have with
Christ, should of necessity draw after it the imputation of His active
obedience; so that this obedience of His should become their formal
righteousness; more than the imputation of His wisdom, power and glory.
Answer: (1.) If by formal righteousness he understand
with Papists, inherent holiness, or righteousness, it is nothing to the
purpose; for we assert no such imputation. (2.) That the whole of Christ’s
surety-righteousness be so imputed to believers, as that it becomes theirs; so
that they, merely upon the account thereof, and clothed therewith, may be and
are repute and held to be persons just, in the account of God, and so be
justified in His sight, is the thing we assert: and that this doth necessarily
flow from believers’ union with Him by faith, and is a part of the communion
they have with Him, and that upon a double account, first because He became
surety, and undertook their debt; and so was made under the law, and obeyed and
suffered all that it could have demanded of them; for this end and purpose,
that what He thus did and suffered, as a public person or surety, might stand
for them, and be accepted on their behalf. Secondly, because
their case and necessity called for this, in order to their justification and
acceptance with God. (3.) His
wisdom and power are other ways improven, and laid forth to their advantage,
according to the nature of the thing, and necessity.
102
Argument 4. If there be no other principal end, reason, or
necessity, why Christ should fulfill the law; but only that His obedience
thereunto might be imputed to us for righteousness, in our justification, then
is not the imputation thereof to be denied. But the former is true. Ergo, &c. And sure, if Christ’s obedience to the law,
was not necessary in respect of Himself, it must have been performed upon the
account of believers; and that principally and mainly for their justification
and salvation; and therefore for this end, that it might be imputed unto them.
Against this, page 197, &c. He,
Excepts: There are diverse other ends, reasons and
necessities to be assigned hereof. Answer: This is not the main thing, that
is here denied; nor will all this help our adversary, unless it can be shown,
that those other ends, which we deny not, are prejudicial unto, and
inconsistent with that, which we look upon, as the chief, and as peculiar to
Him, as Mediator and surety, standing in the room of His people, who did mainly
stand in need of this. Let us now see the particular ends he touches.
1. One
reason (says he) might be, to procure the greater authority and deeper
reverence to the doctrine, which he taught, Matthew 7: 28. Answer: (1.) The
Socinians, upon the same account, deny, that His death
was any proper satisfaction for believers: and if this be a weak argument in
their mouth, it cannot be strong in the mouth of our present opposites. (2.)
This end is but subordinate unto, and no way inconsistent with the principal
end, which we have mentioned. (3.) Though Christ’s miracles had a more direct
tendency to procure this reverence, than His holy life; yet neither the one,
nor the other were peculiar to Him alone: for both the miracles, wrought by
others, such as prophets and Apostles, and their holy life, had a tendency to
procure reverence and belief to their doctrine: And himself confirms this in
the following words, saying, It is a truth of general acknowledgment, that
the holiness, uprightness and unblameableness of the lives of teachers have a
powerful influence into the consciences of men, to render them more observant
and awful in their attention to the things, which are taught by them, citing
Matthew 21: 32, John 5: 35, 8: 46, I Timothy 4: 12, II Timothy 3: 14. (4.) We
are to consider Christ, as Mediator and Surety, in what He did, as well, as in
what He suffered, in His state of humiliation: for to us a child was born,
and to us a Son was given; He was made under the Law for us, that he might
redeem such, as were under the Law, that they might receive the Adoption of
Sons. Isaiah 9: 5, Galatians 4: 4, 5.
2. This active obedience of Christ, (says he)
was serviceable to that same great end, whereunto our righteousness and
obedience are subservient, viz. the glory of God, and the advancement of His
kingdom, John
103
in the room of His people; and His doing it for the
glory of God, and the advancement of His Kingdom?
3. Another
end (says he) is the exemplariness of it. Answer: This is but
another arrow, taken out of the quiver of the Socinians; and is of no force to
weaken our argument; seeing a subordinate and less principal end doth not
destroy a more principal end. Was He not exemplary to us in His death and
sufferings? Shall we therefore say, that there was no
satisfaction for sins intended thereby? And what is there here peculiar to
Christ, as our Lord Mediator, seeing the lives of other saints are also
exemplary?
4. It
had (says he) an excellent importance to draw to imitation. Answer:
This is the same with the preceding, and deserves no further answer.
5. It
was (says he) a
means of continuing His person in the love and complacency of His Father, which
was a thing of absolute necessity, for the carrying on of the great work of
redemption: for if He had once miscarried, who should have mediated for Him? John
6. It
was (saith he) of absolute necessity to qualify and fit the sacrifice
for the altar, and render Him a person meet by His death and sacrifice of
Himself, to make atonement for the world, and to purge and take away the sin of
it. Answer: Shall we think, that He, who was God, was not a fit enough
sacrifice for the world; but that He must be made fit and prepared by acts of
obedience? And as for His human nature, which was no person, but did subsist in
the divine nature, being assumed into the subsistence thereof,
was it not sufficiently fitted to be a sacrifice, by its personal union with
the Godhead? Was it not thereby holy, harmless, and undefiled and separate from
sinners, which is all that the Apostle requires, Hebrews 7: 26? Was not the
human nature personally united unto the Godhead, from the very first moment of
conception? The holiness then, that consists in acts of actual obedience, was
not required unto this union: and after this union it was not possible, that He
could sin: as it is not possible, that the glorified now in heaven can break
the laws, that we break here, while on earth; and yet it will not follow, that
they are under the same particular obligation to particular acts of commanded
duties, that we stand under: So nor was Christ, as to Himself, under the
obligation of the particular duties of the Law, to which He willingly submitted
Himself, and gave obedience; but all this was for us: Nor was this necessarily
required to make His sacrifice holy; for His human nature, being once united,
to the Divine, could not other ways be but holy and without in; and so a
sinless and holy sacrifice. And withal we would take notice, that the actions
of the Mediator, were the actions
104
of the person, and not of either of the natures alone;
and therefore must not be looked upon, as the actions of a mere man. So that
His acts of obedience, were the acts of obedience of God-man, or of that
person, that was God. He needs not then tell us, that the absolute holiness
and righteousness of the humanity itself was of necessary concurrence unto His
obedience: for we grant it, and this flowed from the hypostatical union:
but that, which we deny, is, that there was an holiness and righteousness in
acts of outward obedience to the law requisite thereunto; as if the human
nature, by virtue of the hypostatical union, had not been holy and harmless,
antecedently unto those outward acts of obedience; and so had not been a sinless
and holy sacrifice, if He had been offered up in His infancy, or before He was
in capacity to do any commanded acts. He needs not say (as he does page 204)
that we conceive, that Christ-man might have been righteous without doing
the works of righteousness, which is all one, as to say, that He might have
been righteous, though He had transgressed; for not to keep the law, in those,
to whom the law is given, is nothing else, but to transgress. For we
neither do, nor need assert any such thing: for by virtue of the hypostatical
union, He was righteous, and could not transgress, or do anything contrary to
what was imposed upon Him: but we say, that by virtue of this union, as to
himself, the Human nature was not under the law, as we are; but He was under
the Law, that He might fulfill it for others; and not to fit and qualify Him to
be a meet sacrifice, as if for this His human nature had not been meet enough
before. To this he says, page 205, Let this supposition be admitted, that
Christ had suffered in the womb, and that this suffering of His had been fully
satisfactory; yet had He been as perfectly righteous, in this case; and
consequently had kept the law perfectly, as now He hath done; for the law
requires of infants, during infancy, nothing but holiness of nature. I
answer (1.) This is enough to confirm what we say, viz. that all His after
actual obedience was not necessary to this end. (2.) And beside though this
holiness of nature was conform to the law upon the matter, yet it was not a
formal obedience unto the law, if we speak of Him in reference to Himself; for
the human nature had this holiness by virtue of the hypostatical nature: and
Christ, when the human nature was first conceived, was God-man; and the person
was under no law; and so was not under the obligation of any such law; but was
made under the law, as Mediator; and so, for us, and not for himself; nor is it
any more to advantage, to except again and say, that His meaning is not,
that there was an absolute necessity, that he should keep the law, upon the
same terms, every way, which now He hath done, as that He should perform the
same individual acts of obedience, or the same number of acts, in case He had
been called to suffer any whit sooner: but that until the very instant, in which
He should suffer, whether it were sooner, or later, He should in all things
submit Himself unto the good pleasure of God. For it doth hence
sufficiently appear, that all his after obedience, in all these particular
acts, was not necessary to fit Him, as a sacrifice; and so could not be
necessary for Himself. And therefore seeing He had been a sufficiently holy
sacrifice, had he been offered up before the actual performance of these
commanded duties in the law, it is manifest, that these duties were not required
unto the end alleged:
105
but that, as He was made under the Law for us; so all His
actual obedience to the law was for us, and not for Himself. The Excepter, in
end, perceiving the invalidity of all his own discourse here, closes the matter
thus, page 206, But however suppose this necessity or use of the
righteousness of Christ could not be sufficiently cleared; yet since there are
many others of undeniable evidence, the position so much contended for; to wit,
that the Godhead of Christ sufficiently qualified Him for such a sacrifice, as
He was, makes nothing at all for the imputation of His righteousness. Therefore
we shall not trouble either ourselves, or our reader
any further with untying an impertinent knot. What these others of
undeniable evidence are, we have not yet seen: and, sure, this one ground is
sufficient to demonstrate, that his obedience to the law, in all points, was
not for himself, nor to qualify Him, as a sacrifice; but for us: and therefore
it must be imputed, and made over to us and become our righteousness, whereby
and whereupon, together with His sufferings, made over to us also, we are to be
justified and accepted of God, as righteous; and not only have pardon of sins,
but also a right to the inheritance, and to the reward promised upon obedience.
7. As
Christ (says he, page 206,) was a sacrifice; so was He and yet is, and
is to be forever, Hebrews 7: 27, &c. An High Priest; and that righteousness
of His we speak of, qualifies Him, that is, contributes to His qualification
for priesthood, as well as it did for His sacrifice. Answer: Seeing it
cannot be proved, that His actual obedience to the Law (which is the
righteousness we are here speaking of) was necessary to qualify Him to be a
sacrifice here on earth; much less can it be proven, that it was necessary to
qualify Him for His priesthood in heaven. And all these qualifications
mentioned, Hebrews 7: 26, He had, before that actual obedience was either
performed, or he in a capacity to perform it: and therefore His actual
obedience was not necessary thereunto.
8. The
holy pleasure (says he) and contentment, which Christ himself took in
these works of righteousness, may be looked upon, as one considerable end, John
Argument 5. If we be debtors unto the law, and that not
only in matter of punishment, but in perfect obedience also; then did Christ
not only suffer death for us, that we might be delivered from the curse; but
also fulfilled the law, that so we may be reputed to have fulfilled the law in
him, or by the imputation of His fulfilling the law to us. Otherwise the Law
should yet remain to be fulfilled by us. But the former is true. Ergo, &c.
The force of the argument lies here, that we were debtors unto the law, not
only as to the punishment, which we had deserved by transgression, but also to
the perfect conformity thereunto: and therefore coming in our law-place, and
taking on our debt, did not only undergo the punishment for us, but did also
yield perfect obedience: and
106
this complete surety-righteousness of Christ,
consisting both in doing and suffering, must be imputed unto us, and reckoned
upon our score, to the end, we may be justified and accepted of God, as
righteous; and have right not only to impunity, but also to the reward,
promised to the obedient.
He excepts, page 208, &c., against the Minor, upon these
grounds. 1. If the meaning (says he) be, that we, who are believers,
are debtors to the law in perfection for our justification; it is false. But as
for these, that believe not in Christ, it may be true,
in this sense; that if they mean to be justified, and to escape the punishment,
otherwise than by Christ, they must keep the whole law. Answer: (1.) We say
not, that believers, who are already justified, through the imputed
righteousness of Christ, are debtors unto the law, for this end: but that ere
they could be justified and accepted of God, as righteous, they were obliged to
perfect obedience, as well as to suffer the penalty: and seeing this was
impossible unto them, their Surety was to do it, and He did it, and what He did
was imputed unto them, and reckoned upon their score. (2.) As for unbelievers
(and such are all by nature) seeing it is confessed, that they ere under this
obligation, then it is necessary, that before they be justified, either they,
or a Surety for them, must satisfy both these demands of the law. And though
none be now under a command, to give perfect obedience unto the law, to the
end, they may be justified; but such as hear the Gospel are commanded to
believe in Christ, and to accept of Him by faith, that they may have an
interest in His righteousness, and so be justified: yet that takes not away
this imputation, but establishes it rather; because Christ having satisfied all
the demands of the law, both in doing and in suffering, and that as a Surety,
Head, Redeemer and public person, by believing in Him, they receive this, and
have it made over unto them.
2. If
the proposition (says he) means, that believers are debtors of perfect
obedience to the law, in a way of sanctification and thankfulness, this is true,
but it concerns not the question. Answer: Nor do we speak of this, knowing
that it is nothing to the present question: But this we say, that all men by
nature, and so believers, before they be justified by faith in Christ, are not
only under the curse, because of sin; but are under the demand of the law, or
the commanding power of the law, requiring perfect obedience, in order to the
reward: And that therefore both these demands of the law must be satisfied by
their Surety, and the same must be imputed to them and reckoned upon their
score, before they can be looked on, as free of the curse, and as heirs of the
reward, promised to full and perfect obedience.
3. We
are not (says he) therefore exempted from keeping the law, no not in
respect of justification itself, because we have transgressed it; but because
1. having once transgressed it, we are utterly
incapable of such an observation, whether personally, or by imputation, which
may amount to justification, or exemption from punishment. 2. That relaxation
or release from an observation of, or dependence upon
the law by justification accrues unto us by means of our dependence upon
107
Christ for justification, through His death, Romans 7:
4. Answer: (1.) If our transgression
of the law doth not exempt us from the obligation to keep it perfectly, in
order to justification, then, ere we be justified, that obligation must be
satisfied, as well, as the obligation to punishment; and so the law must be
perfectly kept, as well as its penalty suffered: And seeing we ourselves can do
neither, our Surety must do it for us, and that must be accepted for us, and
imputed to us. (2.) Nor can it be said, that our incapableness to keep it, so
as may amount to justification, doth exempt us from the obligation, or destroy
the law’s power to require that of us; more than our incapableness to suffer
the penalty, so as may amount to a justification, doth or can exempt us from
the obligation to suffer, or destroy the law’s power to require the penalty of
us. It is true, that no man now is called of God to endeavor this way of
justification: yet all such, as live without the Gospel have not the better and
more sure way, through faith in Christ made known unto them. The obligation to
perfect obedience remaining after the transgression, says, that, ere man, that
was both obliged to suffer, and to yield perfect obedience, can be justified,
the law, as to both these demands, must be satisfied, and the Surety’s
satisfaction to both must be reckoned upon his score. (3.) Justification and
exemption from punishment are not one and the same, in our case, more than
pardon and righteousness. (4.) The exemption, that accrues to
believers, says not, that there was no obligation upon mankind both to
suffer and obey, in order to justification, anterior to Christ’s doing both.
4.
God never required (says he, page 210,) of any man, but only of Christ,
both exactness of obedience to the law, and subjection to punishment, due to
the transgression of the law cojunctim, but divisim only. He that shall
perfectly keep the law, is not bound to suffer the
penalty. Answer: (1.) Then our transgressing of the law should exempt us
from the obligation to obedience, contrary to what was granted in the first
exception. (2.) Though he, who perfectly keeps the law, is obnoxious to no
punishment; yet he, who breaks the law (as we all did in Adam, beside our daily
transgressions) is obnoxious to punishment; and this
obnoxiousness to punishment no more dissolves his obligation to obedience, than
his transgression was able to do. And therefore we are all, considered in our
natural state, obliged to both conjunctim; for we are born sinners, and
yet born under the obligation of keeping the law of God. (3.) God’s requiring
both of Christ, who was Mediator and Surety, says, that both were required of
us: for what was required of Him, as Surety, was required of the principal
debtors.
5. He
says, In case a man hath transgressed the law, and hath suffered (whether by
himself, or by some other for him) the full punishment threatened, he is no
further a debtor unto the law, neither in point of punishment, nor of
obedience: for the punishment is of equal consideration to the law, with the
most absolute conformity: and as no man can be obliged to fulfill the law twice
for his justification; so neither is it reasonable to conceive, that he, who
hath suffered the full penalty, that being as satisfactory to the law, as the
exact obedience, should be still bound to the observation of the law.
Answer: When the law promises life to the fulfillers, as
108
well as threaten death to the transgressors, the
suffering of death for the transgression, is not such a fulfilling of the Law,
as hath the promise of life annexed to it: Devils, though now suffering the
vengeance of eternal fire, the death threatened, yet cannot be said to be
fulfilling the law, or obeying unto life; nor can they be said to be justified,
nor to be suffering anything, in order thereunto. In order therefore to our
justification and acceptance with God, as heirs of the life promised, who were
both obnoxious to punishment, and also obliged to give perfect obedience to the
law, the law as to both, must be satisfied. Nor can we say,
that the punishment of Devils is of equal consideration to the law, with the
conformity yielded thereunto by the confirmed Angels. And though the suffering
of the penalty in laws penal, or such as promise no reward unto the obeyers,
may be said to be of equal consideration with the keeping of the law; yet this
cannot be said in laws, which promise a reward to the observers, as well as
threaten a punishment to transgressors: Nor can the man, that suffers the
punishment, suppose to the full, that is threatened in the law, be said to have
fulfilled the law, and to have deserved the reward promised to obeyers. (2.)
Though Christ hath both obeyed the law, and suffered the punishment; yet the
law is not twice fulfilled, but once, because, as was granted, such as were
sinners and obnoxious to punishment, were also obliged to yield perfect
obedience: for transgression did not destroy this obligation. As when a man is
punished for breach of a law, that not only required obedience under such a
penalty, but also promised a reward to the observers, when he is put to perform
what was commanded, ere he can have the promised reward, he is not put to
fulfill the law twice: for his punishment was but satisfaction to one part of
the law, or to threatening; but it was no satisfaction of the law, as to the
reward promised.
Argument 6. If there be no justification, without a perfect
righteousness, and no such righteousness to be found, but the righteousness of
Christ performed to the law, then of necessity this righteousness must be
imputed to us unto justification. But the former is true. Ergo, &c. The
ground of this argument is, that justification is the pronouncing of a person
righteous, and justification being God’s act, the person justified must be
righteous, ere God can judge and pronounce him to be such; for the judgment of
God is always according to truth; and no person having a righteousness of his
own, all that are justified must have a righteousness imputed to them; and
there is no righteousness that can be said to be imputed, but the
surety-righteousness of Christ, and particularly, in satisfying all the demands
of the law.
He excepts, page 211, against the Minor 1. That however it
be true, that justification cannot take place, without a perfect righteousness,
being nothing else than the making of a man perfectly righteous: yet a
righteousness consisting determinately of such a tale of righteous acts, as
Christ performed to the moral Law, is not absolutely necessary: for in
reference to the Jews, there must have been righteous acts performed unto the
ceremonial Law also. Answer: Justification is not the making of a man
perfectly righteous; but the judicial pronouncing
109
and declaring of a man to be so, through the
righteousness of Christ, imputed to him and received by faith. (2.) A perfect righteousness,
consisting in complete obedience to the law is required: we urge not such a
determination of acts, in number and tale to the moral, or to the ceremonial
law: only we assert the necessity of a full obedience to the rule of
righteousness, which God prescribed unto men, and this was the moral law:
Though, as to the Jews there were other prescriptions proposed, than were to
others of the world; yet these same prescriptions, consisting in ceremonials,
or in judicials, were reduced to the moral law, and were enjoined thereby, so
long as they stood in force, and were not repealed by the Supreme Law-giver.
Exception 2. Neither is it absolutely true, that there is
no perfect righteousness to be found, beside Christ’s. There is a righteousness in the law as absolute and complete. And it
is much more probable, that if God imputes a legal righteousness unto men in
justification, He furnishes them this way out of the law. Answer: But what
is that righteousness in the law? Doth the law hold forth any righteousness,
but perfect obedience? How can God furnish them with this, but by imputing unto
them the perfect obedience of Christ, seeing He hath not so ordered matters, as
they shall be in case, while here, perfectly to keep the law themselves. (2.)
He remits us to what he said formerly in the same treatise; and in that place,
he makes this complete righteousness to consist in remission of sins. And yet,
it is certain, that remission is no obedience; nor is it a righteousness held
forth in the law; nor is it any satisfaction to the law: yea, it agrees not
with common sense, nor with reason to say, that by remission of sins men are
made formally righteous.
Exception 3. That perfect righteousness, wherein
justification consists, and where with men are made formally righteous, when
they are justified, is nothing else but remission of sins, Romans 4: 6, 7. Answer:
Remission of sins is not a perfect righteousness. This hath no countenance,
from Scripture, nor from reason, or common sense. Whoever thought, or said, that
a pardoned thief or murder was a righteous man, or that his pardon made him
formally righteous, and an observer of the law? Though thereupon he be freed
from the penalty, or from the punishment threatened in the law against such
transgressors; yet is he not thereupon either made or declared to be righteous;
but his pardon is a virtual declaration, that he is not righteous, but a
transgressor. How that place, Romans 4: 6, 7, is perverted, when adduced to
give countenance to this fiction, is declared already.
He
adds, page 215, two reasons for this: the first is, That
remission of sins is equivalent unto, and virtually contains and comprehends in
it, the most absolute and entire obedience unto the law. Answer: Remission
of sins, as such, is so far from being equivalent to this, or from
comprehending this in it, that it is a plain declaration of the contrary: for
where entire obedience is, there remission hath no place, and remission must
presuppose a transgression. The next is, Because
(says he) it hath all these great and high
110
privileges annexed to it, and depending upon it, which a
righteousness, most strictly so called, could have, as the love, favor,
acceptation and approbation of God. Answer:
If we speak of remission of sins, in itself, and abstractly considered, this is
also false: for though a pardoned man be freed from the punishment, due to
transgressors; yet, as merely pardoned, he hath no right to reward, promised to
the perfect observers of the law: Notwithstanding hereof, we grant that men
pardoned of God hath all these great and high privileges; but not by virtue of
his mere pardon; but because there is a righteousness, imputed to him, upon
which these privileges do depend, and exemption from punishment depends upon
his pardon.
He hath
two other reasons elsewhere, page 5, 6, to this purpose; as 1. Remission
includes the acknowledgment of the observation of the whole law, even as the
imputation of the law fulfilled, necessarily includes the non-imputation of
sin. Answer: Though in our justification, this might be granted to be true,
upon the matter, because there is an imputation of the whole
surety-righteousness of Christ together; and the one part is not separated from
the other; so that the one consequently infers the other. But when it is thus
reasoned against the imputation of the one, the inference here must be
understood of a formal inference, and so it is false, that remission includes
the acknowledgment of the observation of the whole law; for it only includes
the non-imputation of guilt, notwithstanding that the law was broken: yea, as
is said, it manifestly supposes the contrary, viz. that the law was not
perfectly observed, for had the law been perfectly observed, there had been no
place for pardon. Moreover, remission as such, gives no right to the reward,
promised unto perfect obedience; but only impunity from the punishment,
threatened for disobedience. 2. Says he, He cannot be said to have all his
sins fully forgiven, who is yet looked upon, as one that hath transgressed,
either by omission, or commission, and intended to be dealt with all as such. Answer:
Though he, whose sins are fully forgiven, cannot be dealt with, as one guilty
of sin, that is, as one liable to the punishment; yet he may be looked on, as
one, that was guilty, and so did not give full and perfect obedience: and
therefore, though he cannot be dealt with as a transgressor; yet neither can he
be dealt with, upon the account of his remission, as one that hath yielded
perfect obedience, and did never transgress. Wherefore, seeing he cannot be
looked upon, as one that never transgressed, he cannot be looked upon, as one
that hath a perfect righteousness, and so, a right to the reward. The
similitudes taken from a physician, restoring his patient to health, by recovering
him from his sickness; and from the Sun, in one act expelling darkness and
bringing light, which are here adduced for illustration, have no force to prove
anything here, in regard, there is no correspondence in all points, between
matters natural, and matters merely moral, or political. There is no medium
between light and darkness, or the habit and its privation; but there is a
medium here between transgressing the Law, and perfect obedience to the Law to
the end. Adam, so long as he stood, was no transgressor; yet he had not then
given
111
perfect obedience to the end, according to the covenant. So
there is a medium between freedom from the penalty, and the right to the
reward, as was shown above.
Argument 7. If do this and live, be an everlasting
rule of God, and which shall never be dissolved, then must the active obedience
of Christ be imputed unto men, in justification, that so they may be said to
have done this, and so live. But the former is true, ergo,
&c. That these words, do and live, contain a determination and
constitution of the Lord, as unalterable, as these words, That day thou
eats, thou shalt die, cannot well be denied: and
therefore, if because of this latter, no man can be saved, unless their Surety
die for them; so because of that former, no man can have right to the reward,
unless his Surety perform perfect obedience. And as the one is imputed to the
believer, so must the other be imputed also, in order to his complete
salvation.
Against
this he excepts, page 216, &c. thus, In this sense, I grant, that ‘do
this and live’ is an everlasting rule, that is, it is, hath been, and shall be
everlastingly true, that whosoever shall fulfill the law perfectly, shall live.
But not in this sense, that it is the only perpetual and standing rule, whereby
and according to which, men must be justified, and so saved: for in this sense,
it neither is, nor ever was, nor ever shall be a rule of God: for God hath
always had, and forever will have another rule for the justification of men. Answer: (1.) Was it not a rule of life and
justification to Adam, in the state of innocence? Was he not, according to that
covenant, where in he stood, to purchase the good promised by his doing? It may
be, the Excepter thinks, with the Socinians, that no
more was promised to Adam, than what he had in possession. (2.) We do not
assert it, as a standing rule, whereby we should now expect to be justified;
but we say, that it being a constitution of God’s, as
well as the others, viz. That day thou eats, thou
shalt die, it must be satisfied, as well as the other. And as the rule of
faith takes not away Christ’s suffering of death, according to what was
threatened in the law; so nor doth the law of faith take away his obedience,
according to the command of the law: and as Christ’s paying down of the penalty
was necessary for our freedom from death; so His giving full obedience to the
law is necessary to our life; though, as was said, we need not nicely thus
distinguish, save to show the necessity of the imputation of both.
Argument
8: That righteousness, which God accepts on our behalf, is the righteousness
imputed to us in justification. But the righteousness of Christ is that
righteousness, which God accepts on our behalf, ergo, &c.
He excepts, page 217. 1. Denying the major, because God may
and doth accept that for us, or on our behalf, which yet He need not impute to
us; as He accepted of Abraham’s prayer, in behalf of Ishmael: and of the prayer
of Elisha for the Shunammite’s son, and yet neither was imputed to the other. Answer:
But all this, and a thousand instances of like nature, can evince nothing; for
the argument speaks of what is accepted of God, in order to justification, as
the ground and meritorious cause thereof; which the instances adduced come
112
not nigh unto. He adds, In like manner, these, in
whose behalf, Christ’s sufferings were accepted, receive an unspeakable benefit
and blessing by them; but this operates nothing to the inference of the
imputation pleaded for; that is, that God must look upon these sufferings of
Christ, as if they had personally endured them, on whose behalf they are
accepted. Answer: Then it seems not only is the imputation of Christ’s
active obedience denied; but also the imputation of His death and sufferings;
and no more is granted, than what Socinians will yield unto. (2.) The
imputation, we plead for, is not such as makes God to look upon these
sufferings of Christ, as if believers had personally endured them: but such, as
makes God to look upon them, as the sufferings of Christ, as Surety, Head and
Public Person, in the room and stead of His chosen ones; which sufferings and
payment of the penalty by the Surety, being made over unto, and reckoned upon
the score of believers, they are, upon the account thereof, accepted and dealt
with, as if they themselves had so suffered and satisfied, in their own
persons.
2. He
distinguishes thus, If by the righteousness of Christ the proposition means,
precisely that obedience, which He exhibited to that general and common law,
whereunto all men are obliged, considered apart from His obedience to that
particular law of Mediator, given to Himself alone, so it is false. If by
righteousness be here meant that obedience of Christ, commonly called passive, or both active and passive together; so it may be
true: but then the other will be found tardy. Answer: (1.) Christ’s
obedience to that general law, by which all men were obliged, did as well
belong to His law of Mediation, and was comprehended under it, as His giving up
Himself to suffering and to death: for as Mediator He was made under the law,
as well as suffered the curse. (2.) The minor proposition is to be understood
of the whole Surety-righteousness, consisting not only in suffering; but also
in actual obedience to the law: and when this is granted, the whole we seek is
granted. Neither is the former proposition found tardy, as appears from what is
said; and the syllogism is good, and no paralogism, whatever he supposes.
Argument
9: If Christ were a public person, standing in the place or stead of all those
that should believe in Him; then all that He did and suffered, is to be looked
upon and reputed by God, as done and suffered by these, and consequently are
imputed to them. But the former is true, ergo, &c. Sure, if Christ was a
public person, standing in the place and room of the chosen ones, all that He
did, as such a person, or as a Surety, as to that which law and justice
required of them, and they were obliged unto, must needs be imputed unto them,
and reckoned upon their score; and they must be dealt with upon the account
thereof, as if all had been done and suffered by themselves. We do not say,
that all He did and suffered, is or must be imputed: but that all, which He did
and suffered, in satisfaction of the law, and in payment of that, which we were
liable unto, and stood under the obligation of, is and must of necessity be
imputed, to the end we may be delivered from under the former obligation.
He excepts, page 220, &c. 1. The publicness of Christ’s
person, or His standing in the place of those, that should believe, is no
sufficient ground to build
113
this inference upon, that therefore all He did and
suffered, are looked upon by God, as done and suffered by them; such as His
conception, birth, &c. Answer: We
have obviated this already, by showing, that the major is to be limited to, and
understood of those things only, which the law required of us, and which we
were under the obligation of, and were debtors to do and suffer, amongst which
none of the particulars mentioned, and many more such like, can be reckoned.
His after rambling discourse upon this mistake, is not worth the noticing: and
who sees not, how vain it is for him to say, that then God should look upon
men, as having redeemed the world: For, as the law did not require this of
us; so to speak thus, destroys all acts of Suretyship: for the Surety’s acts
can never be so imputed to the debtor, as to make him thereby the Surety. We know, that sureties and public persons may do many things,
which cannot be said to be imputed to the debtors and persons represented: but
these things are not done by them, as such public persons and sureties, but in
another capacity. And it is folly hence to infer, that therefore the Surety’s
payment of the debt cannot be said to be imputed to the debtor; or that wherein
the public person was a public person, and which he did as such, cannot be said
to be imputed to those, whom he represented.
2.
Exception: It agrees not with Scripture expression, to say, that the
sufferings of Christ are by God looked upon, as our sufferings, or to conceive,
that we should suffer in Him. It is not all one to say, we were punished in
Christ, and Christ was punished for us. This last is warranted by Isaiah 53: 6.
But the other cannot be affirmed; for seeing in Christ’s death, we have
remission of sins, we cannot be said, for the same sins to be punished in and
with Christ. Answer: This is wholly founded upon his own way of wording the
argument, so as he thought it would give him most advantage: for all this looks
to these words, in the major proposition, are to be looked upon, and are
reputed by God, as done and suffered by those; which words might have been
left out, without any hurt to our cause: the argument without them would have
been full and conclusive for us, whether any have argued so, or he hath framed
the argument to his own mind, I know not. Sure, there is no necessity for
adding of these words: yet the words may admit of a candid interpretation; for
it hath no repugnancy, or dissonance to Scripture expression, to say, that the
sufferings of Christ are looked upon as the believer’s sufferings, when they
are imputed to him; not as if God should think, judge or conceive, that the
believer, in his own physical person, had suffered, that which Christ did
suffer; but that he hath a special legal interest in these sufferings, as being
in a special manner interested in Christ: and are now dealt with by God, no
other way, than as if he had, in his own person, laid down that satisfactory
price. And in this sense, there is no difference between the saying, that we
are punished in Christ, and that Christ was punished for us: for we
are only punished in Christ legally, as Christ suffered for us, as coming in
our law-place. Neither doth the saying, in this sense, that we are punished in
Christ, take away remission of sins, but doth rather establish the same, as
being the only ground thereof: for till we have an interest in
114
Christ, and in His sufferings, by the imputation
thereof to us, and our leaning to them by faith, we can have no remission,
according to the Gospel way.
Exception 3. The publicness of a person, who negotiates
the affairs of others, doth no further, nor any other ways, interesse those,
whose affairs he manages, in what he doth in, or about such a transaction: but
only with reference to the issue, and success of what he doth for them, in that
behalf: so that his dishonest, or unconscientious way, in the miscarrying, or
his wisdom and faithfulness, in the right managing, are no ways imputable to
the persons, whose business is negotiated. Answer: It is not necessary,
that that special manner of management should be so imputed unto the persons,
whose affair is negotiated, it being sufficient, that the persons represented
be interessed in the transaction itself, in reference to an interest in the
issue in the same affair managed: and the transaction itself is so imputed to
the persons represented, in reference to the effects, as if it had been done by
themselves. So in our case, though the wisdom, faithfulness and patience of
Christ, used in the management of that public affair entrusted to Him, as a
public person, undertaking for, and representing all His children, be not
imputed unto them: yet the business itself, with which He was entrusted, viz.
giving satisfaction to the law in all points, by suffering and obedience, which
the law required of us, is imputed to us, and must be so, in order to our partaking
of the benefits and advantages thereof.
Exception 4. It is not altogether so solid or sound, as
is supposed, ‘that Christ stood in the place and stead of those, that should
believe in Him,’ especially in all things, performed by Him, and which tended
to the qualification of His person. To stand in the place and stead of another,
implies a necessity of his being in the same place, and doing the same things
himself, wherein he stands, and which he doth, who is supposed to stand in his
stead, unless they had been done by this other for him. Answer: This last
expression is the same with the first, and needs little more consideration. We
do not assert, that He did so stand in the place and stead of believers, as to
all things He did and suffered; but only that He stood in our room and stead, in
the whole of His active and passive obedience, or in making satisfaction to the
demands of the law, in His state of humiliation, this being it, for and in
reference to which, He was appointed to be a public person: all other things He
did, as His miracles, assuming a body, and the like, need not be said to be
imputed to us; though, in that they concerned His person, and were requisite
thereunto, and to the work He was employed in, they carry a special advantage
in them for believers; and were in a particular manner designed for their good,
and were subservient to that main design.
Argument 10. If we cannot be justified by the righteousness
of Christ otherwise than by the imputation of it, then must it needs be imputed
to us, in our justification. But the former is true. Ergo,
&c.
He excepts, page 225. The righteousness of Christ concurs
toward justification, by qualifying His person for that sacrifice of Himself,
by which justification hath been purchased for all those that believe. Answer:
The argument is to be understood of His whole surety-righteousness, and not of
His active
115
obedience only. (2.) Even as to this, it was answered above, that
it was not requisite unto this end, His human nature being sufficiently
hereunto qualified, by the personal union, by which His blood became the blood
of God, and all He did and suffered was the deed and suffering of Him, who was
God.
Argument 11. If we may be truly said to be dead and
crucified with Christ, to be quickened and risen again with Him, &c. then
may we truly be said to have fulfilled the law with Christ; and consequently
that should be imputed to us. But the former is true, ergo, &c. These
expressions point forth the close union, that is
between Christ and believers, and thereupon their interest in what He did and
suffered, as Mediator, Surety, and public person, to the end they may have
right to, and possession of the great benefits, purchased and procured by Him.
So they hold forth Christ’s suffering, dying, rising, &c. as a public
person in their room and in their stead, and as their representative: so that
it is reckoned for them, and upon their score, and they are so interessed
therein, as that they are to be dealt with, as if all these things had been
done and suffered by themselves. And though, in these expressions mentioned,
there be no express mention made of Christ’s fulfilling the law; yet they
sufficiently hold forth that, which by parity of reason will enforce this, as
well as the other: for they point forth believers their union and communion
with Christ, as to His mediatory work, to which His fulfilling of the law did
belong.
Against
the consequence he says, These expressions
have no such inference: for if we could be said to have fulfilled the law with
Christ, our own fulfilling it in Him should rather be said to be imputed to us,
than His fulfilling it for us. Answer: (1.) This will say as much against
the imputation of Christ’s suffering; for we are said to be dead with Christ;
and therefore not Christ’s death, but our own death in Him should be said to be
imputed to us: but the Scripture knows no such thing. (2.) The meaning of the
expression is, we say, but to denote emphatically the imputation of what Christ
did and suffered, unto us: for our own fulfilling of the law in Him, is but His
fulfilling of it for us, and the same imputed to us; so as we are dealt with no
other ways, than if we had done it ourselves; as our being dead and buried with
Christ, is but His dying in our place and stead, or our having such an interest
in His death and burial, as that we are dealt with, as if, in a manner, we had
died ourselves. But he supposes, there is a difference, as to this, betwixt
Christ’s dying and His fulfilling the law, saying, When the Scripture says,
we are dead &c. with Christ, the meaning is not, that God looked upon us,
as if we had laid down our natural lives by death, when He laid down His; and
as if this laying down our lives were a satisfaction to His justice; for then
we might be said, to have satisfied for and redeemed ourselves: But these
expressions import either a profession of such a death in us, which holds
proportion with, or hath a likeness to the death of Christ, or else this death
itself really wrought in us, by that death of Christ. Answer: We do not
assert the meaning of these expressions to be, that God looks upon us, as if we
had laid down our natural lives, &c. But that believers have such an
interest in Christ’s death, as being the death of their Surety, Redeemer, Head,
Husband, and public person, that they receive the benefits and advantages
thereof, no less really and effectually, than if they themselves, in their own
persons, had died and satisfied, the same being now imputed unto them, and laid
hold on by faith. (2.) Though these expressions, at least some of them, and in
some places of Scripture, as Romans 6, may and do import what is here
expressed; yet the full import of these expressions is not hereby exhausted, as
the scope and circumstances of the places may clear; as particularly that
expression, Galatians 2: 20 I am crucified with Christ: and Ephesians 2:
5, 6.
He adds
against this, that Galatians 2: 20 The expression is taken in the latter
sense, importing that the natural death of Christ for Paul and others, had
wrought upon him, in a way of assimilation to itself, and had made him a dead
man to the world. Answer: Paul is rather clearing and confirming, how he
was become dead to the law, and alive unto God, verse 19, in and thru the
virtue of Christ’s death and crucifixion, in which he had such an interest,
that he accounted himself, as it were hanging on the cross in and with Christ;
and did so rest upon that by faith, and own that sacrifice alone, that he and
Christ, as it were, were become one person; and he owned his being dead unto
the law only thereunto, and had it as really flowing there from and following
thereupon, as if he himself had hung upon the cross, as a satisfactory
sacrifice.
To that
Ephesians 2: 5, 6, he says, The meaning is not, that God looks upon them, as
quickened from a natural or corporal death, as Christ’s quickening and rising
again was. Answer: Nor do we say, that this is the meaning, nor need we
either think, or say so: but this we say, that the expression holds this forth,
that Christ died and rose again, as a public person and Surety; and that
believers have so near an interest in His Mediatory work, and so close a union
with the Mediator, that they are as one person in law; so that they are really
made partakers of some of the fruits of what Christ did and suffered, already,
and shall as really partake of what is yet to be communicated, as if they
themselves had laid down that purchasing price. Let us hear what he gives for
the meaning.
The
meaning (says he) is either to signify the profession,
that is made by us of that newness of life, which in way of a spiritual
analogy, answers that life, whereunto Christ was quickened and rose again; or
else the new life itself wrought in us. Answer: That the Apostle is not
here speaking of a mere profession, is manifest: nor is he speaking only of a
new life, wrought in them; for he adds, and made us sit together in heavenly
places in Christ Jesus: Nor doth that, which he says, invalidate the
meaning, which we give; for that effect, or in-wrought quickening is spoken of,
as flowing from Christ’s dying and rising, and their union with Him in all
that, as being one person in law with Him; and so as virtually rising with Him,
and now sitting with Him, who is their common Head and representative. All which doth abundantly confirm the doctrine of imputation, which
we plead for.
He adds
finally, But on the other hand, as there is no such expression in Scripture,
as this, ‘we have fulfilled the law with Christ;’ so neither, if there were,
would it make anything at all to salve the truth of the proposition, under
question; for what if we should be said, either to profess such a fulfilling of
the law, as holds
117
proportion with Christ’s fulfilling it, or really and
personally to fulfill the law, after such a manner? Answer: The expressions
already mentioned do sufficiently evince this union and communion, that
believers have with Christ, in His mediatory work, which is a solid ground of
imputation of the same unto them, as the foundation of their partaking of the
benefits flowing there from: for there cannot any show of reason be given for
the one, which will not hold good for the other also. And it is said, but not
proved, that these and the like expressions hold forth no more, but one or both
of these two things alleged: yea the scope of the places, and the import of the
words, hold forth much more, as is said.
Argument 12. Whosoever is a sinner, and so continues while
he lives, cannot be justified other ways, than by the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness. But every man (Christ excepted) is a
sinner, &c. Therefore, &c.
He excepts, page 219, &c. If there be no other means of
justifying, the condition of the whole world is hopeless; for there is no such
imputation. Answer: The contrary has been shown, and shall be more
demonstrated hereafter. He adds, Without
imputation there is another door opened. What is this? Those that truly believe
in Jesus Christ, being not under the law, but under grace, are not liable to
condemnation for their daily sins, I John 2: 1, 1. Answer: True, but what
then? How come they to be under grace, and not under the law? Is it not by
virtue of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto them, unto their
justification; and because of their interest in Christ, as Mediator, as their
Head, Husband, Surety, Intercessor, and Advocate? He adds, So
that for the dissolving and taking away of all guilt, there needs no imputation
of the active obedience of Christ. The propitiation, which He is unto them, by
His blood and intercession, hath done this service to them, before this
imputation is supposed to come at them. Answer: We plead for the imputation
of His whole Surety and Mediatory work; and say that it is wholly imputed, and
that at once, and not one part now, and another at another time. Nor do we say,
that Christ’s death did procure one thing, and His obedience another thing: but
that in and by both, He, as Surety, performed what the law required of us; and
thereby procured all to us, that we stand in need of, to make us happy.
Thus
have we vindicated the arguments, which this author thought good to make any
answer unto: others might be mentioned, but we shall forbear mentioning of
them, till some other occasion.