Spirit to abide with us for ever Joh. 14.16 And the powring out of the Spirit was reserved till his Work of Redemption was finished and he should be possessed of Glory John 16.7 And then he promised the Spirit â—o lead us into all truth to reveal himself to us and to glorifie him in us v. 12 13 14. Lastly He prayed for sanctifying Grace and perseverance for them that did and all that should hereafter believe till they all come to be one in him John 17.15 16 21. And wherefore is the Power of giving Grace committed to the Mediatour if not purchased by him and why doth he interceede for that he never bought and paid for If then Christ purchased Grace as well as a Right to Life then Justification giveth a Right to Grace as well as to Life it self and so is more than Pardon 5. I argue from the Impulsive Causes Pardon is an Act of meer Mercy but Justification is an Act of Justice therefore it is not meer Pardon God justifieth Believers not as a meer Act of Favour though free Mercy be the Foundation and the prime impulsive cause of Justification and all the Fruits of it but immediately it is an Act of Justice Justice being the immediate Impulsive Cause It is not only a Just thing with God to justifie a Sinner through Christ that he may do it without wrong to his Justice as some gloss it but it is an Act of proper Justice having received satisfaction to his Law to justifie and acquit him it would not be just to deny it This is intimated Rom. 8.33 35. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that Justifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who shall indite or implead them in course of Law or Judgment or else there is enough to be charged against them The Reason is because it is God that justifieth God who is to be Judge to give the Sentence and therefore will justifie judicially or as an Act of Judgment And the ground of this is in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who shall condemn in Judgment seeing Christ has died and so satisfaction is made to Justice When we pardon an Offence which we might justly punish we do cedere de jure forbear our Right and Justice gives place to Mercy but Justice cannot pardon or acquit unless it be satisfied unless it have what is right and due according to Law Object But it is said That God pardoneth legally and judicially by virtue of the Evangelical Law so it is an Act of Justice as well as of Mercy Vid. Justiif Evang. p. 23. So Truman They say a Sinner is not pardoned by Free Grace and Absolute Pardon but upon conditions and terms required in the Gospel to be performed by him which when he hath performed the Evangelical Law doth justifie him pronounce him pardoned and so his Pardon is an Act of Justice according to the Gospel Law though not according to the Law of Works which is content with nothing but Satisfaction Answ Let any fair Disputant judge whether this 〈◊〉 not to shift the Question They have said â—â—at Justification is meer Pardon bare Pardon nothing but Pardon and yet it is not abâ—â—ute Pardon but Pardon upon condition to 〈◊〉 performed by him that will receive Pardon â—â—re not these Conditions when persormed our â—â—angelical Righteousness This they conâ—â—d for And are they not a positive Righteousness Yes they are Gospel Obedience â—â—hat sence is it then to say we are pardoned â—â—thout any positive Righteousness that Pardon alone is all our Righteousness It may be â—â—ese conditions are so small and so necessary to â—â—e receiving of pardon ex natura rei that â—â—y are not to be accounted as any righteousness Nay but in the Gospel Law all the â—â—oral Duties that were required in the Coveâ—â—nt of Works are required still though not â—â—th the same necessity of perfection And â—â—w they are much more difficult than before â—â—me Moral Duties are required also and necessary which were not directly nnd properly â—â—uties under the First Covenant as Self-deâ—â—l Mortification and bearing the Cross â—â—sides these the Gospel prescribeth new posiâ—â—e Duties which neither were nor could be â—â—uties under the Law of Works viz. Faith â—â—ve and Obedience to the Mediator with 〈◊〉 holy and reverend use of all the positive Inâ—â—tutions of the Gospel Are these small things â—â—s it necessary to meer Pardon that the pardoned should not only return to their forme Duty but also receive new Terms and Conditions which were never their Duty before If a Prince subdue Rebels and then promiâ—â— them Impunity if besides returning to theâ—â— ancient Duty and Allegiance they will receive some new Terms which he shall please to impose on them doth he freely pardon them doth he not deal with them as in a way 〈◊〉 Mercy so in a way of Soveraignty givâ—â— them new Laws and making advantage to himself and accession to his Power by occasion 〈◊〉 their misdemeanour Besides this is veâ—â— improper to talk of legal and judicial Pardon Pardon by a Law For a Law is properly preceptive and judicial Proceedings are acquiting or condemning for keeping or breakiâ—â— the Law Pardon is granted by supersedâ—â— the Sentence of the Law at least the Execution of it or by a Promise or Declaration 〈◊〉 Grace which when establisht for securitiâ—â— sake and promulgated is sometimes called aâ— Act of Grace yet it hath not the full Naturâ— of a Law It is the Soveraign Legislator whâ—â— pardoneth who hath power to relax the Execution of the Law a Law cannot pardon But the plain meaning of those men is Thâ—â— God seeing through the Fall it was become impossible for man to keep and so to be saâ—â— by the Law of Works was pleased to maâ—â— a new milder and easier Law and to declaâ—â— that if they would keep it they should 〈◊〉 pardoned and saved Pardon then with theâ—â— is nothing else but a waving of the Covenaâ—â— of Works i. e. God will not proceed with men according to that Covenant if they will submit to his new Covenant so then for all their specious words of meer Pardon to exclude Christ's Righteousness they only mean that God will not execute his First Covenant which men have broken but will save them if they fulfil his Second Covenant i. e. will be righteous and obedient according to the Gospel and thus they acknowledg a righteousness of a man 's own besides pardon whereby he must he justified 6. The Law requireth a positive righteousness by the fulfilling of it The end of every Law being obedience to it Just Evang p. 38 39. Therefore Justification cannot be Pardon of Sin without Imputation of Righteousness 'T is said That the Law of Works required a sinless perfect righteousness which Christ hath satisfied for but the Law of Grace is a better Covenant accepting an imperfect Righteousness But this is nothing to the purpose let the righteousness be
it must be by Christ To say that some of it was fulfilled and some Honour done to it by the Mediatorial Law is of small moment for this did not fulfill it or satisfie the End of it The Law as a Law and as a Covenant betwixt God and Man was clearly laid aside if Christ fulfill'd it not and all Mankind after the Fall were by him brought under a Covenant of Grace and so the Law is made void by Faith contrary to the Apostle Rom. 3.31 Our Saviour also testified of himself Mat. 5.17 That he came not to destroy but to fulfill the Law This was the End of his coming into the World and his fulfilling was his obeying performing the Law as he had said before Mat. 3.15 It becometh us to fulfill all Righteousness Therefore he was Baptized and therefore much more ought he to observe the Law which was of ancienter Institution This is confirmed by the Reason he giveth for his fulfilling the Law Mat. 5.18 viz. That not one Jota or Tittle of the Law should pass away till all was fulfilled though Heaven and Earth might pass away The Sanction of the Law is more stable than the Ordinances of Heaven and Earth and must attain its End Therefore every Child of Adam must be subject to it Our Saviour adds v. 19 20. That he was so far from relaxing of the Law that on the contrary he affirmed whosoever should break the least Commands and teach others so should be shut out of Heaven Nay that he required a stricter Observation of it than the Scribes and Pharisees for all their pretended severities in some things Now that all this was meant of the Law as given by Moses chiefly of the Moral Law is manifest by his proceeding to expound and vindicate the Commandments in his following Discourse v. 21. to the end from the slight Comments of their present Teachers In like manner when it is said Christ is the End of the Law for Righteousness to all them that believe Rom. 10.4 It is meant of the Law of Moses for it is immediately added v. 5. Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man that doth them shall live in them Now Christ is the End of the Law not simply by waving it and disannulling its Obligation for then the Law should not have its End nor be unchangeable as he had told us it was but He is the End of it for righteousness to them that believe by fulfilling it in his own person for them so that their Righteousness or Justification may not depend upon their own Obedience to it Again Christ redeemed us from the Curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 being made a Curse for us How was Christ made a Curse but by bearing the Penalty of the Law for Sin For the Curse is not only the Matter of Punishment the evil inflicted but formal punishment viz. Evil inflicted for Sin for the satisfaction of Justice and the violated Law Now how came this Curse to fall upon Christ Even by the Law it self adjudging him to it For thus the Apostle argueth v. 10. They that are of the Works of the Law under the power of it are under the Curse And v. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law by being made a Curse for us This is the Argument Men cannot be justified by the Law for that curseth all that are under it but we shall be justified by Faith in Christ v. 12. because he bore the Curse of the Law for us He must therefore be under the Law as we were And it is further proved because it is written i. e. the Law saith Cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree Deut. 21.23 What is this to the Death of Christ if he were not under the Law And if he were under the Jewish Law which pronounced the Death of the Cross accursed in special manner then by the same reason he was under the Law of Adam which pronounced Death in general as a Curse for Sin Lastly If the Sufferings of Christ were not inflicted by virtue of the Law of Works then they were not Penal nor had they any thing of God's wrath in them for it was that Law only that threatned a Curse They were only Prudential viz. that something should be suffered which that Law threatned that so it might decently be laid aside Now if Christ were subject to the Law as to the Curse he was also subject to the Precept and so his Obedience was in our stead and therefore to be imputed to us for our Justification We were not obliged to the Law of a Mediator Christ fulfilled not that in our stead if then he did and suffered any thing in our stead it was in obedience to our Law and so to be placed to our Account CHAP. 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 Strength 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
oâ— 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 whether 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 2 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bore our sins upon the Cross in his own Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore his Sufferings upon the Cross were the punishment for our sins Our Opposites interpret this to be spoken figuratively Trueman â— â—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 die 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 not 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
Opinions were the Pelagians and Arminians and that herein the Socinians differ little from them Let us now inquire seeing we must not be justified by the very Righteousness of Christ's Obedience and Death to what End Christ died according to those men CHAP. VI. This Doctrine overthroweth Christ's Merit and Satisfaction THE Apostle Rom. 4.25 saith That Christ was delivered i. e. to death for our Offences and raised again for our Justification Whence our Protestants have taught that the proper and immediate Effect of the Death of Christ was the procuring or grant of Pardon Justification Life Eternal to all the Elect in the Purposes of God and that accordingly God in due time publisheth to them the Promises of the Gospel by which through the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost they are perswaded and drawn to Christ to believe and trust in him for Life and so they are made actual partakers of his Death and justified But these Authors denying us to be justified immediately and properly by the Righteousness of Christ must and do deny Justification to be the immediate and proper Effect of it and assign some other immediate End of Christ's Death What this is we shall shew and how it doth make void the Merit and Satisfaction of Christ I meet with two Opinions in this matter The First saith That the immediate and proper End of the Death of Christ was not to procure Reconciliation Justification c. for all or any man but to render God placable or reconcileable to man i. e. not that God upon the Death of Christ doth grant purpose or covenant the Justification and salvation of any man but that he may now justifie forgive and save men in what way and upon what terms he pleaseth Thus Mr. Trueman as before Gr. Prop. p. 86. The immediate Effect of Christ's Satisfaction is that God might be Just though he should pardon Sinners that he might pardon salvâ justitiâ not that he must pardon them come what will of it or be unjust And again The Justice of God as a flaming Sword obstructeth all treating with us upon any terms of Reconciliation whatsoever and this would have been an eternal Bar to all Influences and Effluxes of Favour and now this Justice being satisfied and this Bar and Obstacle removed Divine Grace and Benignity is left at liberty freely to act how it pleases and in what way and upon what terms and conditions it thinketh meet This he had from Arminius who having said That Justification Pardon or Reconciliation of any man is not immediately purchased by the Death of Christ He tells us The proper Effect of it is Reconciliatio Dei remissionis justificationis redemptionis apud Peum impetratio contra Perkins fol. 76. apud Twiss qua factum est ut Deus jam possit utpote justitiâ cui satisfactum est non obstante hominibus peccatoribus peccata remittere spiritum gratiae largiri i. e. the Reconciliation of God the obtaining of remission and redemption viz. That God may forgive and sanctifie men if he please without breach of Justice which is now satisfied Hereupon they go so far as to tell us That when Christ had done and suffered all which was appointed him God was free to save or not to save men or to save upon what terms or whom he pleased Thus Grevinch contra Ames fol. 8. Peltius p. 126. Postquam impetratio praestita ac peracta esset Deo jus suum integrum mansit pro arbitratu suo eam applicare vel non applicare nec applicatio finis impetrationis propria fuit sed jus potestas applicandi pro liberrimo suo placito quibus qualibus vellet i. e. After Christ's Purchase was made and finished God was perfectly free to apply â—t or not to apply it as he should please nor was the Application of it the proper End of Christ's Purchase but that God might have power to apply it to whom and how he should think fit Episcopius goes a step further and saith There could not be a deliberate purpose in God of saving men and opening a way of â—ise to them till Christ was sacrificed Disp 5. Ibid. Deliâ—eratum mortale salvandi salutisque ostium apetiendi propositum in Deo esse requirit priusquam sacrificium oblatum esset Now if this be the only proper Effect of the Obedience and Death of Christ that God who was before bound to condemn Sinners by the Law of Works violated by them might now think of a way to save them if he pleased and withal might chuse whether he would save them or propound terms of Life to them or not It followeth â—ence 1. That the Obedience of Christ was not meritorious nor did merit any thing of the father It is true there was an intrinsecal infinite value in Christ's Obedience by reason of the Divine Excellency of his Person and so there was an equality or proportion betwixt his Obedience and the Happiness which was to be procured for men But this is the Foundation of Merit not Actual Merit To merit is to deserve a Reward to do something whereupon a Reward is due so that Merit in its proper notion doth imply an actual Right or Obligation to a reward which Obligation ariseth from some Law Promise or Compact betwixt the Parties and he which doth not give that Reward according to Merit offendeth against some Law either of strict Justice or at least of Gratitude Generosity Kindness c. If then God was not bound by Covenant Promise or so much as deliberate Purpose to save men or to give them any terms of Life for all that Christ did or suffered then his Obedience merited nothing there was nothing due no reward proposed to him which he would challenge for God was still free to do what he pleased with men God they say would not have been unjust if he had not saved men though Christ died he was not then bound by the Law of Justice and he could not be bound by any other Law to remunerate the Death and Sufferings of his Son with such an happy Effect as man's Salvation Christ's Death say they was a refuseable payment for sin even when it was presented to the Father God might then have refused it and yet have been Just But it would not have been just to have denyed Jesus Christ that which he merited that would be due debt to him They say indeed Christ was the meritorious cause of our Justification But what did he merit Justification Then God was not free to deny it he must justifie those for whom Christ merited Justification or be unjust unless there can be a cause without an effect or causality The effect of merit is some reward deserved given for the sake of the merit the causality of merit is some compact Law or Promise whereby one is bound to reward that merit If then God was bound to nothing upon the Obedience of Christ but still had jus
integrum intire freedom to do what he pleased then Christ did as freely offer his Obedience to the Father to do what he pleased with it or upon it and certainly this is not to merit Thus Slatius declar apert Jesus Christus per passionem mortem suam nihil meritus est nec solvit pro nostris peccatis veluti vas pro debitore qui non est solvendo If they say that he took away the Covenant of Works and the necessity which God was under to condemn men and this might be the Effect of his Merit this is not true By this Opinion Christ did not take away the Covenant of Works nor the Sentence of it For then man must have been discharged without any further Covenant or Terms which is the thing they oppose They must say Christ offered himself to his Father in such manner that he might take occasion from it if he thought it justly to lay aside his Obligation to Punish by the Law of Works and proceed to terms of Grace but not that he must do either and so Christ merited nothing at all of his Father 2ly It followeth from this Doctrine That Christ's Obedience and Death were not properly satisfactory to Divine Justice The say That by Christ's Death God's Justice wâ— satisfied the obstacle of Justice was removed But how God's Justice in this case is nothing else but his Will or voluntary Obligation of himself to deal with men according to his Law To satisfie God's Justice is to satisfied his Law and to satisfie the Law is to fulfill 〈◊〉 by obedience to it or suffering the penalty 〈◊〉 it or both But they will not allow That Christ properly satisfied the Law of God Mr. Trueman saith Ibid. p. 89. His death was not proper Payment at all And if Christ did properly satisfie the Law then those for whom be did it must be hereupon discharged without any further conditions to be required or 〈◊〉 be performed of them But if Christ satisfied not the Law how could he satisfie Divine Justice which hath the Law for its Rule 〈◊〉 is tied to it It was of Divine prerogative or infinite Soveraignty that God did accept of Christ to fulfill the Law for man to whâ—â— it was given and who only was obliged by 〈◊〉 But when the Law-makers Prerogative 〈◊〉 accepted of the Surety and of his underâ—â—king for the Sinner then he himself was mâ—â—â— under the Law and satisfied Justice by satisfying the Law but if he satisfied not the Law then his Obedience was not performed as Obedience to the preceptive part of the Law or his sufferings indured as subjection to the unitive part of it and so neither of them â—ere exacted in a way of Justice or performed as submission to Justice either preceptive or punitive and so Justice could no â—ay be satisfied by his Obedience Moreover 〈◊〉 after all the Obedience of Christ God was â—ree to save or not to save men then he was â—ree either to give them new conditions of Life â—r to proceed to destroy them according to â—he sentence and curse of the Law of Works and is it possible that Gods Justice should have received real satisfaction from an infinite Price and Person and yet the Persons for whom satisfaction was made not be discharged but Justice still be left in full force to take vengeance if the Judge pleased Surely among men if Justice be satisfied either by the guilty person or by his Surety by the Judge's consent even Justice it self must acquit and discharge the party concerned The truth is By this Doctrine there was no satisfaction made to Divine Justice by Christ's Obedience and therefore the Sinner hath no discharge procured but the whole transaction of the business of Man's Redemption betwixt the Father and the Son was but a point of honour or a kind of generosity if we may so speak As if a young generous Prince should perform some noble and difficult exploits for the honour of his Father and the Father again should pardon some condemned Rebels and restore them to his Favour hereupon not as being any way obliged to it but as an act of a Noble and generous mind and to express some honour and requital to his Son Thus Slatiâ—â— Epist ad N. Martin An Christus pro nobâ— satisfecit Respondeo Nos negare i. e. Did Christ satisfie for sin We deny it And he gives five reasons the last whereof is The God could neither punish for sin nor require Faith as a condition in order to Salvation 3ly It followeth also that Christ's Death was no Ransom Redemption or Price for Sinners For if God after the death of Christ was still free to save or not to save Sinners then this death had properly bought or purchased nothing of him A ransom or price is not a valuable consideration only for a thing worth it or equal in value to it but it must also be paid with the Compact or Agreement that the thing bought or ransomed shall for that price become the Buyers and the property be transferred to him and no longer remain in the Seller If then Christ propetly bought us ransomed us c. then our Salvation became his de jure he had a right to it upon his death and it could no longer remain in the free power of God to grant or not to grant it But if there were no compact that life should be granted to Sinners if Christ would die for them if to give Life was still in God's absolute disposal then his obedience is no ransom nor was he a Redeemer he did not purchase his Church with his own Bloud nor was that Bloud a Price of their Redemption 4ly It followeth that Christ did not at all die for sin The Prophet saith He was wounded and bruised for our iniquities yea his Soul â—us made an Offering for Sin Isa 53.5 10. But if Christ did not take away sin and procure pardon but left God still free to pardon or â—ot then he did not die for sin sin was not â—he meritorious cause of his Death nor was â—he pardon of sin the immediate end of his Death but only to free the Father from the necessity of condemning Sinners Sin could be â—t the most but a remote occasion or causa â—ne qua non of the death of Christ if that had not been God would not have been bound up from the exercise of his natural goodness and â—o there would have been no occasion of Christ â—o die to remove that obstacle out of the way And yet it is not easie to imagine what these â—en mean by the obstacle of God's Justice which hindred his Mercy to Sinners which was removed by Christ's Obedience For â—oth they and their Friends the Arminians â—eem generally to grant That God of his infinite Sovereignty might have pardoned sin without satisfaction so that his absolute Justice 〈◊〉 as not an obstacle to his Mercy and for his Law and that Justice which respecteth it
Christ say they did in no proper sence satisfie 〈◊〉 and therefore his Obedience could have â—o proper respect to Divine Justice much less â—o sin that had offended Justice 5ly Nor was Christ's Death a Propitiation â—r Atonement for our sins The Apostle 1 Joh. 2.1 saith That Christ was a Propitiation for our Sins that he loved us and washed us from our sins with his own Bloud Apâ—â— 1.5 But this is true only accidentally and eventually if the immediate effect of Christ's death was only that God might pardon not that he must and it was not the prime and principal intention of his death Since God hath pleased to grant terms of Salvation upon the death of Christ his death may improperly be said to have made atonement or reconciliation for them because it occasioned it 〈◊〉 made some way for it but that which left God still intirely free to pardon or not that did not appease his Anger remove his displeasure reconcile him or obtain his good Will as is the nature of a Propitiation or propitiatory Sacrifice nor was it immediately 〈◊〉 directly intended for that end 6ly Nor can it properly be ascribed to God's Love to the World that he gave his Son to die or to the Son's Love to Mankind that he gave himself For if love to men were the Motive of Christ s Obedience and Death both to the Father and the Son men's Salvation would have been immediately designed and intended in it it would have been medium ordinatum a proper means design'd to bring about their Salvation But they tell us it was designed only to save God's Honour in case he should forgive Sinners but not that he had obliged himself any way to do it no nor that he had resolved with himself or deliberately purposed to grant terms of Salvation when he sent his Son into the World or when he laid his wrath a curse upon him it seems God did not yet know what use he would make of the Death of his Son neither could the Son know when the Father was not resolved Thus we see this Opinion overthroweth the whole Nature and Intendment of Redemption and Christ's Merit Satisfaction Ransom Sacrifice and all that belong to it are but improper Metaphors and the greatest Mystery of Godliness must fly for refuge to a poor Trope to save it from being an untruth and Christ himself must be at most but an honorary Mediator and Redeemer The Second Opinion concerning the End of Christ's death is That he died to purchase the Covenant of Grace or Conditions and Terms of Salvation by the fulfilling whereof men might be saved Thus the Arminians used to speak That Christ died viam salutis pandere to open a way for Mens Salvation to purchase conditions whereupon they might be saved whereas before their Salvation was impossible by reason of the Curse or Sentence of the Law of Works Act. Syn. Dort Art 2. Remon Christus merito mortis suae Deum Patrem universo generi humano hactenus reconciliavit ut Pater propter ipsius meritum salva justitia veritate sua novum gratiae foedus cum peccatoribus damnationi obnoxiis hominibus inire sancire potuerit voluerit Thus Mr. Baxter faith That Christ purchased Justification and life to be given by his New Covenant not that he purchased these absolutely to be certainly given to any persons but that he purchased a Covenant or Law of Grace whereby these are promised upon condition of Faith and Obedience And this must be the sence if any of those that assert Christ dying for all men to make them salvabiles salvable and to render their Salvation possible being impossible before while the Law of Works stood in such sorce For before Christ's death Mens Salvation was possible to God no new power was acquired to him and possible in its self Men being subjects naturally capable of Salvation this possibility then must be a possibility in Law as we say id possumus quod jure possumus that Christ purchased a Law and grant of Salvation upon certain Terms whereby it now became possible for all Men to be saved if they should have sufficient notice of it This Opinion is a little more plausible but no more true than the former which I thus prove 1. It cannot be conceived how Christ did purchase this Covenant according to the rest of their Notions The occasion or ground of this Purchase was That God was bound by his own Law of Works violated by Men to condemn them without Mercy Now then could this Obligation be dissolved without satisfaction to and fulfilling that Law which yet they will not allow Christ to have done unless per accidens as part of it is comprised in that special Law of Mediator which was given to him If it was the Law which hindered God from shewing mercy and made mans Salvation impossible then that Law doth oblige God to see it fulfilled or else to grant no life to Sinners and if Christ did not fulfil it nor was made properly subject to it as they teach then he could not properly purchase a Covenant of life if he did fulfil it for sinners then they must be discharged by his satisfaction without further conditions imposed on them as hath been often said They say the Law of Works was neither abolished nor fulfille by Christ but relaxed I suppose they mean That God did not insist upon the absolute performance of the Law but was pleased to admit of an aequivalent reparation of his Honour by the Obedience of Christ to that Law which he should impose on him wherein should be comprehended a great part of the Moral Law I reply If God did relax the Law so as not to require the proper fulfilling of it then he did lose the obligation which was laid upon him to see it fulfilled The ordinate or relative Justice of God obliged him to proceed according to that Law and if he admitted of another way of reparation to his Honour he did not proceed in a way of Justice in all that he laid upon Jesus Christ and he might as well have saved Man without the Obedience of Christ as with it his Justice or Law allowing that relaxation no more than a total superseding or laying aside the Law by this purchase therefore they can mean no more but that Jesus Christ did so honour the Father by his Obedience and Sufferings that he might with Decorum to his Majesty give to Sinners terms of Salvation and would do it but this is no purchase which transferreth a legal right to the Purchaser if the Purchase be accepted but dependeth meerly upon Promise or Terms of Honour It is also great presumption for Men to judge what is becomming Divine Majesty and what will salve his Honour other then what is according to his Law or Promise wherers here they make him to wave his own declared Law founded in the highest reason and equity 2ly Nor in this sence is the death