by John Brown of Wamphray
Mr. John Goodwine in his Treatise of justification part. 2. Ch. 2. laith down several conclusions, whereby he might overturne this Truth: & what he saith must be examined.
His 1. Conclusion in this. He, for whose sins a plenary satisfaction hath been made (either by himself, or another for him) & hath been accepted by him, against whom the transgression was committed, is as just & righteous, as he that never sinned, but had done all things, that were requisite & meet for him to do. Ans. If by just & righteous be meaned one, who only hath not deserved the punishment threatned; then his Conclusion is true: but if by just & righteous be meaned one, who not only hath not deserved the punishment, but hath also deserved the reward promised; then his Conclusion is false; for the Satisfaction, if it respect only the transgression committed, can only put the man, for whom it is given & accepted, in the state of one, that is under no obligation to be punished: but it cannot put him in the state of one, who not only is not to be punished, but is also to be rewarded. He addeth. This is evident; because there is as much justice & righteousness in repairing the the wrongs & injuries done to any, as there is in abstaining from doing wrong. Ans. True, in reference to the wrong done; and therefore such an one is rightly & justly delivered from the obligation to punishment; but is not made so righteous, as to challenge the reward, till a more compleet satisfaction be made, to wit, such as may comprehend also perfect conformitie unto the Law in all points, to the end, he, for whom this is done, may be looked upon as a fulfiller of the Law, & therefore to have right to the reward, as he would have had, if he had in his own person perfectly keeped it. He that simply repaireth the wrong done, doth not that, which deserveth the reward. The simile he annexeth confirmeth this, and demonstrateth how far out he is, as to our case. He that by his cattel, or otherwise, hath made spoil in his nieghbours Corne, & hath given him full satisfaction for the spoil done, to his contentment, is as good a Nieghbour, & deals as justly & honestly with him, as he that never trespassed in that kind upon him. How impertinent this is, as to our case, any may see; or he must say, that there was no reward promised to Adam, upon his perfect obedience; & that that word, do this & live, had no place, in the Covenant made with him. The Satisfying Neighbour deserveth no reward, nor was there any reward promised to him, upon Condition of his being a good Nieghbour. He addeth. The essence & nature of justice or righteousness is suum cuique tribuere, to give to every man his own. i.e. that which is his own in a way of equity & right, is due from us unto them. Ans. But that which Adam was obliged to give to God, as his owne, was glory, by faithful & constant obedience, that he might receive the reward to the glory of God's faithfulness, & goodness. Now when Adam dishonoured the Lord by disobedience. & robbed him (as it were) of his Authoritie, as just & righteous Governour, a satisfaction for the wrong done, excluding positive & full obedience unto the Law, is not a giving to God all that is due to him. Now (saith he) when we have enjured or damnified any man, in any of his rights, or things belonging to him, there is nothing more due to him, than that which is his own, i.e. that which is fully valuable to the injurie we have done unto him. Therefore he that tenders a valuable consideration or satisfaction for an injurie done to another, is just, according to the height & utmost exigency of justice; & consequently as just, as he that never was injurious or did wrong. Ans. All this is to no purpose, as to our question; for it is not betwixt God & us: not was it betwixt God and Adam, as it is betwixt one man & another. God is to be considered, as a supreme Law-giver & Ruler, enjoyning obedience to his Lawes, under penalties, and promising rewards unto the obedient: Now when his Lawes are broken, he is doubly enjured, & the breaker, is obliged unto punishment, and also forfeited of his expectation of the reward. When satisfaction is made, and withall no compleet obedience to the Law, the person is by the satisfaction made, only exeemed from the obligation to punishment, but hath thereby no right to the reward promised, untill the Law be compleetly obeyed.
His 2. Conclusion is. There is no medium between a perfect absolution & freedome from all sin; & a perfect & compleet righteousness: But he that is fully discharged & freed from sin, ipso facto, is made perfectly & compleetly righteous. Ans. The same distinction, which we made use of in the other Conclusion, will helpe us here. If by perfectly & compleetly Righteous be meaned one, that is liable to no punishment, it is true, that he, who is fully discharged & freed from sin, is made perfectly righteous, but if by perfectly & compleetly Righteous be meaned one, that moreover hath a right to the recompence of reward, that is promised, than it is false: freedom & absolution from sin respecteth only the guilt, & dissolveth the obligation to punishment, & in that respect, is a perfect & compleet Righteousness; i.e. the person, so absolved, is as free of punishment, or of obligation thereunto, as if he had never sinned; but having sinned, he cannot by this dissolution of the obligation to punishment be ipso facto made as perfectly & compleetly Righteous, as he would have been, if he had never transgressed, but had perfectly keeped the Law; for if he had perfectly keeped the Law, he had obtained full right to the reward, which now he hath not, and which no pardon, or discharge, as such, can restore him unto. Let us hear his reason. Nothing (saith he) can any way diminish, or prejudice the perfection of Righteousness, but only sin, as no thing can hinder the perfection of light, but darkness in one degree, or other. So that as the aire, when it is free from all degrees of darkness, must of necessity be fully light; so he that is perfectly freed from all sin, must of necessity be fully & perfectly Righteous. Ans. This would make us beleeve, that he is here speaking of sin itself, and not of its guilt and demerite, and so the opposite hereunto, must be holiness; which expelleth sin (in a manner) as light doth darkness, or as one quality doth its contrary. But then he is fighting, all this while, against his own shadow, for we are speaking of the guilt of sin, which also must be properly understood, (and nothing else can) when he spoke of absolution & freedom from sin, in the Concluhon. If he speak here of sin in respect of guilt & demerite, his simile doth not quadrate; and opposite to this guilt he should set Righteousness or obedience with its merite: and if any will do this, they shall easily see the mistake, for though a man hath not transgressed, yet he hath not eo ipso right to the premium, for in order to this, moe dayes work may be required, than one or halfe of one dayes work; far less can the Pardon of or satisfaction for this transgression, give a man right to the reward.
He addeth. It is impossible to conceive a man defective in any part of Righteousuess, & yet withall to conceive him free from all sin: sin & Righteousness being in subjecto capaci, contraria immediata, as Logicians speak. Ans. Defective in Righteousness may be either understood in respect of the meer duty or command, or in respect of full right to the reward. In the first sense, such an one cannot be free of all sin; but taking it in the second sense, he may: as for example, when one is to work eight dayes in dressing a garden, & then to receive the reward promised, & if he fail in his work any of the dayes, to be punished; this man, so long as he worketh 2, 3, 4. or 5. dayes cannot be charged with sin, nor said to be defective, as to his duty; and yeth he hath not full right to the reward untill he hath wrought Eight dayes, but is defective in some part of his Righteousness, as to this reward. And according to this may we understand that logical axiome.
Further he saith, The Scriptures themselves still make an immediat opposition, between sin & Righteousness.—To finde out a third estate between sin & Righteousness, we must finde out a third Adam, from whom it should be derived. Ans. The state of sin & of Righteousness, whereof the Scripture speaketh, admitteth indeed of no medium, or third betwixt them, and the reason is because, we are all now borne in a state of sin, & are obnoxipus to wrath; & remaine so, untill we be translated into a state of Righteousness, which is not by meer pardon of sins, but also by the imputation of a Righteousness; for being in this State of Righteousness, we have not only the Obligation to wrath & eternal punishment removed, which is done by Remission upon the account of the Satisfaction of Christ imputed; but we have also a right to the reward, the crown of life, which is had by imputation of Righteousness, or of obedience, though it were better to say, we have both by both; or we have both by the imputation of that compleet Satisfaction & merite, which comprehendeth, or consisteth of both.
His 3. Conclusion is this, Adam, whilst his innocency stood with him, and till his fall by sin, was compleetly Righteous, & in an estate of justification before God: Yea, for the truth & substance of Righteousness, as Righteous, as he could or should have been, if he had lived to this day, in the most entire & absolute obedience to the Law. Ans. Adam, while he remained innocent, was compleatly Righteous, that is, was chargeable with no transgression, it is true: That he was compleatly Righteous, that is, had full right to the reward, as having done all his duty, and compleated his work, it is most false. Therefore (2) it is false to say, he was in a state of justification, unless nothing else be hereby meaned, than that he was not in state of condemnation. Though there be no mids betwixt these two now, as to us, but either we must be in a state of justification, or in a state of condemnation; Yet Adam while he stood, was in neither; Not in a state of condemnation, because he had not yet transgressed the Law; Nor yet in a state of justification, because he had not yet done all his duty; for he was to persevere in obedience to the end: And if he had been justified, he had full right to the reward, & so had been glorified, for whom the Lord justifieth, he glorifieth: But Adam was not glorified upon his Law-obedience, and consequently was not justified by his Law-obedience. (3) The truth & substance of Righteousness (unto which he would restrick all) is not the thing enquired after, nor is it at all to the point; for upon Adam's, having of that simply he could not expect the reward of life, that was promised, because, the Covenant, he was under, required continuance & perseverance in all the several duties, called for by the Law, even to the end, ere he could challenge a right to the reward: And further Adam had this truth & substance of Righteousness at the first, & it was concreated with him; Yet he could not, upon that account, have challenged glory, as his due.
He addeth. Even as the second Adam was as compleatly & perfectly Righteous from the womb, & so from his first entrance upon his publick ministrie, as he was at last, when he suffered death. Ans. If we speak of our Lord Jesus, as the second Adam, that is, as standing in the room of sinners, as the Head & publick Person, engadging in their behalfe, whom he did represent, to pay all their debt; though he knew no sin, and upon that account was perfectly Righteous, and separat from sinners; Yet he was to finish the work laid upon him, and to performe the whole debt, both of duty & suffering, which he had undertaken; and till the last penny of that debt was payed, his work was not finished, and untill his work was finished, he could not challenge his reward: And so this confirmeth what we have said of the first Adam.
To say (he addeth) that Adam was not perfectly Righteous, & consequently in a justified estate or condition before God, untill his fall by sin, it to place him into an estate of condemnation before his sin, there being no middle or third estate betwixt these two. Ans. This was obviated before. Adam's state before his fall, was a state of Innocencie, wherein he enjoyed the favour & presence of God, he being perfectly Righteous, in reference to that state; & to what was required of him; but justified he was not; for the reward was not adjudged unto him. So that, as to him, there was a middle state betwixt a State of Justification & a State of Condemnation; though, as to us, there is not, as the places, which he citeth afterward namely Rom. 5:18; & 8:1, 2. shew, & the whole Scriptures evince.
He closeth this matter thus. Therefore to grant, that forgiveness of sins puts a man into the same estate & condition, wherein Adam stood before his fall (which it generally granted by men of opposite judgment in this controversie; & nothing granted neither, in this, but the unquestionable truth) it to grant the point in question, & to acknowledge the truth laboured for, throughout this whole discourse. Ans. It is not granted that remission of sins, as such, putteth a man every way into the same Condition, wherein Adam stood before his fall; for it putteth not a man in the same estate of inherent holiness, wherein Adam was; but it putteth a man into the same estate of freedome from any obligation to punishment, for it taketh away the reatus pœnæ, so that a pardoned man, as such, is no more under the actual obligation unto the curse & wrath of God, threatned for transgression, than was Adam, before he fell: and this is all, that is confessed. Which is far, yea very far from granting the point, that he goeth about to establish: for he would have remission, as such, put a man in the state of full right to the reward, to the end he might exclude the imputation of the obedience or Righteousness of Christ, as not being necessary unto this end, contrary to the Scriptures of truth. Adam, before he fell, had not right unto the promised reward, because he was to finish his course of obedience, before he could obtaine that: And therefore the granting, that remission putteth a man into the same Condition, wherein Adam stood, will contribute nothing to his end.
His 4. Conclusion is. That perfect remissien of sins includeth the Imputation or acknowledgment of the observation of the whole Law; even as the imputation of the Law fulfilled, necessarily includes the non imputation of sin, or the forgiveness of all sin, in case any hath been committed. Ans. The conclusion is manifestly false, if we speak of remission simply, & abstractivly as such; And the ground here alleiged for it, is ambiguous; for the imputation of the Law fulfilled, may either be to such, as never broke it, & then it doth not include remission, but taketh away all necessity of it; or to transgressours, and then indeed it may presuppose remission, but doth not include it, as such. But to remove ambiguities, we shall distinguish, & say, that perfect Remission of sins includeth the acknowledgment of the observation of the whole Law, in respect of Punishment; but not in respect of the Reward; that is, perfect Remission of sins exeemeth a man from Punishment, as well as if he had perfectly keeped the Law; but doth not give him right to the Reward; for unto this was requisite the perfect observation of the Law: Now perfect observation of the Law saith, there was no transgression; but remission saith, & supposeth, that the Law was not perfectly observed. So the imputation of the Law fulfilled either saith, the Law was not broken, or that now satisfaction is made for the breach thereof, & therefore the person, unto whom this imputation is made. hath a right unto the reward, which this imputation doth directly & immediatly respect, as such. But in our case, both these go together, perfect remission, & the imputation of the Law fulfilled, because freedom from the obligation to punishment, & right to the reward, go also together inseparably.
For how can he be said (saith he) to have all his sins fully forgiven, who is yet looked upon, or intended to be dealt with all, as one that hath transgressed either by way of omission, or commission, any part of the Law? Ans. He that hath his sins fully forgiven, may well be looked upon, as one that hath transgressed, either by omission, or by commission, or by both; because he must be so looked upon: for pardon presupposeth sin; no man can be pardoned, but a sinner, and no man can think or dreame of a remission, but withall he must suppose, that the person pardoned hath sinned. But it is true, he who is said to have all his sins fully forgiven, cannot be intended to be dealt withall, as one that hath transgressed: for pardon destroyeth that obligation to punishment, but doth not so destroy sin, as to cause that it never was; for that is impossible. What more? And he that is looked upon as one, that never transgressed any part of the Law, must needs be conceived or looked upon as one, that hath fulfilled or keeped the Law. Ans. This is very true: But what then? Which is nothing else (saith he) but to have a perfect Righteousness, or (which is the same) a perfect fulfilling of the Law imputed to him. Ans. This is also true, taking this imputation of a perfect fulfilling of the Law, to be to one, who never broke the Law by sin; but it is not true, in our case, who are transgressours, all the imputation of Righteousness in the world can not make us to have been no sinners.
Yet he inferreth. So that besides that perfect remission of sins, which hath been purchased by the bloud of Christ, there is no need of (indeed no place for) the imputation of any Righteousness, performed by Christ unto the Law. Ans. The inconsequence of this is manifest from what is said: But he addeth a reason. Because (saith he) in that very act of remission of sins, there is included an imputation of a perfect Righteousness. Ans. This is but the same thing, which was said, & is manifestly false. Remission regairdeth only the punishment, or the obligation thereunto, & dissolveth it, but, as such giveth no right to the reward, which was promised only to obedience to the Law.
But then he tels us more properly, & with Scripture-exactness (as he saith) that that act of God, whereby heremitteth & pardoneth sin, is interpretativly nothing else, but an imputation of a perfect righteousness or of a fulfilling of the Law: compare Rom. 4:6 with vers. 7, & 11. Ans. This is but the same thing, & needeth no new answere; for it is denied, that that act of God, whereby he pardoneth sin, considered in itself, & as such, is interpretativly an imputation of perfect Righteousness. But it is true, in our case, it may be called so interpretativly, in this respect, that there is such an in dissoluble connexion betwixt the two, that the one inferreth the other, necessitate consequentis. And this is all that can be proved from Rom. 4:6, 7, 11.
He addeth. Even as the act of the Physician, by which he recovereth his patient from his sickness, may, withfull propriety of speach, be called that act, whereby he restoreth him to his health. Ans. The Physician purging away the humors, the causes of the distemper, is the cause of health, by being the cause removens prohibens; because ex natura rei, health followeth upon the removal of that, which caused the distemper; but the connexion of pardon & of imputation of Righteousness is not ex natura rei, but ex libera Dei constitutione: connecting the causes of both together. His next similitude of the sun, dispelling darkness, & filling the aire with light, is as little to the purpose; because here is a natural necessary consequence, light necessarily expelling darkness; which is denied in our case. Hence there is no ground for what he addeth, when he saith. In like manner, God doth not heal sin, that is forgive sin, by one act, & restore the life of righteousness, that is impute righteousness, by another act at all differing from it, but in & by one & the same punctual & precise act he doth the one & the other. For we are not here enquiring, after the oneness or diversitie of God's acts in a philosophical manner: God can do many things by one Physical act: but we are enquireing concerning the Effects, whether they be one precise thing, flowing from one moral cause; or so diversie, as to require diverse moral causes, & grounds, or whether the one doth naturally & essentially include the other, as being both but one thing.
His following words would seem to speak to this, when he saith, forgiveness of sins, & imputation of Righteousness are but two different names, expressions, or considerations of one & the same thing—one & the same act of God is sometimes called forgivness of sins, & sometimes an imputing of Righteousness; & the forgivness of sins is sometimes called an imputing of righteousness, to shew & signifie that a man needs nothing to a compleet Righteousness, or Justification, but the forgivness of his sins: And againe the Imputing of Righteousness is sometimes called the forgiveness of sins, to shew that God hath no other Righteousness to conferre upon a sinner, but that which standeth in forgivness of sins. Ans. This is but gratis dictum; nothing at all is proved: These two, pardon of sins & imputation of Righteousness, are two distinct parts of one compleet favour, and blessing granted of God, in order to one compleet blessedness, consisting likewife in two parts, to wit, in freedome from punishment, which was deserved, & in right to the promised inheritance, which was lost: And because these two, both in the cause, and in the effect, are inseparable conjoined by the Lord; therefore, the mentioning of the one may & doth import & signifie both, by a Synecdoche: And hence no man, with reason, can inferre, that they are both one & the same precise thing, flowing from one & the same precise cause, and import only the different names, expressious or considerations of one & the same thing, Christ's obedience to the Law, and his suffering for sin, were not one & the same thing under various considerations, or names, but distinct parts of one compleet Surety-Righteousness: no more can the effects, that flow there from, be accounted one & the same thing, but two distinct parts of one compleet effect: And therefore the mentioning of the one, in stead of the whole, proveth no confusion, or sameness, but rather an inseparablness, which is yeelded.
He moveth an objection against himself §. 5. thus. How can God be said to impute a Righteousness to a man, which never was, nor ever had a being, no Righteousness (at least of that kind, whereof we now speak) having ever been, but that perfect obedience, which Christ performed to the Law? This indeed is a very rational question; for our Author talketh much of an imputed Righteousness, and never doth, nor yet can tell us, what that is, that can deserve the name of a Righteousness. Let us heare, what he answereth. 1. saith he. There is as express & complete a Righteousness in the Law, as ever Christ himself performed. Ans. But what Righteousness is or can be in a Law, but what is there, by way of prescription? And who doubts or the perfection of this, that acknowledgeth the perfection of the Law? This is utterly impertinent to the purpose in hand, where the question is of a Righteousness consisting in conformity to the Law, and which must be attribute to man, to whom the Law is given? And what if it be said (saith he) that God, in remission of sins, through Christ, from & out of the Law, imputeth to every man, that beleeveth, such a Righteousness, as is proper to him? Ans. To say this, is to speak plaine non-sense: for what is that to furnish a man with a Righteousness out of the Law? Can a man be changed into a Law? or can a man have any Righteousness, prescribed by a Law, but by thoughts, words, & dead, bearing a conformity to the commands of the Law? And how can meer pardon cause this transformation? can the pardon of murther, or of any prohibited act, make that act conforme to the Law? Pardon thus should be a self destroyer; for an act, that is no transgression of a Law, can need no pardon: and thus pardon should make itself no pardon. What he subjoineth; hath bin spoken to elsewhere.
He giveth a 2. answere, saying. To say, God cannot impute a Righteousness, which never had a being i.e. which never was really & actually perfomed by any man, is to deny that he hath power to forgive sins. Ans. This hath been & is still denied; it never hath been, nor never shall be proved, that forgivness of sin is the imputation of a Righteousness. Though he addeth from Rom. 4:6; & 3:28. &c. that it is the imputation of such a Righteousness, as consisteth not, nor is made up of any works performed to the Law by any man, which is but a Righteousness, that never had a being. Ans. This is but a plaine preverting of the Scriptures, which speak only of works (in that exclusion) done & performed by us, as the whole scope, and all the circumstances of the passages, demonstrate to any man, who will not willingly put out his owne eyes: and it were a meer imposing upon the Understandings of the most ordinary Reader, and a miserable mispending of time, to goe about the evincing of this, which is so obvious. But what desperat shifts will not a wrong cause put men to use, who will not be truths captives?
His 5. Conclusion cometh here also to be considered: It is this. He that is fully discharged from his sins, needeth no other Righteousness, to give him-Right & title unto life, This is as false as the rest; for the Law is, do this & live: and pardon for transgressions is not the same with doing of the Law. What is his reason? death is the wages of sin, & of sin only, being due to no creature in any other respect, nor upon any other terme whatsomever. But what then? Now he that is free of death, & no wayes obnoxious thereunto, cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life, there being neither any middle condition between death & life, wherein it is possible for a reasonable creature to subsist, nor agiane any capacity of life, but by some right & title thereunto. Ans. Though this be true, as to us now, that he who is no wayes obnoxious unto death, hath a right unto life; Yet the consequence that he would draw from it, is not good: to wit, that that only, which taketh away the obnoxiousness unto death, giveth also a right to life: because God hath inseparably joined these effects together, as also their distinct causes together, and giveth them inseparably; so that he who is pardoned hath also a right to life, not meerly upon the account, that he is pardoned, but because together with the imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ, whence floweth pardon, he imputeth also Christ's Righteousness, upon which followeth the right to life. And howbeit now, as to us, there is no middle state betwixt these two; Yet in Adam there was; for while he stood, he was not obnoxious unto death; and yet he had not right unto life: but was to work out & perfect his task, to that end. But he tels us, That while Adam stood, he was already in possession & fruition of life; else he could not be threatned with death. Ans. This is not the life, whereof we are speaking; we are speaking of the life, promised by that Covenant, unto perfect obedience: But it seemeth, that he joyneth with the Socinians, in this, granting no life promised to Adam, but a Continuance of what he was already in possession of.
He enquireth. If he had not a right unto life by his freedome from sin, but was to purchase this right, by an actual fulfilling of the Law, it would be known; what quantities of obedience to the Law he must have paid, before he had made this purchase; & how long he must have obeyed & keept the Law? Ans. There is no necessity of any exact knowledge of these things; our maine question doth not stand or fall with the knowledge or ignorance of them: Yet, we may say (and that is sufficient) that that Law, or Covenant, requiring perfect obedience, and perpetual, without the least omission or commission, he must have paid all that obedience, which the Law required of him, to the day of his transmigration, or change to glory, before the purchase had been made. He addeth; for had he lived a two years in his integrity & uprightness, without the least touch of any transgression, he had still bin a debtor of obedience to the Law; upon the same termes, that he was, at the beginning, & the least interruption or breach in the course of his obedience, had even now been the forfeiture of that life he enjoyed. Ans. How long Adam should have lived upon earth, before his translation to glory, we know not; nor is it of use for us to enquire; it is sufficient to know, that he was to finish his course; & to persevere in obedience to the end, if he would not both forfeit the life he had, and the expectation of the life of glory, which was promised upon his compleeting his work of obedience.
He addeth. Notwithstanding, the Scriptures of the New. Test. seem to place the immediat right, or capacity, which beleevers have to the Kingdom of heaven & eternal glory, rather in the grace of Adoption, than in any Righteousness whatsoever, even Remission of sins itself not excepted. Ans. I have spoken to this elsewhere, and shall only say here, That hereby he hath destroyed his Conclusion; for hereby we see, that in order to the attaining of right to life, more is requisite, than meer Remission, for he cannot say, that Remission of sins & Adoption, is all one, having clearly hinted the contrary here, & having also denied Righteousness to be the ground of Adoption, while as before he made Righteousness & Remission of sins all one. He shall never prove that Adoption is without the Imputation of Righteousness. Let us heare his reason. The reason whereof may (haply) be this, because the life & blessedness, which come by Jesus Christ, are of far higher nature, excellency and worth, than that which was Covenanted to Adam, by way of wages for his work, or obedience to the Law, & therefore require an higher & fuller & richer capacity, or title in the creature, to interesse him therein, than that did: work faithfully performed is enough, to entitle a man to his wages, but the gift of an inheritance requirtth a special grace or favour. Ans. As this is but dubiously asserted; so it is to no purpose; for though some difference may be granted betwixt the glory, now had by the Gospel & that promised to Adam, in several respects; Yet it was a life of glory, that was promised to Adam, & our Adoption is not without the imputation of a Righteousness. Nor was Adam's obedience such a work, as in strick justice called for wages, without a Covenant. The Imputation of Righteousness is indeed a special grace & Favoure & therefore fit enough to found Adoption.
His 6. Conclusion is this. That Satisfaction, which Christ made to the justice of God for sin, & whereby he procured Remission of sins (or perfect Righteousness) & reconciliation with God for those that beleeve, consists only in that obedience of his, which he performed to that peculiar & special Law of Mediation, which God imposed upon him (which we commonly, though perhaps not altogether so properly, call his passive obedience) & not at all in that obedience or subjection, which he exhibited to that common Law of nature, which we call moral. Ans. Though, if we should speak strickly of satisfaction, as distinguished from obedience, & as relating to the punishment for sin, the substance of this Conclusion might be granted; Yet taking Satisfaction more largly, as relative to our whole debt, it must necessarily include his obedience to the Law moral. (2) Though for explications sake, we may speak of Christ's Active, & of his passive obedience distinctly; Yet there was suffering & satisfaction, in all his Active obedience (as it is commenly called) & there was action & meriting in all his Passive Obedience (as it is commonly called.) His supposing Remission of sins, & Perfect Righteousness, is already discovered to be a mistake. (4) The special Law of Mediation required of Christ both obedience & suffering, & he speaketh without ground, when he restricteth it to his passive obedience, (as it is commonly called) only. His reason is. Because nothing can be satisfactory to divine justice for sin, but that which is penal. Heb. 9:22. for doubtless, where there is Satisfaction, there is & may be remission. Ans. This confirmeth only what we granted of satisfaction taken strickly. But cannot prove, that Satisfaction largely taken, may not, or cannot, yea or must not, include obedience, this being part of our debt to the Law, and to the Lawgiver: nor will it prove, that there was nothing of Satisfaction in Christ's obedience, which he performed in his state of humiliation. It is true, where there is Satisfaction, there is & may be Remission; but Remission is not all, that we stand in need of. But he will have that obedience, which Christ exhibited to the moral Law, no way penal: And his reason is, because it was required of man, in his innocency, & imposed by God upon Adam before his fall; Yea & still lyeth & shall lye to the dayes of eternity upon men & Angels. Ans. Yet for all this, it might be & was penal unto Christ, who was not meer man, but God & man in one person: And for Him, who was God, & above all Law, that man cometh under, to subject himself to that Law, which was imposed upon man, as a Viator, must needs be penal, it being a part of his subjection, as made under the Law, & a piece of his humiliation, for thus, in part, he took upon him the forme of a servant, & was made in the likeness of men; & being found in fashion, as a man, he humbled himself, & became obedient unto death. Phil. 2:7, 8; Gal. 4:4. What they do, who are in glory, is not to the purpose; for here we are speaking of the obedience & subjection of such, as are Viators, & not Comprehensors. And Adam while innocent, was a Viator; and Christ, to pay that debt, which was required of us all, as Viators, did humble himself to performe the obedience of a Viator, in our place, & in our stead, that so he might give full satisfaction, & pay our whole debt.
From hence, there is no ground for his Inference, to wit, that. Therefore man was punished, & that by order & appointment of God, before his fall, & that now the glorifed Saints & Angels, yea & Jesus Christ himself, are now punished in heaven. For (1) it might be & was penal to him, who was God, which was duty unto man in innocency, as is cleared, & (2) The Obedience of Saints & Angels, now in glory, & far less that of Jesus Christ himself, (if it can properly be called obedience) is not the duty of Viators, & therefore utterly impertinent to our purpose: We do not say, that Adam's obedience was penal, it being his duty: but Christ's was, seing no Law required such obedience of him, who was God; nor was it necessary even to his humane Nature, in order to life for himself: for the hypostatical union fully removed that necessity, & either made him, as to himself, in respect of his humane nature, a comprehensor, or in the nearest capacity to it, even when he was subjecting himself to the obedience of a Viator, for us, and as standing in our room.
But he saith, the Scriptures themselves no where ascribe this satisfaction to Christ's Active obedience; but still to his passive. And here he citeth many passages of Scripture, to no purpose, seing none of these give any hint of the exclusion of his active obedience; but rather do include it; or else he may as well say, that all Christ's active obedience was no way necessary, or requisite, unto the work of Redemption; because these passages do not expresly say so; and yet this he will not say, seing he granteth, that his obedience was an essential requisite, & absolutly necessary, to the constitution of him our Priest, and his Sacrifice propitiatory: But we read of his being made under the Law, to redeem these, that were under the Law. Gal. 4:4, 5. and of his Righteousness & obedience, as necessary to our Righteousness & justification, and as having a no less direct influence into the same; than Adam's offence & disobedience had unto our death & damnation. Rom. 5:17, 18, 19.
-----
Source: The Life of Justification Opened (Appendix)