Notes: Sect. 1. — Christ’s fulfilling of the Law in the room of the Elect.
Notes: Sect. 1. — Christ’s fulfilling of the Law in the room of the Elect.
202
That is, all those who have or shall believe, or all the elect, which is one and the same in reality, and in the judgment of our author, it is expressly declared in the first sentence of his preface.
203
By imputation and the reckoning of the law; not otherwise, than as a sinner believing in him is righteous before God. (Thus Isaac Ambrose, speaking of justification, says, “This righteousness makes a sinner sinless;” i.e., as to guilt.) This must be owned to be the meaning of this expression, unless one shuts his eyes to the immediately foregoing and following words, — I find him a sinner, said the law; such a one as has taken sin upon him. They are the words of Luther, and he was not the first who spoke so. “He made him who was righteous to be made a sinner, that he might make sinners righteous,” says Chrysostom, on 2Cor. 5. Hom. 11. cit. Owen on Justification, p. 39. Famous Protestant divines have also used the expression after him. “When our divines,” says Rutherford, “say, Christ took our place, and we have his condition, — Christ was made us, and made the sinner; it is true only in a legal sense. He [Christ] was debitor factus, — a sinner; a debtor by imputation, a debtor by law, by place, by office.” Trial and Triumph of Faith, p. 245, 257. Charnock argues the point thus: “How could he die, if he were not a reputed sinner? Had he not first had a relation to our sin, he could not in justice have undergone our punishment. He must, in the order of justice, be supposed a sinner really, or by imputation. Really, he was not; by imputation he then was,” vol. ii. p. 547. Serm. on 1Cor. 5.7. “Though personally he was no sinner, yet by imputation he was,” says the Contin. of Poole’s Annot. on 2Cor. 5.21. “What Illyricus wrote,” says Rivet, “that Christ might most truly be called a sinner, Bellarmine calls blasphemy and cursed impudence. Now Bellarmine himself contends that Christ might attribute our sins to himself; therefore he might also truly call himself a sinner; while in himself innocent, he represented our person. What blasphemy, what impiety is here?” Comment, on Psalm 22.1. The Scripture phrase to this purpose is more forcible; 2Cor. 5.21, “For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” For as it is more to say we are made righteousness, than it is to say we are made righteous — since the former plainly imports a perfection of righteousness, if I may be allowed the phrase, righteousness not being properly capable of degrees — so it is more to say that Christ was made sin for the elect world, than it is to say he was made a sinner, since the first of these accordingly points at the universality and complete tale of the elect’s sins, from the first to the last of them laid on our spotless Redeemer. Compare Lev. 16.21, 22, “And Aaron shall confess over him (namely: the scape-goat, which the apostle has an eye to here) all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, and all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities,” Isa. 53.6. ** And the Lord (marg.) has made the iniquity of us all to meet on (Heb. in) him.” These two texts give the just notion of the true import of that phrase, “He was made sin for us.”
204
Our Lord Jesus Christ did not die for, nor take upon himself, the sins of all and every individual man; but he died for and took upon himself the sins of all the elect, John 10.15, and 15.13; Acts 20.28; Eph. 5.25; Tit. 2.14; and no other doctrine is taught here by our author touching the extent of the death of Christ. In the preceding paragraph, where was the proper place for giving his judgment on that topic, he purposely declares it. He had before taught that Jesus Christ from eternity became man’s surety in the covenant that passed between him and the Father, p. 22—24. A surety puts himself in the place of those for whom he becomes surety, to pay their debt, Gen. 44.32, 33; Prov. 22.26, 27. And our author tells us that now, when the prefixed time had come for Christ’s fulfilling the eternal covenant, paying the debt he had taken on him, and purchasing man’s redemption by his sufferings, according to the tenor of that covenant which stated the extent of his suretyship, he put himself in the stead and place — he does not say of all men, but — of all the faithful, or elect of God; (see note p. 101). Jesus Christ thus stood in their stead and place, to actually take on the burden. “The Lord laid on him the iniquities of us all;” this Scripture text can bear no other sense in the connection of it here, than what is the genuine sense of it as it stands in the holy Scripture, namely, that the Father laid on Christ the iniquities of all the spiritual Israel of God, of all nations, ranks, and conditions; for no iniquities could be laid on him but theirs in whose stead and place he put himself to receive the burden, according to the eternal and mutual agreement. These iniquities being thus laid on the Mediator, the law came and said, I find him such a one that has taken on himself the sins of all men. This is but an incidental expression on the topic of the extent of Christ’s death, and it is a scriptural one too. 1Tim. 2.6, “Who gave himself a ransom for all,” i.e., for all sorts of men, not for all of every sort. Heb. 2.9, “That he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man,” i.e., for every man of those whom the apostle is treating there, namely, sons brought or to be brought to glory, verse 10; those who are sanctified, Christ’s brethren, verse 11; given to him, verse 13; and the sense of the phrase, as used here by the author, can be no other; for the sins which the law found that he had taken on him, could be no other but the sins that the Lord had laid on him; and the sins the Lord had laid on him were the sins of all the faithful or elect, according to the author; which is why, in the author’s sense, the sins of all men which the law found in Christ, were the sins of all the elect, according to the genuine sense of the Scripture phraseology on that topic. And an incidental expression, in words which the Holy Ghost teaches, and determined in its connection to the orthodox scriptural meaning, can never import any prejudice to his sentiment on that point purposely declared before in its proper place. It is true, the author, when speaking of those in whose stead Christ put himself, does not use the word alone; and in the holy Scripture, neither is it used on that subject. And it may be observed that the Spirit of God in the word, does not open the doctrine of election and reprobation, except upon man’s rejecting or embracing the gospel offer; which different events are then seasonably accounted for from the depths of the eternal counsel of God. See Luke 10.17-22; Mat. 22.1-14; Rom. 9.throughout; Eph. 1.3-5. ‘To everything there is a season. The author up to here has been dealing with the parties, to bring them to Christ; and particularly here, he is speaking for the instruction and direction of a convinced and trembling sinner, namely, Neophytus. And, therefore, like a wise and tender man in such a case, he uses a manner of speaking which, being warranted by the word, was fitted to excite the awakening of the ordinary scruples in that case, namely, “It may be I am not elected, — it may be Christ did not die for me;” and this pointed at the duty of all, and the encouragement that all have, to come to Christ. And all this, after he had in his very first words to the reader, sufficiently provided for his using such a manner of expression, without prejudice to the truth. Further, the law adds, “Therefore let him die upon the cross.” Why? For their sins. Why is there no mention made of them being laid upon him? Or for the sins of those in whose stead he is expressly said to have put himself, according to the eternal agreement between the Father and him? Then Christ said, “Lo! I come;” namely: to actually pay the debt for which I have become surety in the eternal compact; whose debt it was, according to our author, is already sufficiently declared. The law then set upon him, and killed him. For whom, according to our author? For these, surely, in whose stead and place he put himself, and so stood. If one considers his account of the effect of all this, one does not find it to be, as Arminians say, “that Christ, by the merit of his death, has so far reconciled God the Father to all mankind, that the Father, by reason of the Son’s merit, both could and would, and did enter and establish a new and gracious covenant with sinful man, liable to condemnation.” (Examination of Tilenus, p. 164, art. 2, sect. 2.) “And obtained for all and every man a restoration into a state of grace and salvation; so that none will be condemned, nor are liable to condemnation for original sin, but all are free from the guilt of that sin.” (Teste Turretin, loc. 14. ques. 14. th. 5.) Nor does he tell us, that Christ died to “render sin remissible to all persons, and make them savable,” as the Continuator of Poole’s Annotations on Hebrews, chapter 2.9, says with other Universalists. By this means, says our author, “the justice of God was fully satisfied, his wrath appeased, and all true believers acquitted.” Compare Westm. Confess., chap. 8. art. 4, 5. “This office (namely: of a surety) the Lord Jesus most willingly undertook; that he might discharge it, he was made under the law, and perfectly fulfilled it, enduring most grievous torments, etc. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself — has fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given to him. Christ, by his obedience and death, fully discharged the debt of all those that are thus justified,” Chap. 11. art. 3. Therefore the author does not here teach a universal redemption or atonement. Of this, more afterward.
205
Pardon is removing the guilt of sin. Guilt is twofold: 1. The guilt of eternal wrath, by which the sinner is bound over to the eternal revenging wrath of God; and this, by orthodox divines, is called the guilt of sin by way of eminency. 2. The guilt of fatherly anger, whereby the sinner is bound over to God’s fatherly anger and chastisements for sin. Accordingly, there is a two-fold pardon: the one is the removal of the guilt of eternal wrath, and this is called legal pardon; the other is the removal of the guilt of fatherly anger, and this is called gospel pardon. As to the latter, the believer is to daily sue for his pardon, since he daily contracts new guilt of that kind; and the author plainly teaches this afterwards in its proper place. As to the former, of which only he speaks here, all the sins of a believer, past, present, and to come, are pardoned together and at once, in the first instance of his believing. That is to say, the guilt of eternal wrath for sin then past and present is actually and formally done away; the obligation to that wrath which he was lying under for these sins is dissolved, and the guilt of eternal wrath for sins then to come is effectually prevented from that moment forever, so that he can never come under that kind of guilt any more. And this pardon, as it relates to these sins, is improperly called a pardon; it is not imputing them, rather than formally remitting them. A formal remission is a dissolution of guilt actually contracted; and so it agrees only to sins already committed. Therefore our author here uses the word acquitted, which has a more extensive signification. All pardon of sin is an acquittance, but all acquittance of sin is not a formal pardon of it: “For at the resurrection, believers being raised up in glory, shall be openly acknowledged and acquitted in the day of judgment.” Short. Cat. But they will not then be formally pardoned. Now, this is the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, Rom. 4.48, “Even as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord WILL NOT IMPUTE sin.” — Chap. 8.1, “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.” That is, not only shall they never be actually damned, i.e., sent to hell, as that phrase is ordinarily taken — for that is the privilege of all the elect, even before they believe, while they are yet under condemnation according to the Scripture — but there is no binding over of those who are in Christ to eternal wrath, no guilt of that kind to them. Compare John 3.18, “He that believes on him is not condemned; but he that does not believe is condemned already.” — “The one [namely: justification] equally frees all believers from the revenging wrath of Cod, and does that perfectly in this life, so that they never fall into condemnation.” Larg. Cat. quest. 77. “Albeit sin remains, and continually abides in our mortal bodies, yet it is not imputed to us, but is remitted and covered with Christ’s justice,” [i.e., righteousness.] Old Confess., art. 25. Q. “What then is our only joy in life and death? A. That all our sins, bypast, present, and to come, are buried; and Christ only is made our wisdom, justification, sanctification, and redemption.” 1Cor. 1.30. Craig’s Cat. quest. 43. “The liberty which Christ has purchased for believers, under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the Moral Law.” Westm. Confess., chap. 20. art. 1. See 11. art. 5; chap, 17. art. 3. “They [the Arminians] utterly deny that no sins of the faithful, however great and grievous they are, are imputed to them, or that all their present and future sins are forgiven them.” Exam, of Tilen. p. 226, art. 5. sect. 5.
206
“Whatever things it says, it says to those who are under it,” Rom. 3.19. But believers are not under it, nor under the law of the Covenant of Works, chap. 6.14; therefore it says nothing to them. As such, it said all to Christ in their stead and place; and apart from the Mediator’s dishonour, it cannot repeat its demands on them which it made upon him as their surety. Meanwhile the law, as a rule of life to believers, says to them all, in the name and authority of God, the Creator and Redeemer, Mat. 5.48, “Be therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Even so, they are under a covenant in which, though no less is required, yet less is accepted, for the sake of Christ their covenant head.
207
See note, page 55.
208
Namely, in the sense of the law; for in the law-reckoning, as to the payment of a debt, and fulfilling a covenant, or any like purposes, the surety and the original debtor, the federal head or representative, and those represented, are but one person. And thus the Scripture determining Adam to be the figure (or type) of Christ, Rom. 5.14, teaches on the one hand, that all mankind sinned in Adam, verse 12, and died in him, 1Cor. 15.22; and on the other hand, that all believers were crucified with Christ, Gal. 2.20, and raised up in him. Eph. 2.6, “The covenant (of works) being made with Adam as a public person — all mankind—sinned in him.” Larg. Cat. Quest. 22. “The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam,” Quest. 31. “He satisfied divine justice, which he did as a public person, the head of his Church,” Quest. 52. “that the righteousness of the law,” says the apostle, “might be fulfilled in us,” Rom. 8.4; so believers satisfied in him, as they sinned in Adam. “The threatening of death. Gen. 2.17, is fulfilled in the elect so that they die, and yet their lives are spared: they die, and yet they live, for they are reckoned in law to have died when Christ their surety died for them.” Ferguson on Gal. 2.20. “Although you,” says Beza, “have satisfied for the pain of your sins in the person of Jesus Christ,” Beza’s Confess., point 4, art. 12. “What challenges Satan or conscience can make against the believer — hear an answer; I was condemned, I was judged, I was crucified for sin, when my surety Christ was condemned, judged, and crucified for my sins. — I have paid all, because my surety has paid all,” Rutherford’s Trial and Triumph of Faith, Serm. 19. p. 258. “As in Christ we satisfied, so likewise in Adam we sinned,” Flint. Exam. p. 144. This doctrine, and the doctrine of the formal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers, stand and fall together. For if believers are reckoned in law to have satisfied in Christ, then his righteousness, which is the result of his satisfaction, must be accounted theirs. But if there is no such law-reckoning, Christ’s righteousness cannot be imputed to them other than as to its effects; for the judgment of God is always according to truth, Rom. 2.2. This the Neonomians are aware of, and deny both, reckoning them Antinomian principles as they do many other Protestant doctrines. Hear Mr. Gibbons: “They (namely: the Antinomians) are dangerously mistaken in thinking that a believer is righteous in the sight of God, with the self-same active and passive righteousness with which Christ was righteous, as though believers suffered in Christ, and obeyed in Christ.” Morn. Exer. Method, sec. 19, p. 423. On the other hand, the Westminster divines teach both as sound and orthodox principles, affirming Christ’s righteousness, obedience, and satisfaction are imputed to believers, or reckoned as their righteousness, obedience, and satisfaction. “Justification is an act of God’s free grace, in which he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.” Short. Cat. — “Only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ imputed to them by God,” Large. Cat. quest. 70. — “By imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ to them,” Westm. Confess. chap. 11. art. 1.
209
Virtually justified in his justification, not actually, even as they virtually arose in his resurrection. That this is the author’s meaning is evident from his own words. When speaking of Neophytus, he says expressly, “He was justified meritoriously in the death and resurrection of Christ, yet he was not justified actually till he actually believed in Christ.”
210
So-called to distinguish it from inherent righteousness, which is righteousness from life.
211
This is a weighty point. The plain and native result of what is said is namely, that since Jesus Christ has fully accomplished what was to have been done by man himself for lifem according to the Covenant of Works, and that is what is imputed to believers. Therefore, believers are in the same state, as to righteousness unto life, that they would have been in if man himself had stood the whole time appointed for his trial. And here is the true ground in law of the infallible perseverance of the saints: their time of trial for life is over in their Head, the second Adam — the prize is won! Hence the just, by faith, are entitled to the same benefit which Adam by his perfect obedience would have been entitled to. Compare Rom. 10.5, “The man who does these things shall live,” with Hab. 2.4, “The just shall live by his faith;” which is the true reading according to the original. And here, to clarify the following purpose of the believer’s freedom from the law, as it is the Covenant of Works, let it be considered that if Adam had been able to stand till the time of his trial had expired, the Covenant of Works would indeed have remained from that time, as his everlasting security for eternal life, like a contract held fulfilled by the one party. But in the same case, it could no longer have remained the rule of his obedience, namely, in the state of confirmation. [From Boston’s treatise, Human Nature in its Fourfold State, doct. 1: “Confirmation in a righteous state is a reward of grace, given upon continuing righteous through the state of trial, and would have been given to Adam if he had stood out the time appointed for probation by the Creator; and accordingly is given to the saints on account of the merits of Christ, who ‘was obedient even unto death.’”] The reason is obvious, namely: that still subjecting him to the Covenant of Works, as the rule of his obedience, would have reduced him to the state of trial he was in before, and set him to work anew for what was already his own, by virtue of his supposed fulfilling of that covenant. Nevertheless it is absolutely impossible that the creature, in any state whatsoever, must be bound to and owe obedience to the Creator; and still being bound to obedience, of necessity it behooves him to have a rule of that obedience. Since the Covenant of Works could not be it, what remains but that the rule of obedience in the state of confirmation, would have been the law of nature, suited to man’s state of immutability, improperly so-called. And would it be so divested of the form of the Covenant of Works (namely, its promise of eternal life, and its threatening of eternal death), that it is, and will be, in heaven, forever? The application is easy as to the rule of believers’ obedience, always making suitable reserves for the imperfection of their state in respect to inherent righteousness. This imperfection, because it leaves room for promises of fatherly smiles, and threatenings of fatherly chastisements, so it makes them necessary; but these also shall be’ done away in heaven when their real estate shall be perfect, as their relative state is now.