the pain of thy sins in the person of Jesus Christ, and that thou art also clothed with his righteousness, &c." And Rutherford,* though a great adversary to the Antinomians, as is well known by his learned writings against them, hath yet fallen into this fundamental mistake of theirs: "for (says he) Christ's dying and satisfying, is ours; he dying in our stead and place, and we dying in him legally, (not physically); and so are we not only by his satisfaction, which is made ours, and by faith applied to us, negatively freed from hell; but positively righteous." The Apostle teacheth believers so to think of themselves. Rom. vi. 10, 11. "For in that he died, he died unto sin (i. e. for sin) once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin; but alive unto God and Christ, en Christo, &c. Where we see plainly that believers are called to reckon or conclude themselves to be dead unto sin; that is, for sin, as is plain from the 10th verse, otherwise they do not reckon concerning themselves as they do concerning Christ. The Apostle taketh it for granted, that believers have all laid down this conclusion, or have made this reckoning, "That Christ died to sin," that is, suffered for it here is another conclusion he would have them to make, "Likewise reckon ye also," viz. that ye are dead to sin, and this by way of syllogistical deduction from the former, Houto kai humeis logizesthe; where the medium is our union with Christ, sealed in baptism, ver. 4. "For if Christ died to sin, then we being one with him," died to it also, viz. in his person, as the text hath it, in Christ. Whereas indeed our dying to sin in point of sanctification, is in our own person, not in the person of Jesus Christ, as is manifest. From what is said it appears, that a believer is reputed to have satisfied for all sins, past, present and to come, at his union with Christ by faith; and consequently that all his sins are then pardoned simul et semel.

If any shall say, That although we be reputed thus to have satisfied the law for all sins past, present, and to come; yet it no more follows that we have the pardon of them† in our own persons, than that we are glorified in our own persons at our first believing in Christ; for both are the fruits of the same purchase: I answer, That this is to confound our absolute and relative state, and to make them go on alike by degress: which is absurd. But pray you let it be considered, that there are two things in Christ's obedience to the law as the representative of his people; First, The payment of a debt; Secondly, A purchase of some positive benefits. The † Future sins.

Influences of the life, &c. P. 43.

debt being paid, and the payment of it for such a person being sustained in law, the discharge cannot be kept up; but justice ipso facto looseth the man from the obligation, as is manifest. But as to these other blessings, there is no such necessity of their being made immediately forthcoming unto them; only they have immediately a right to them all given them; and thus especially when the payer or purchaser consents to the delay of giving up these things to those for whom they are purchased; as it is in this case. This we see plainly in the way of human contracts. As when a man pays his debt to the creditor, and purchaseth a piece of ground from him; the very paying of the money in justice looseth him from his former bond or obligation, and gives him a right to the land; but does not put him actually in possession thereof at that very time.

ARGUMENT IV. The Scripture plainly holds out unto us, that the Lord, in dealing with believers, considereth them as in Christ Jesus, and not as they are in themselves; and it cannot be otherwise, seeing the union made up betwixt Christ and a soul by faith, is a lasting, even an everlasting union; so that after their union with Christ, at the first moment of believing, they never more stand before God on their own bottom, otherwise God should be to them, even as to others, "a consuming fire." But if we account a believer to lie one moment under unpardoned sin, he must be considered abstractedly from Christ, and dealt with judicially as he is in himself; or if otherwise, it reflects no small dishonour on the Mediator, the person who is one with him, being condemned by the law. And the truth is, that a person being once united to Christ by faith, whatever is chargeable on that person must be laid to the charge of Christ, and he is answerable for it; and the same may be exacted of him, as the debt contracted by the wife is chargeable on the husband; but "by once offering up of himself he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." To this purpose speaks holy John Careless* in his letter to William Tymes: "He hath clothed us in all his merits, and taken to himself all our sin; so that if any should be now condemned for the same, it must needs be Jesus Christ, who hath taken them upon him. But indeed he hath made satisfaction for them to the uttermost; so that, for his sake, they shall never be imputed to us if they were a thousand times more than they be." Thus he; and that most truly, because the elect person being once united to Christ, the Lord Jesus is reputed to have

taken on all his sins in particular, whether past, present, or to come; so that now, if any person be reputed guilty, or actually liable to eternal wrath, it must be Christ himself, who is legally the sinner in point of guilt, though the fault was never transferred on him; therefore, if the sin be unpardoned for the least moment, it must be to him, and not to us; for though they be ours by commission, yet he hath undertaken and bound himself to answer for them. Among men there are two sorts of sureties. Some become sureties for others, so as the creditor hath still a right to crave the principal debtor, who, notwithstanding of the suretiship, remains still liable: in which case, if the principal party fail to pay after diligence used for the same, the creditor falls on the surety. Some do so become sureties for others, that the principal debtor is eo ipso relieved and discharged; there being no hopes at all of payment from the principal. This last way Christ is surety for his people, and not the first way: for the Lord knowing that it was utterly impossible for man to satisfy by himself, must needs be supposed to make no other bargain; but "laying help upon one that is mighty," he simply passeth the sinner in his own person, and takes Christ for all; who says to the Father, "If you take me let these go their way. And so, as it is said, Isa. liii. 7. Niggas Vehu Nagnaneh, He (to wit, the Father) exacted, and he (to wit, Christ) answered; or he was answered, viz. by Christ. So Rabbi David* judgeth the word in Niphil should be expounded. A godly writer tells us, that God laid all on him, that he might be sure of satisfaction; protesting, that he would not deal with us, nor so much as expect any payment from us.† Wherefore in law Christ is the sinner, and the believer goes free; and if so, then the sin, if it be at all unpardoned, it must be to him, and not to us. None will stumble at this, who consider matters duly. Luther‡ doubts not to say, Christ was a sinner, and that there was none a greater sinner than he; and that whatsoever sins we do commit, or shall in time to come, commit, they are as proper to Christ, as if he himself had committed them. "In sum (says he) sin must become Christ's proper sin or we perish." || Rivet defends Illyricus against Bellarmine, in that he says, Christ might most truly be called the sinner. Bellarmine (says he) contends, that Christ may attribute our sins unto himself; and that truly, as I believe, for he cannot lie; therefore he might also truly call himself the sinner, while he sustained our person; who nevertheless was in himself innocent. What blasphemy

Cit. Pagnino in lex. VOL. VI.

Marrow of Mod. Div. p. 27.

Com. in Gal. iii. 13.

In Psal. xx. 1.

E

and impiety is here? The same is taught by Hemmingius, Taunovius, Witsius, Rutherford, and Bridge.* The Apostle puts it out of doubt, that it is Christ who speaks to the Father Psal. xl. see Heb. x. and in the 12th verse of that Psal. he calls the sins the burden whereof he bears, his iniquities. And it cannot be denied, but that he was made sin; which is more than to be a sinner, in so far as the abstract signifies somewhat more exquisite than the concrete, if we will believe the learned Rivit, loco supra citato. From all which I conclude, that seeing Christ is made the sinner in law, and the Lord passeth the man thus, upon Christ's undertaking the charge, all sins, past, present, and to come, are together and at once pardoned, viz. as soon as the soul is one with Christ by faith.

ARGUMENT. V. The love of God, called the love of complacency, is as God himself, unchangeable; "for whom he once loves, he loves to the end ;" and "nothing can separate them from it." Though the emanations of it towards believers may be stopt for a time in great measure, yet that love as it is in God still remains, quoad affectum, as they say, though not quoad effectum. The due consideration of this, which is not controverted amongst the orthodox, and is plainly proven by them against the patrons of the saints falling away, will necessiate the asserting of the pardon of all sins, simul et semel; so as the believer is never, after his union with Christ, by any sin, for one moment actually liable to eternal wrath. For that liableness to God's wrath, and the unchangeableness of God's love, are incompatible. Which I prove thus. For a sinner to be liable in actu secundo to eternal death, is nothing else but to be under a sentence of eternal death as a sinner; that is to say, the law condemns him as such, though the sentence never be executed. Now, what is the law of God, but a transcript of the holy nature of God? so that God himself is surely set against those whom the law is against; otherwise God is changeable, or the law is not a true copy of his nature; both which are more than absurd. It comes in effect to this, that God approves whom the law disaproves; that is, God hates the man, hath no delight in him at all; seeing he that is guilty of one, is guilty of all: and yet at the same time he loves him, and delights in him; which is a flat contradiction. If any shall say, that the sinner may be hated of God as he is in himself, yet beloved as united to Christ, it is granted; but it makes nothing to the purpose: for while we speak of a believer as he is in himself, it is merely a notion of our minds by precision;

Hem on Jam. digress. of rep. Taun. in Psal. pass. p. 253. Wits. Exer. p. 378. Christ's Dying, p. 570. Christ in Travel, p. 110.

So

but really and indeed he is ever in Christ, and the Lord's judgment is according to truth; so he never deals with a believer, but as he is indeed in Christ, as was said before. And if to adjudge a person to eternal wrath be not to hate him, I confess I understand not what can be made of God's hatred against a person; for it is certain it is no passion in him, as it is in us. Rutherford tells us,* that there is no reason why God should communicate the purchased remission by halves, (per partes), unless he loved and hated also the self-same person from eternity; which is inconsistent. saith Piscator,† God hates them whose sins he hath not pardoned; and this, while he teacheth, that, by the forgiveness of sin, which we seek in the Lord's prayer, is meant the sense of pardon. There is one thing, I forsee, will readily be said against this, to invalidate the argument; that is, that the Lord Jesus Christ was condemned by the law, yet still beloved of God; and therefore they are not inconsistent. To this I answer, There is in sin the fault, and the guilt arising therefrom: the latter, not the former, was transferred on Christ; but an unpardoned sinner lies under both. Hence ariseth a vast difference betwixt the law's condemning of Christ, and its condemning us. While the law condemns a sinner, who is formally such and in himself, it dec'ares him to be sinful, and opposite to God; which is the formal notion under which he is hated of God; and therefore it adjudgeth him to eternal wrath. But here Christ is innocent; only the punishment is exacted of him, seeing he came in the room of condemned sinners, and undertook voluntarily to satisfy for them: wherefore God cannot but delight in him, seeiug there was no sinful evil in him, only a penal evil is inflicted on him. But the law, finding one sin in the sinner uncovered with the righteousness of Christ, leaves him in no other case than it did Adam guilty of the first, viz. condemned, and one whom God had no delight in.

ARGUMENT VI. If all sins, past, present, and to come, be not pardoned at once, when the soul is united to Christ by faith; then a believer at one and the same time is adjudged to eternal death. That he is adjudged to eternal life, in so far as he is a believer, the scripture plainly teacheth; "for he that believeth, hath everlasting life" and that he is adjudged to eternal death upon the account of sins not yet pardoned, though committed, is no less. evident; seeing, according to this doctrine, sin is not pardoned in respect of the obligation to eternal wrath, till he renew the acts of faith and repentance; which is nothing else, than that he is

'Ezer. apol. pro divino gratia, p 37. † Obs in orat Dom.