God in his infinite wisdom redeemed the world, in such a way,1 as was perfectly completive of the Law; we in our lapsed estate were double debtors to the Law; as rational creatures we owed perfect Obedience, and as sinful creatures, eternal sufferings; the Law calls for punishment, but that is not all, it calls for perfect Obedience, that it did primarily before sin entered, and that it doth unalterably: The aftersin did not dissolve the obligation; Now Christs righteousness was every way completive of the Law; as active, completive of the mandatory part of it, as passive, of the minatory; these two ought not to be divided or severed the one from the other: Now the Authors Argument, which is this, That his satisfaction being for all sins of Omission, as well as Commission, must needs make us perfectly righteous; runs upon an Hypothesis, which I think is not to be admitted: viz. That Christs satisfaction may be considered apart, or severed from his Obedience; his active and passive righteousness both together, ⟨p. 82⟩taken in conjunction, are, as I conceive, a perfect completure of the Law, and do both expiate our sins, and make us perfectly righteous before God; But further, Innocent and Righteous are not altogether the same: Hear the eminent Dr. Featly, 2There are two sorts of causes in Courts of Justice, criminal and civil; in criminal its true, idem est esse insontem & justum, it is all one to be innocent and just, but not in civil, where Justice hath respect to a reward; in that regard a guiltless man is not necessarily a just man, that is, a deserving man; It was not enough for Demosthenes to plead for Ctesiphon, that he was an harmless man, and therefore ought to have the Crown, but that he was a deserving man, and by Law ought to have it. God is said to be a righteous Judge, not only in inflicting punishments, but in conferring rewards, and Crowns of Glory: Justification hath respect to both; two questions are put to us at Gods Tribunal: First, why shouldst thou not be condemned to Hell for thy sins? The answer is, Christ hath satisfied for me: Secondly, Why shouldst thou receive a Crown of Glory, sith thou hast not fulfilled the Law? The answer is, Christ hath fulfilled the Law for me;
God in his infinite wisdom redeemed the world, in such a way,1 as was perfectly completive of the Law; we in our lapsed estate were double debtors to the Law; as rational creatures we owed perfect Obedience, and as sinful creatures, eternal sufferings; the Law calls for punishment, but that is not all, it calls for perfect Obedience, that it did primarily before sin entred, and that it doth unalterably: The aftersin did not dissolve the obligation; Now Christs righteousness was every way completive of the Law; as active, completive of the mandatory part of it, as passive, of the minatory; these two ought not to be divided or severed the one from the other: Now the Authors Argument, which is this, That his satisfaction being for all sins of Omission, as well as Commission, must needs make us perfectly righteous; runs upon an Hypothesis, which I think is not to be admitted: viz. That Christs satisfaction may be considered apart, or severed from his Obedience; his active and passive righteousness both together, ⟨p. 82⟩taken in conjunction, are, as I conceive, a perfect completure of the Law, and do both expiate our sins, and make us perfectly righteous before God; But further, Innocent and Righteous are not altogether the same: Hear the eminent Dr. Featly, 2There are two sorts of causes in Courts of Justice, criminal and civil; in criminal its true, idem est esse insontem & justum, it is all one to be innocent and just, but not in civil, where Justice hath respect to a reward; in that regard a guiltless man is not necessarily a just man, that is, a deserving man; It was not enough for Demosthenes to plead for Ctesiphon, that he was an harmless man, and therefore ought to have the Crown, but that he was a deserving man, and by Law ought to have it. God is said to be a righteous Judge, not only in inflicting punishments, but in conferring rewards, and Crowns of Glory: Justification hath respect to both; two questions are put to us at Gods Tribunal: First, why shouldst thou not be condemned to Hell for thy sins? The answer is, Christ hath satisfied for me: Secondly, Why shouldst thou receive a Crown of Glory, sith thou hast not fulfilled the Law? The answer is, Christ hath fulfilled the Law for me;
- 1Answer.
- 2Sac. Nem. 33.34,
