Discourses on various important subjects, nearly concerning the great affair of the soul's eternal…

If it be objected here, that there is this Reason, why what Christ suffered should be accepted on our Account rather than the Obedience he performed, that he was obliged to Obedience for himself, but was not obliged to suffer but only on our Account. To this I answer, that Christ was not obliged on his own Account, to undertake to obey. Christ in his original Circumstances, was in no subjection to the Father, being altogether equal with him: He was under no Obligation to put himself in Man's stead, and under Man's Law, or to put himself into any State of Subjection to God whatsoever. There was a Transaction between the Father and the Son, that was antecedent to Christ's becoming Man▪ and being made under the Law, wherein he undertook to put himself under the Law, and both to obey and to suffer▪ in which Transaction these Things were already virtually done in the sight of God; as is evident by this, that God acted on the Ground of ⟨p. 63⟩that Transaction, justifying and saving Sinners, as if the Things undertaken had been actually performed long before they were performed indeed▪ And therefore, without doubt, in order to the estimating the value, and validity of what Christ did and suffered, we must look back to that Transaction, wherein these Things were first undertaken, and virtually done in the sight of God, and see what Capacity and Circumstances Christ acted in then, and then we shall find that Christ was under no manner of Obligation, either to obey the Law, or suffer the Penalty of it. After this he was equally under Obligation to both; for henceforward he stood as our Surety or Representative: And therefore this consequent Obligation, may be as much of an Objection against the validity of his suffering the Penalty, as against his Obedience. But if we look to that original Transaction between the Father and the Son, wherein both th•se were undertaken and accepted, as virtually done in the sight of the Father, we shall find Christ acting with Regard to both, as one perfectly in his own Right, and under no manner of previous Obligation, to hinder the validity of either.

If it be objected here, that there is this Reason, why what Christ suffer'd should be accepted on our Account rather than the Obedience he performed, that he was obliged to Obedience for himself, but was not obliged to suffer but only on our Account. To this I answer, that Christ was not obliged on his own Account, to undertake to obey. Christ in his original Circumstances, was in no subjection to the Father, being altogether equal with him: He was under no Obligation to put himself in Man's stead, and under Man's Law, or to put himself into any State of Subjection to God whatsoever. There was a Transaction between the Father and the Son, that was antecedent to Christ's becoming Man and being made under the Law, wherein he undertook to put himself under the Law, and both to obey and to suffer in which Transaction these Things were already vertually done in the sight of God; as is evident by this, that God acted on the Ground of