God and man, hath, by one infinite obedience, made satisfaction to the infinite Majesty of God; it followeth, that my iniquities can no more fray nor trouble me, my accounts and debts being assuredly erased and wiped out by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, who was made accursed for ME." But here it will perhaps be said, that if this prove anything, it proves too much, viz. that the elect unconverted are not actually liable to eternal wrath, for Christ hath satisfied for their sins, as for the sins of believers. In answer to this, it would be considered, That there is a vast difference betwixt a man's paying his own debt in person, and another's paying it for him. When he pays it himself, he is ipso facto discharged of it; but when another pays it for him, the debtor is not presently discharged from the debt, in regard of the surety, but to be discharged when the surety pleaseth. Now, our sins were charged on Christ as our surety, and he did pay our debt; look therefore, when he pleaseth, we are discharged from them, and that (saith he*) is upon your believing, not before, Rom. v. 1. So Bridge. It is certain, the remission of sin, which takes away actual liableness to eternal wrath, is not communicated but to those who believe; for as Parisiensis saith, As the damnation of Adam doth not pass, but by natural generation, upon those that are carnally generated of him; so the grace of Christ, and remission of sin, doth not pass but by regeneration, to those who are spiritually regenerated through him. Further, it is to be considered, that although payment be made by the surety, yet the debtor is still liable in law, till it be instructed that the debt was paid for him in particular; the ground of which is the union betwixt the cautioner and the princpal debtor. Now, it is certain, that the union betwixt Christ and a soul is made by faith only; that is, when the soul believes, and not till then. It is true, that from all eternity there was an union betwixt Christ and the elect, in the designation and decree of God; but as sure it is, that Decreta Dei nibil pomunt in actu. To this purpose speaks Mr. Durham, "It is not," says he, "the cautioner's payment simply, that is sustained, as a relevant defence in judgment, till that be instructed, and except the defence be founded thereon; for so the law provideth: so it is not Christ suffering simply, but his satisfaction pleaded by faith, and fled unto, that justifieth." And thus I think there remains nothing in this exception to invalidate the argument: for the elect unconverted are stif liable to eternal wrath, in regard the time set by the surety

Christ in Travail, p. 101. † Ct. Bridge, ibid. p. 114 in Marg.

Com. on Rev. iii. p. 145.

for their personal discharge is not yet come; they are not yet Christ's seed by regeneration; they are not yet united to Christ; nor have they by faith pleaded his satisfaction before the bar of the court of heaven. But believers being united to Christ by faith, even then when they lie under sins unrepented of, cannot be liable. And therefore the believer, even in this case, may look the law in the face, and say, "It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth?" I was crucified with Christ, in him I obeyed, in him I satisfied thee, O law, in whatsoever was demanded; I am therefore no more liable to thy condemnation: and with Luther,* "O law, thou hast no power over me, in vain dost thou accuse and condemn me; I believe in Christ, he has poured out his life most largely for me, besides him I will hear and see nothing." This I say a believer, may do de jure, though he cannot de facto, under those sins that waste the conscience, and darken the sight of his interest in Christ.

If it be alleged, that there must still be a fresh application of the merits of Christ's death, before the soul have the benefit of them for the particular sin, and repentance must be renewed for the same end: this is a mere begging of the question. But I truly wonder. how repentance comes in here: for it can have no instrumentality here, consistent with the nature of the new covenant; for it is a giving, not a taking grace; and therefore the Lord hath made it to be" of faith," not of repentance, "that it might be of grace," Rom. iv. 16. As for that of the necessity of faith, it is more tolerable; and there is no doubt but it is necessary in order to the attaining of the comfort of the pardon of after sins, as repentance may likewise be. But I believe, that the righteousness of Christ is a perfect righteousness; and that at the first moment of believing, we put on the Lord Jesus with his perfect righteousness; that the Lord seeing us clothed therewith, declareth us perfectly just; and that we remain for ever without interruption clothed with the same, and are thereby kept from all liableness to eternal wrath in actu secundo. So that there is no need of fresh application here for this end, the thing supposed being false. But I would gladly understand what they mean by a fresh application of the merits of Christ's death here for either they are applied to them before that application, or not till then; or that righteousness is theirs before the fresh application, or not till it be anew applied. If they say the latter, then the state of justification is interrupted by the believer's after sins; if the first, then they cannot be liable to eternal wrath.

* Com. on Gal. iv. 4, 5.

This must only be needful for the comfort of their privilege. And this leads us to another argument; which is,

ARG. V. Believers, even in their worst case, have a perfect righteousness, and so are perfectly righteous: therefore they can never be liable to eternal wrath. The reason is, because to be perfectly righteous, is to be conformed to the law,; but to be perfectly conformed to the law, and yet to be liable to the condemnanation of the law, is a flat contradiction. It is true, that the righteousness is not originally and inherently theirs; but it is derivatively theirs, and imputed to them; which, with respect to Adam's sin, was sufficient to make us actually liable to eternal flames: and why shall not the imputed righteousness of Christ be sufficient to make us free from that actual liableness to the revenging wrath of God? Are they not perfectly righteous; Hath the law any more to require of them than what it has got? There were but two things it could demand, according to the strictest tenor of the first covenant; to do and to suffer perfectly; and they have in Christ their head both done, and suffered accordingly, Rom. viii. 3. 4. "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us," &c. Rom. vi. 10, 11. Gal. iv. 4, 5. "We learn (says Beza.*) to pay by him, who hath set himself debtor and payer for us, who hath put himself in our place, and hath paid our debt, as the principal debtor, even unto the uttermost penny, in such wise, that the rigour of the law, which did before fear us, now comforteth us in Jesus Christ; forasmuch as life eternal is due to those who have fully obeyed the law, and Jesus Christ hath fulfilled the same for ns." Now, surely, what Christ hath done for us, is as good as if we had done it ourselves; yea, for the honour of the law, it is a thousand times better, because of the incomparable dignity of the person. What then should make them liable at any time to eternal wrath, being at all times clothed with this perfect righteousness? It cannot be, that falling asleep, and faith not being in exercise, they let the grips of it go, and therefore they are thus made obnoxious to divine vengeance. But surely it is not so easily made ineffectual. If inherent grace remain so securely under the grievous backslidings of the regenerate, that they cannot become children of the devil; much more doth the imputed righteousness remain, so that they cannot become children of wrath, that is, actually liable thereto, Eph. ii. 2. If they cannot keep the covenant, the covenant will keep them. If any shall say, that God will not impute it to us for the covering of that particular sin or sins we lie under

*Confess. point 4. art. 23.

for the time, till we do anew receive it by faith for that end; it is false for if a perfect righteousness be at all imputed, it covereth all sins. The ground of this opinion seems to be a mistake anent the imputation of Christ's righteousness, as if the impu tation of it were a making of it ours, and that this imputation were carried on by repeated acts, so as it is still made anew as the soul stands in need of it, falling into new sins. That the first of these is a mistake, appears from this, that Christ's righteousness is ours before it be imputed, I mean not in order of time, but in order of nature. It is not ours, because it is imputed; but is imputed, because it is ours. It is evident, that it is used in this matter forensically, and is a judicial word and act; and is nothing else but a legal accounting of a thing to be ours. Now we know, "that the judgment of God is according to truth; and therefore he cannot account that to be ours which really is not so. And the word itself will import no other: for whether you understand the primary signification of it to be the casting up of an account, and finding the total sum, as Arithmeticians do; or the concluding of a thing by reason and argument, as in Logic; it still imports the being of the thing so, before it be imputed; as two tens are twenty, before the Arithmetician cast up the number, and the Logician finds the conclusion in the premises, before he gather it out of them. So, in this metaphorical sense, we are sinners in Adam, before Adam's sin be imputed to us, or we be reckoned guilty of his sin; and also righteons in Christ, before his righteousness be imputed to us. Hence I cannot but judge, that the Westminster Assembly, in their definition of justification,† are much more accurate than several learned foreign divines, who make our justification formally consist in the imputation of Christ's righteousness: for indeed, as they accurately give it, it is presupposed to our justification, as the ground thereof. Now, the way how Christ's righteousness becomes ours, is by faith, (as the aforesaid Assembly teacheth), and that as it doth make up an union betwixt Christ and the elect person; which I conceive to be the primary and immediate effect of faith. Hence issues a communion betwixt Christ aud the believer; so that as all his sins, wants, &c. become Christ's; the righteousness, obedience, and death of Christ become theirs; which so being, God accounts it, and judicially owns and acknowledgeth it to be theirs, as indeed it is; and therefore justifies them; that is, pardons their sins, and accepts them as righteous upon the account of the righteousness they appear before him clothed with. So Witsiust teach

eth. Now, what is it to be righteous, but to be conformed to the law? And seeing no righteousness can be sustained at the tribunal of God but that which is perfect, it remains that believers, at their first believing, are reputed perfectly conformed to the law of God; that is, to have perfectly obeyed and suffered; and this in regard of their union with Christ: and therefore, unless this his state be changed, which can never be till the union be dissolved, which the scripture holds forth as constant and perpetual, he can never be liable to eternal wrath. Hence it follows, that the opinion of a repeated imputation is also a mistake: for the imputation can no more be anew made, than the soul can be anew united to Christ Jesus. And, as Durham* saith, "Imputation being a judicial word and act, it supponeth an instant sentencing of such a righteousness to belong to such a person, as it were, and to be accepted for him : for if he hath not perfect right, there is no legal imputation, (to say so); but if it be perfect, then it is an instantaneous act." I add, and if instantaneous, then it is not repeated; nor is it a continued act, formally considered, though virtually it be; that is, the virtue of the imputation once made in the court of heaven never ceaseth, but remains still in force for all time to come.

ARG. VI. If the sins of believers unrepented of make them actually liable to eternal wrath, the salvation of many of the regenerate is lost; yea I shall add, "Who then can be saved?" for believers may die under sins unrepented of; and therefore, according to this principle, they must needs perish, being actually bound over to the eternal wrath of God; unless you say, either that God saves them, and takes them into glory while they lie under a sentence of condemnation, or that he takes off the obligation after death both which are absurd. This argument is not so trivial as to be dismissed, as some would, with a, What if they die not in that case? But it is said here, that although God, by his absolute power, can cut off believers in this case, yet, by his ordinate power, he cannot; for he will not do it; he hath secured them in that point, that though they fall, yet they shall arise by repentance ere they go off the world; they cannot die under sin without repentance, because they "are kept by the power of God unto salvation," 1 Pet. i. 5. But this I refuse, as what cannot be made out by the scriptures; and must needs do so till I see a promise of it in God's word; for to expect a benefit not promised, were too great rashness: but such a promise I confess I have never, as I conceive, heard of, or seen in the word of God. The scripture alledged doth

On Rev. iii. p. 153.