h 41 74' 7 ifitif. through irnput. of ch. Right. cleáred from the N. T. C H A P. 84 : they ; but as SatirfaEtion to and with the rovocation; or the Remedie to and with the di fire. Otherwife he should make fins of Omiffion to be no difobedience , be- caufè OrniBons are no Alts. Ant.-The Apoftle fo compareth the Obedience of Cbrill with the difobedience of Adam , as the Satisfadion with the provo- cation , or as the Remedie with the difeafe; as that withal' & chiefly , he cleareth up the manner & way thereof to,. be by Imputation, thus , That as Adaam's fin of difobedience ( which includeth both Omifïion & Corsi miffion being a Violation of the Law, &of the Covenant) was imputed to his poIerity , & they hence became guilty 8t obnoxious to death , yea' & were punished with original Corruption , ( which cometh by propaga- tion ) & the confequences thereof; fo Chril's obedience; which was full & compleat, is imputed unto Beleevers, whereupon they become Righ- teous , in order to their recovery out of their Natural Bate of fin and mifery. Further He faith , By that obedience of Chrift , whereby it is here Laid , that many are, or shall be made Righteous , that is juflified , we cannot nderftand that ftiçhteoufnefs of Chri/i, which confifis only in obedienee to the Moral Law; but that SatisfaEtory R.jghteoufnefs , or obedience , which He performed to that peculiar Law of Mediation , which was impofed upon him , and which chiefly eonfifled in his fu Brings. Anf. By the obedience of Chrifl: unto the Law of Mediation , ftrrckly fo taken , as diftinguished from His obedience to the Moral Law, beleevers could not be made Righteous, as the pofterity of Adam are made liimiers by his difobedience ; for that could not be properly imputed , as this is as hath been shown ; & fo Paul's fimilitude should halt. But (2..) Why is Chrift's obedience to the Law Of Mediation fet in oppofìtion to His obedience to the Moral Law , feing this was a part of that, & unto this He obliged Himfelf, in undertaking the Mediation. Was He not by the Law of Mediation bound as well to give obedience tothe Law, as to fuffer the penalty ? And was He not obliged to both , as Surety , in room & place ? And then why may not both be imputed unto them ? (3, ) Why should obedience here be thus repriced to the Law of Mediation ? H-leaddeth two reafons, but neither are valide. The I. is this, Becaufe other - wifethe'oppofltion betwixt Adam's difobedience, which was but one Tingle AEt, and Chrift's Obedience, if it were his univerfal conformity to the Law, would not hold. Anf. This fame man told us in his former exception , That Chrift's ob- edience, in re(pe± of Adam's difobedience, was confidered &oppofed,as the ISatisfation to the provocation , & as the Remedie to the difeafe : now if this be true, Chrift made Satisfaction for no provocation , but for that tingle ad of eating the forbidden fruit : & what He did & fuffered should be only a-Remedie for that one diftemper : & if fo, how shall the reft of the Provocations and dif afes be taken away ? or are there no more Provo- cations or difeafes ? (2.) Adarn'sdif`obedience was no Single at of difobe- dience ; but a difobedience including the breach of the whole Moral Law Saith not I. atnes, that he who of ndeth in one, is guilty of all? gain. z: to. &prove it too, in the following vers ? The 2. is this, The EEt that it here 4ttributed to this obedience of Chrift, towit, justification, or Righteous ma -. king
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=