Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Now positively, she had power over him to bring him under condemnation. Death that had the power of the life and death of both her and his posterity, and that the power to undo the whole creation. But let us enquire what power that was which she had, and how she came by it? I answer, it was not any internal power in her per son, nor any intrinsical power in her actions, but a covenant-constituted power; Rev. xxi. 9, 10, 11, Come hither and I will shew thee the bride of the lamb's wife. Thus she came down from heaven, having the glory of God.

That when

Now for the doctrine.-First. Adam fell, that the sin of the elect was not`imputed to them; this is sufficiently proved before, but I enlarge:-I ask my opposer, had they been sent to preach to Adam in the garden, with the commission they have, what would they have preached to him? 2 Cor. v. 19. Whether would they have said, God was in Christ, or God shall be in Christ?

Secondly. Verse 20, would you say, we beseech you in God's stead, for he hath made him to be sin for thee? or, would you have said, for he will make him to be sin for thee?

Thirdly. Would you say, that God was in Christ, and would not impute sin to him? or, that God would be in Christ, not imputing sin to him? the one or the other you must have done; if the former, then his sin must have been im

puted

[ocr errors]

puted to Christ, or tell me to whom it was imputed, for it must have been imputed to one or the other, either to the head or to the body. argue;

I

First. If sin must be imputed to the head or to the body, and if it be not imputed to the body, then it must be imputed to the head; but the former is true, also the latter.

Secondly. If sin must be imputed to the head or to the body, and if it was not to the head till he actually died, then Adam and all from him to Christ, that went to glóry, went to glory with their sins imputed to them.

Thirdly. If Christ was made sin, he must have been made punishment for sin, as in scripture sin is sometimes taken; or he was made the act of sin, or he was made a personal sinner, or he must be made sin, being the substituted head of his constituted sinning body.

First. It is foolishness to say, he was made punishment.

Secondly. It is as ill to say, his person was Adam's act.

Thirdly. It is blasphemy to say, he was personally a sinner, then he must be made sin by imputation. Had I been to preach to him, with the ministry I have, I would have told Adam, that though the act was his proper act, yet the offence was Christ's, by virtue of Christ's being a substituted head of a constituted body, as he him

[blocks in formation]

self had once been, and that he was the figure of him that was to come.

Let us see what the prophet Isaiah would have preached, that preached about eight hundred years before Christ came in the flesh: Isaiah would have preached and told him, as chap. ix. 6, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given. And chap. liii, Isaiah might as well have preached to Adam as he did to those in his days; verse 3, Adam, when thou didst hide thy face in the garden, thou didst hide it from him that came to publish unto thee this peace,—surely he hath borne' our griefs and carried our sorrows, but he was wounded for our transgressions: all we like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all; he hath borne, he was wounded; the Lord laid on him. How is all this to be understood, but by virtue of a covenant-constitution?

Whoever opposes the doctrine must either say, that the sin of the elect was not imputed to Christi at all, or it must have be imputed some other way than by covenant-constitution, or that the covenant by which their sins was Christ's, was in order of contrivance after the fall. The two first I pass by because they will not meet that opposition the latter will.

First. But some may say, what need you labor so much for this point, if we own that the sin of the elect was Christ's by virtue of cove-"

nant

nant-constitution? Is it not enough? I answer, to deny this, is all one as to bring down the covenant in time; for if the fall was first foreseen, and then a covenant of redemption contrived, this I say, brings down the covenant in time, for the fall must have time, and if the fall must have time, and the covenant of redemption after the fall, then the covenant of redemption must be brought in time; and it is not all the pretences of thrusting it into eternity, that will avoid a distance between the fall and the covenant of redemption, by virtue of which, the sin of the elect became Christ's. Now tell me whether I am beating the air in this point or no; for if it be this covenant that constitutes a body of head and members, and this covenant cannot be settled without the fall, and the fall must have seven days at least; so without eight days the covenant cannot be settled; so from the eighth day up to eternity, Christ is not a head, for he has no body, the body is no body, for it has not a head; this must necessarily follow upon the denial of my doctrine.

Secondly. If the sin of the body of Christ was not his by and in this order, the body of Christ was short of Adam's.

Thirdly. If the doctrine is denied, the body of Christ was not so secure as Adam's.

Fourthly. If the doctrine be denied, Christ was not a surety in the fall, but this I say,

as Adam was head and surety of Eve, Christ was head and surety of Adam, 1 Cor. xi. 3. say then as the Apostle, I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man.

Fifthly. 1 the elect were not thus secured in Christ, before the fall, then the elect were beloved out of Christ.

Sixthly. They were chosen out of Christ to be put into Christ; the denial of Christ's suretyship, in Adam's covenant lets in these absurdities, with many others too tedious to mention; besides, it supposes a bridge over that gulph to pass over from heaven to hell. Let me comment upon that text, Luke xvi. 23, And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and seeing Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. Why Christ is here called Abraham, both proves and illustrates the matter, for Abraham was the head of a constituted body, and a type of Christ, so that the bosom of Abraham here signifies that covenant, which as a bosom, embraced all his constituted body. Although this doctrine was by him and others denied, yet in hell he lifted up his eyes, and seeth Lazarus in his bosom; further I observe, that upon his desiring of Abraham to send Lazarus, Abraham answers him, verse 26, that besides, Lazarus having had his evil things, and he his good, that there was a gulph fixed, so they that were in that bosom that would pass to the damned, could not,

nor

« AnteriorContinuar »