intimation to premise briefly certain Propositions four Questions five Distinctions with some few Arguments The Distinctions serving to Answer some chief Objections The Propositions Questions and Arguments tending to clear and confirm the Truth Prop. I The Lord Jesus Christ as God-man Mediator according to the will of the Father and his own voluntary consent fully obeyed the Law doing the command in a way of works and suffering the essential punishment of the curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto Divine justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant which active and passive obedience of his together with his original righteousness as a Surety God of his rich grace actually imputeth unto Beleevers whom upon the receipt thereof by the grace of Faith he declareth and accepteth as perfectly righteous and acknowledgeth them to have right unto eternal Life More fully and particularly Prop. II God in the first Covenant the substance whereof is Do this and thou shalt live Lev. 18.5 But in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Gen. 2.17 proceeded with man in a way of justice Prop. III Justice in God is either Essential whence God can do no wrong Or Relative in respect of the creature viz. Gods constant will of rendring to man what is his due this is the free constitution of Gods good pleasure whose will is the first and absolute rule of Righteousness Prop. IV Relative justice supposeth somewhat due from God to man in a way of debt so as if God should not perform it he should be unjust That which thus obligeth God in a way of Reward is called Merit in a way of Punishment Demerit yet so as the word Merit is ordinarily used promiscuously Prop. V Merit is either Absolute so God cannot be a Debtor to the creature no not to Christ himself or By Way of free Covenant so God hath in case made himself a Debtor to man Justice then consisting in rendring to every one their due and Gods will being the rule of Justice it followeth that and only that to be the due desert merit or demerit of man which God hath willed concerning him The Moral Law it self that eternal rule of manners The recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience The punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience are all the effects of Gods good pleasure Merit by vertue of free Covenant notes such an obedience whereunto God by his free Promise hath made himself a debtor according to order of Justice Demerit notes such disobedience whereunto by force of the Commination death is due according to the order of Justice Merit or Demerit is a just debt whether in way of reward or punishment the genus of merit is debt i. e. To indebt or make due its form in a way of Justice Prop. VI The demerit or desert of man by reason of sin being death according to Relative justice the rule of proceeding between God and him Justice now requireth that man should dye As God with reverence be it spoken of him who cannot be unjust in case man had continued in obedience had been unjust if he had denied him life so in case of disobedience he should be unjust in case he should not inflict death Prop. VII The elect then having sinned the elect must diâ—â— if they die in their own persons Election is frustrate God is unfaithfull if they die not at all God is unjust the Commination is untrue If elect men die in their own persons the Gospel is void if man doth not die the Law is void they die therefore in the man Christ Jesus who satisfied Justice as their Surety and so fulfilled both Law and Gospel As Gods will is the rule of righteousness so Gods will is the rule of the temperature of righteousness Prop. VIII Though God by his absolute power might have saved man without a Surety yet having constituted that inviolable rule of relative justice In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die he could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this rule but man having sinned man must die and satisfie the Law that man may live Justice requireth that the Surety should die thâ—â— the Debtor may live That he might be just and the Justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Rom. 3.26 God suffereth multitudes of sins to be unpardoned but he suffereth not one sin to be unpunished Quaere 1 What is Vindicative justice strictly taken Answ It is an execution of relative justice rewarding sin with the punishment due thereunto according to the Law Justice in God as was said before is either essential which is in him necessarily hence he can do no wrong Or relative which is in him freely that is it hath no necessary connexion with the Being of God This Relative or Moral justice is an act of Gods good pleasure whence flows his proceeding with men according to the Law of righteousness freely constituted between him and them Quaere 2 What is the supream and first cause why justice requireth that sin should be rewarded with the punishment due thereunto according to the Law Answ The free constitution of God The principal and whole reason of this mystery depends upon the good pleasure of God Nam hujus mysterii summum imo tota ratio independit quis negat potuisse Deum alio quovis modo providere saluti hominuÌ„ sed hoc voluit nec nisi hoc Cham. de Descensu To. 2. l. 5 cap. 12. for who can deny that God could have saved man in another way but he would save him thus and no otherwise then thus This great principle is all along to be kept in minde and occasionally to be applied serving not as a sword to cut but as a leading truth to loose many knots of carnal reason The good pleasure of God is the first rule of Righteousness the Cause of all Causes the Reason of all Reasons and in one word all Reason in one Reason Quaere 3 Wherein consists the sufficiency and value of the obedience of Christ as our Surety Answ In three things 1. In the dignity of the person obeying 2. In the quality or kinde of his obedience 3. In the acceptation of this obedience The person obeying was God-man The first Adam was by Gods institution a publick person hence in him sinning the world sinned The second Adam is not only by Gods institution a publick person but also an infinite person because God This publick and infinite person doing and suffering was as much as if the world of the Elect had suffered If the first Adam a finite person was by Gods institution in that act of disobedience A world of men why should it seem strange that the second Adam being an infinite person should be by Gods institution in the course of his obedience As the world of the Elect He being an infinite person there needed no more then Gods pleasure to have made him The world of men yea
A DISCUSSION of that Great Point in DIVINITY THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST And the QUESTIONS about his Righteousnesse Active Passive and the Imputation thereof Being an ANSWER to a DIALOGUE INTITULED The Meritorious Price of our Redemption Justification c. By JOHN NORTON Teacher of the Church at Ipswich in New-England Who was appointed to draw up this Answer by the Generall Court Rom. 3.26 To declare I say at this time his righteousness that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus London Printed by A.M. for Geo. Calvert at the Sign of the half Moon and Joseph Nevill at the Sign of the Plough in the new Buildings in Pauls Church-yard 1653. The STATIONER to the READER FOr the better understanding of the following Treatise the Reader is desired to take notice 1. That the three Fundamental Truths therein asserted confirmed and cleared are these 1. The Imputation of the disobedience of the Elect unto Christ 2. That Christ as God-man Mediator and our Surety fulfilled the Law by his Original conformity and active and passive obedience thereunto for the Elect. 3. The Imputation of that Obedience unto the Believer for Justification 2. That the three opposite Tenets of the Dialogue as they are held forth therein are proved and concluded to be Heresies Heresie being taken for a Fundamental Error that is such as he that knowingly liveth and dieth therein cannot be saved To the much Honoured GENERAL COURT OF THE MASACHUSETS Colonie Now sitting at Boston in New-England Right Worshipfull Worshipfull and much Honoured in our Lord Jesus THat this weak Treatise cometh forth under your Name cannot seem strange to him who remembers Natures Off-spring by instinct sheltring it self under those wings from whence it received life and breath Reluctances from personall unfitnesse to undertake this Service Religion forbad me to hearken after whilest I considered the call of the Court thereunto to be the call of God and how unworthy it would be for any of Aarons Sons so far as lieth in them to fail Moses leading on and calling to follow in a Cause immediately concerning the Lord Jesus especially at such a time when to be silent were not only to deny a joynt-witnessing with you to the truth but in appearance tacitely to strengthen the adversary in bearing false witnesse against the power of the Christian Magistrate concerning the Defence of the Truth Seeing Donatus now crieth aloud again Quid imperatori cum Ecclesiis What hath the Emperor to do with the Churches Notwithstanding that position concerning the Magistrates power in matters of Religion be attested to by Civill-Law Common-Law Nature Scripture Reason and Testimony both old and new The lawfull Administrations by the Kings of Judah touching the custody of the first Table they did not as Types of Christ but as Servants of Christ otherwise what was done by the Type must be fullfilled by the Anti-type but Christ never exercised any act of Civil Government Again the coming of the Anti-type is the abolishing of the Type consequently then it should be unlawfull for Civil power now to assist the Cause of Religion The reason given of such administrations was not typicall but morall viZ. to put away evil from Israel the moral reason is of like force now as then the reason of the Law and the Law live and die together 1 King 20.42 2 Chron. â—3 11 Ahab King over an Apostate Church dieth for not putting Benhadad to death for Blasphemy When Jehojada put the Crown upon Joash his head he gave the Testimony into his hand The King of Nineveh proclaimeth a Fast Jon. 3.7 Dan. 3.29 Nebuchadnezzar makes a Decree against Blasphemy Ezra 1. Cyrus giveth out a Proclamation for the Buiiding of the Temple Dan. 6.29 Darius the Mede makes a Decree for the acknowledgement of the true God Ezra 7.13 The like doth Artaxerxes for the beautifying of the House of the Lord. These being Heathen Princes could not be Types of Christ as Kings of Judah In the times of the Gospel Act. 21.28 23.29.24.5.6.25.8 19.20.26.3 Paul in a matter of Religion appealeth unto Caesar which neither Lysias Felix Festus nor Agrippa decline the audience of As Religion was the cause of the Warre purposed between the nine Tribes and a half and those on the other side of Jordan So Religion shall be the cause of the War both purposed and performed by the ten Kings against the Man of Sinne Rev. 17. â—â— which supposeth Civil Authority acting therein Isa 49.23 The Prophets speaking of the times of the Gospel assure the godly that Kings shall be their Nursing Fathers and Queens their Nursing Mothers and that false Prophets shall be thrust through with a Sword Zec. 13.3 This power then of the Magistrate expires not together with the Legall dispensation of the Covenant From the premises appears the vanity as well as ignorance of their evasion who acknowledge the power of the Magistrate in the time of the Old yet deny it in the time of the New Testament The adaequate end of the Magistrate is to procure that the people may live a peaceable life in all godlines and honesty 1 Tim. 2.2 Magistrates are called Gods strange Gods who take no care of godlinesse 'T is a carnal and unworthy position that limits the Magistrate to the Corporall and restrains him from the care of the spirituall good of the Subject thereby spoiling this Olive of its choicest fatnesse wherewith it rejoyceth both God and man That licentious and pestilent Proposition The care of the matters of Religion belongs not to the Magistrate is a Stratagem of the Old Serpent and Father of lies to make free passage for the doctrine of devils an invention not unlike Sauls Oath the trouble of Israel and escape of the Enemy a sad errour that fosters all errour a Satanicall device tending to undermine the policy of God attempting to charm that Sword with a fallacy whose dexterous and vigorous use instrumentally puts away evill from Israel and turneth every way in its manner to keep the path of the Tree of life The rusting of this Sword of divine execution in the Scabbard hath been more destructive unto truth then the drawing of the Sword of Persecution Persecution hath slain Thousands but the deadly Sea of false doctrine hath slain ten Thousands See Mr Cottons Answer to Mr W. ch 33. Might this Imposture prevail then rejoyce ye Heretiques Idolaters Seducers Ranters c. but wo be to the Sheep of the slaughter whose Possessours may slay them and pleade themselves Not-guilty at the civil Barre Both Swords make up a compleat Medium of all our good and remedy of all evil and are of speciall use each to other mutually as well as of necessary use unto the people joyntly The Magistrates need the Ministery to fix them in the Consciences of men and the Ministers need the Magistracy to preserve them from men that have no Conscience
our righteousnesse and justification This the Reader is desired to take full notice of it in the Dialogues corrupt sense being that Helena in defence whereof a good part of the ensuing discourse spends it self and the just confutation whereof here given and kept in minde may serve as an answer to the after frequent repetitions of the same thing That Atonement or pardon of sin only especially such as denieth the Legal Obedience of Christ imputed cannot be the righteousnesse of a sinner is proved thus The difference of the nature of justice and pardon of sin manifests that pardon of sin only is not justice or righteousnesse Pardon and sinlessenesse take away deformity in respect of the Law but righteousnesse consists in a conformity unto the Law Pardon of sin is an effect of that which is the sinners righteousnesse For the clearing whereof three distinct notions in the justification of a sinner are to be attended to 1. Righteousnesse it self i. e. the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed called by some justification taken actively or the application thereof on Gods part 2. The receiving of this gift of righteousnesse by faith Rom. 5.17 whereby we are just called by some justification taken passively or the application thereof on our part 3. Vid. Buch. loc 31 q. 6. Remissio peccatorum est pars nostrae justificationis sed non est pars nostrae justitiae Polan syntag p. 1493. The judicial pronouncing of the beleever in the Court of conscience hereupon to be just by the vertue of the promise of the Gospel for the merit sake of Christ this Divines call our justification because we are now declared to be just and are judicially just that is the Beleever now made righteous by faith is judicially discharged and declared to be discharged from the condemning guilt and punishment of sin and accepted as righteous unto eternall life The first is our righteousnesse or justice it self The second is our being justified The third is the judiciall pronunciation that we are justified so that pardon of sin is not a part of righteousnesse it self but a part of the judiciall sentence concerning one that is righteous and because he is righteous To say pardon of sin is righteousnesse is self is to confound the effect with the cause Whence the reason is plain why notwithstanding both righteousnesse or justice and the pardon of sins be by Divines frequently made ingredients into the definition of justification yet righteousnesse and pardon of sins are not to be looked at as the same thing Such definitions are not nor is it by the Authour thereof so intended perfect definitions adequate to thing defined but they are descriptions or imperfect definitions so expressed as best seems to communicate the truth unto the capacity of the reader Again Justification is an accident now Logicians teach us such definitions of accidents to be oftentimes helpful to the understanding that make use of other terms besides those which are essentiall If pardon of sin were a part of a sinners righteousnesse yet being but a part it could not be the whole Pardon of sin cannot compleat righteousnesse because righteousnesse doth not only consist in being sinlesse but also in being just the heavens are sinlesse yet they are not just the Law is not satisfied with negative obedience Not only he that doth do what the Law forbiddeth shall die Gen. 2.17 but he that continueth not in the things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 Being sinlesse acquits from obnoxiousnesse unto hell but being just giveth a right unto heaven There is an observable difference between being unjust Injustus non-injustus non-justus justus not-unjust not-just just The sinner yet not a beleever is unjust the unreasonable creature is not-unjust Adam in innocency was more then not-unjust yet was not just The Beleever is just There is no such pardon of sin as the Dialogue affirms namely such a pardon of sin as doth not only disown the Legal obedience of Christ imputed as its cause but also disclaims the very being of it The being of the Dialogues pardon is the not being of Christs active and passive mediatorly obedience to the Law It is such a fiction as the Authour of it and that at his conclusion undertaking to shew its being from the causes thereof Dial. p. 133. telleth us the formal cause is the fathers atonement pardon and forgivenesse but the subject matter is beleeving sinners of all sorts the subject matter are the persons receiving justification which some Divines call the matter of justification taken passively yet adding therewith the Legall obedience of Christ which they call the matter of justification taken actively namely that which is the matter whereby a person elect and called is justified but if you enquire after the essential matter of justification amongst the causes enumerated by the Authour behold the Dialogue is speechlesse and presents you with a form without a matter such a being as is neither created nor increated If Christs Legal obedience was the expiation of sin that is if Christ in way of obedient fulfilling the Law was a person accursed the sacrificing of whom in way of satisfaction to divine justice was necessary to the taking away of sin Then there is no pardon of sin without Christs Legal obedience so fulfilled and imputed But Christs Legal obedience was the expiation of sin which appeareth thus The Legal offerings of atonement were typical expiations of sin Exod. 29.36 ch 36. Lev. 16. therefore Christ was the reall expiation of sin He in way of obedient fulfilling of the Law Heb. 10 9. Psa 40.8 Mat. 5.7 was a person accursed and that with a paenal and eternal curse Gal. 3.13 which is already proved in the fore-going vindication of the Text. The sacrificing of whom in way of satisfaction to divine justice was necessary to the taking away of sin Isa 53.10 Rom. 3.26 Heb. 9.22 where bloud is understood synechdochically part of his suffering put for the whole his bloud was shed together with the wrath of God because it was shed as the bloud of a person accursed And he went a little further c. fell on his face c. praied saying O my Father if it be possible Let this cup passe from me to the same effect he praied the second time and the third time Mat. 26.39 42 44. If it be possible If it be possible If it be possible hereby the definitive way of God being set concerning the salvation of the Elect Christ abundantly sheweth there was no other possible way of redemption but by his drinking up the cup of his Fathers wrath for us whatsoever the Dialogue saith to the contrary God doubtlesse will not own those pardons for disobedience unto his Law which will not own Christs meritorious obedience to that Law and that as the cause of pardon If our very pardons minister matter of condemnation how great is that condemnation Who can lay
having no essentiall matter witnesse the Dialogues enumeration of the causes since the righteousnesse of the morall Law fullfilled by Christ was typified by the Ceremoniall Law the righteousnesse of the Law is fullfilled in us because we by faith apprehend the obedience of Christ who fullfilled the Law for us Perkins in Gal. 3. so M. Perkins with the rest of the cloud of witnesses neither is there any other tolerable interpretation possible to be given With the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse Rom. 10.10 that is unto a judiciall righteousnesse upon beleeving we are judicially declared to be righteous with the righteousnesse of the Law though not by the Law That which was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse was that which Abraham so beleeved as that his faith for the sake of the object thereof was accounted unto him for righteousnesse Imputing and beleeving are as giving and receiving But righteousnesse without works viz. the righteousness of Christ not pardon of sin which is the effect of that righteousnesse received Act. 10.43 was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Rom. 46. because it is imputed to all that are blessed universally whereof Abraham was an eminent one therefore the righteousnesse of Christ was that which Abraham so beleeved as that his faith for the sake of the object thereof was accounted unto him for righteousnesse Dialogu And in this sense the Apostle Paul doth prove that Abrahams faith was accounted to him for righteousnesse by a Testimony taken from David Psa 32. saying even as David also describeth the blessednesse of that man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord doth not impute sinne What other reason can any man else render why the Apostle should enterlace this testimony in this place but to describe unto us the true manner how Abrahams faith did make him righteous namely because by his faith he did apprehend and receive the fathers atonement by which his sins were forgiven covered and not imputed Answ We readily acknowledge that Paul Rom. 4.3 proveth that Abrahams faith was accounted to him for righteousnesse out of Moses Gen. 15.6 the scop of the Apostle in citing Psal 32.1 2. is not to prove the personall justification of Abraham by faith but to prove justification in the generall both of the Father of the faithfull and all others to be by faith and the reason why the Apostle cites the testimony of David Rom. 4.6 7 8. is to strengthen his doctrine of justification by faith without works which he having proved by the example of Abraham proceedeth to confirm it from the testimony of David His argumentation or manner of reasoning lying thus justification is by imputation therefore by faith without works the not-imputation of sin presupposeth imputation of righteousnesse ver 6 7. Evangelicall imputation of righteousnesse supposeth the righteousnesse that is imputed to be anothers subjectively and inherently therefore to be applied as ours by faith Touching Abrahams apprehending the Fathers Atonement by faith and the imputing oâ— accounting his faith unto him for righteousnesse we saw before but that Abrahams faith was accounted unto him for righteousnesse in the sense of the Dialogue is by us still denied and disproved by you still said and not proved Dialogu And thus after this sort the Apostle doth bring in forgivenesse of sin as an effect of justifying faith for faith is the only instrument of the Spirit by which sinners come to be united to the Mediator in and through whose Mediation they apprehend and receive the Fathers Atonement pardon and forgivenesse for their full and perfect justification Answ If atonement pardon and forgivenesse be the effect of justifying faith then they cannot be our righteousnesse for that is the object of our justifying faith Righteousnesse is before justifying faith as the object is before the act Atonement is after it as the effect is after the cause to say the cause and the effect is the same is to say a thing is before and after it self Dialogu This was the only true reason why God imputed Abrahams faith to him for righteousnesse namely because he beleeved in Gods atonement through the mediation of the seed promised Answ We have seen before that Atonement was not and also what was the true cause why Abrahams faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse The Atonement of the Dialogue is not Gods Atonement but a pestilent fiction to beleeve in it is to beleeve in an abomination Dialogu And it is further evident that this doctrine of a sinners righteousnesse by faith was taught and preached by all the Prophets as Peter affirmeth for all the Prophets saith he do witnesse that through the Name of Christ whosoever beleeveth in him shall receive remission of sins Act. 10.43 that is to say they shall receive remission of their sins for their justification by the Fathers atonement procured by Christs sacrifice of atonement Answ We are to distinguish between the righteousnesse of a sinner and the remission of sins Righteousness is the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed Remission of sins is the judiciall declaration of our discharge from the guilt and punishment of sin a part of our justification strictly taken and an effect of righteousnesse The name of Christ is Jehovah our Righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 according to which whosoever beleeveth in him how can it be otherwise but that remission of sins must follow as the effect doth its cause If then righteousnesse be the cause and atonement or remission of sin the effect To say again Atonement is our righteousnesse is to say the effect is the cause that is to say a thing is before and after it self that is to say and say again an impossibility without any probability Dialogu And to this tenour the Apostle Paul doth explain the use of faith in the point of a sinners justification Phil. 3 9. and in Rom. 10.4 6 10. With the heart saith he man beleeveth unto righteousnesse He doth not say faith is a sinners righteousnesse but that by it a sinner beleeveth unto righteousnesse Answ A bare deniall especially strengthened with the reasons thereof that are readily obvious out of the foregoing discourse is a sufficient answer to your bare allegation of Phi. 3 9. The righteousness whereof Paul speaks Rom. 10.10 because it hath faith foregoing it as is evident out of the words alledged must needs be such as followeth faith and may be either understood of Gods declaration of the righteousnesse of a beleever in the Court of conscience or of the beleevers declaration of his righteousnesse unto others as works are said to justifie declaratively which latter interpretation the context seemeth to favour Paul doth not say atonement is a sinners righteousnesse which is the question but he doth say that visible confession namely externall profession worship and conversation is the effect of that faith which is accounted unto righteousnesse
his satisfaction that is though some part of this obedience be more eminent then others yet the whole is not compleat without the least All the obedience of Christ makes but one obedience All his obedience is one copulative Merit Merit justly indebteth it is that whereunto the thing merited is due according to the order of justice Debt then according to the order of justice is so a debt as that in case God should not perform it he should not be just The application of the good of election to the redeemed becometh a just debt for the obedience sake of Christ by vertue of the Covenant between God and Christ wherein God hath in this sense freely made himself a debtor Isa 53.10 He is faithfull and just to forgive us our sin 1 Joh. 1.9 As Adams disobedience justly deserved condemnation so Christs obedience justly deserveth salvation for his seed His merit exceedeth Adams demerit Obj. Works and Grace are opposite Rom. 11.6 Buchan iust Theol. loc 31. qu. 16. How can merit consist with the Covenant of grace Ans The Covenant of grace denieth merit in the proper debtor but not in the surety It denieth merit in us but not in Christ In the Covenant of works man was capable of merit Rom. 3.23 in the Covenant of grace man is uncapable of merit so we are to understand Rom. 11.6 But to him that workerh not but beleeveth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is accounted for righteousnesse Our salvation cost Christ the full price though it cost us nothing at all The materiall cause The material cause of our justification is the whole course of the active and passive obedience of Christ together with his habituall conformity unto the Law As the matter of Adams justification in innocency had not consisted in one act of obedience but of a whole course of obedience the finishing of which was requisite to have made him just So it is with the obedience of Christ If the justification of a sinner consisteth not only in the not-imputation of sin but also in the imputation of righteousnesse then both the active and passive obedience of Christ are requisite to the matter of our justification But the justification of a sinner consisteth not only of the not-imputation of sin but also of the imputation of righteousnesse 'T is not enough for us not to be unjust but we must also be just Therefore Perfect obedience to the Law is the matter of our justification Gal. 3.10 But the whole obedience of Christ was requisite to the performance of perfect Obedience to the Law Therefore The whole obedience of Christ is requisite to the matter of our justification That righteousnesse of the Law which Christ fullfilled in our stead is the matter of our Justification But the righteousnesse of the Law which Christ fulfilled in our stead is compleated of his whole active and passive obedience together with his originall righteousnesse Therefore The difference between the obedience of Christ considered as an ingredient into the meritorious cause The difference between the obedience of Christ considered as an ingredient into the meritorious cause and considered as the matter of our justification and considered as the matter of our justification appeareth thus In the meritorious cause it is to be considered together with the person office and merit In the materiall cause it is considered as distinct from all these They are distinguished as cause and effect Obedience in the materiall cause is the effect of obedience considered in the meritorious cause They are distinguished as the whole and the part Christs obedience is but a part only of the meritorious but the whole of the materiall cause In the meritorious cause it is both a Legall and an Evangelicall act Christs obeying the Law is Legall but his obeying for us is Evangelicall in the materiall cause it is only an Evangelicall act it is given to us freely There it is considered as wrought by him for us here as applied to us There is as a garment made here as a garment put on There it may be compared to the payment of the money by the Surety here to the money as paid and accounted unto the use of the debtor As it is not the commission of our disobedience but the guilt and punishment that is imputed to Christ so it is not the formall working of obedience or doing of the command but the good vertue and efficacy thereof that is imputed unto the Beleever Obedience righteousnesse and life disobedience guilt which is a right unto punishment and punishment that is death answer one the other The formall cause of justification is imputation The formal cause Imputation is the actuall and effectuall application of the Righteousnesse of Christ unto a Beleever To impute reckon or account in this place intend the same thing the same word in Greek being indifferently translated by any of these Rom. 4. To impute is to reckon that unto another which in way of righteousnesse whether of debt or grace belongs unto him Imputation is either Legall imputing to us that which we have done so the word is used Rom. 4. or Evangelicall imputing to us that which another hath done Thus to impute is for God in his act of justifying a sinner to account the righteousnesse of Christ which is not ours formally nor by just debt to be ours by grace and that as verily and really ours as if it were wrought by us And in this sense the word is used ten times Rom. 4.3 5 6 8 9 10 11.22 23 24. The justification of a Beleever is either by righteousnesse inherent or imputed But not by righteousnesse inherent Therefore by righteousnesse imputed The righteousnesse whereby man is justified before God is perfect It were destructive to the merit of Christ and to turn the Covenant of grace into a Covenant of works to say we are justified by righteousnesse inherent in us The instrumentall cause of justification is faith We are justified by faith correlatively that is we are justified by that which is the correlate of faith namely the obedience of Christ The meaning is 't is the obedience of Christ not faith it self that justifieth i. e. that which is apprehended not that which doth apprehend Synop. par Theol. disp 33. n. 32. Twist l. 1. p. 1. de prae D. 3. f. 4. Med. l. 1. c. 20. The finall cause is the manifestation of the glory of mercy tempered with justice Of mercy in that he justifieth the ungodly Rom. 4 5. And that freely Rom. 3.24 Of justice in that he justifieth not without Christs full satisfaction unto the Law Rom. 3.26 CHAP. VIII Of the Dialogues examination of certain Arguments propounded by M. Forbes for the proving of justification by the Imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in his death and satisfaction Dialogu I Pray you produce some of his Arguments that they may be tried and examined whether there be any weight of truth
in them or no. Answ The Dialogue here takes off it self from further acting the part of an opponent against the imputation of Christs Legall obedience both active and passive unto justification and now proceeds to act the part of a Respondent unto certain Arguments of M. Forbes alledged to prove that sinners are justified by the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in his death This it doth not as adhering to us wherein M. Forbes dissents for it agreeth with him wherein he disagreeth but as opposing him wherein he consents with us in the doctrine of imputation That the answer therefore may be as full in the Vindication as the Dialogue pretends to be in the refutation of the Doctrine of the Orthodox we shall examine the Dialogues examination and impertinences omitted consider all that and only that which herein concerns the Question Dialogu Nothing saith M. Forbes is made of God to be a sinners righteousnesse but Jesus Christ alone and his righteousnesse and this he proves by 1 Cor. 1.30 Jer. 23.26 with other places The Apostle saith that Christ was made of God unto us righteousnesse but how not as the doctrine of imputation speaketh but thus God made him to be our righteousnesse in a Mediatoriall way by ordaining him to be the only meritorious procuring cause of his atonement which is a sinners onely righteousnesse Christ is not a sinners righteousnesse any otherwise but in a Mediatoriall way only as I have oft warned Christ is called Jehovah our righteousnesse but still it must be understood in a Mediatoriall way and no otherwise We have seen already that Atonement is not righteousnesse it cannot then be a sinners only righteousnesse That which the Dialogue cals a Mediatorial way is indeed no way but is destructive unto the true way and consequently an hereticall way denying of and inconsisting with the Mediatorly obedience of Christ unto the Law The Legall obedience of Christ is to be considered formally and virtually as considered formally it is an ingredient into the meritorious cause of our justification as considered virtually it is the materiall cause thereof Of which before Dialogu And thus Christ is our Righteousnesse in one respect the Father in another and the holy Ghost in another Each person is a sinners righteousnesse in severall respects The manner how Christ should justifie the many was by bearing their iniquities and how else did he bear their iniquities but by his sacrifice of Atonement and in this sense Christ is said to justifie us with his bloud Rom. 5.9 that is to say by his Sacrifice of Atonement therefore his righteousnesse cannot be the formall cause of a sinners righteousnesse it is but the procuring cause of the Fathers atonement which is the only formall cause of a sinners righteousnesse Answ That Proposition Christ bare our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement is an equivocal proposition capable of diverse construct ons in the sense of the Orthodox 't is true in the sense of the Dialogue false both which senses are sufficiently known by the foregoing discourse The Apostle Rom. 5.9 speaketh of the meritoritorious cause part thereof being put for the whole Synechdochically Upon this occasion let us observe both the intent and consent of such Scriptures as speak diversly of the cause of justification We are said to be justified by grace Rom. 3.24 i. e. as the efficient cause By his bloud Rom. 5 9. i. e. as the meritorious cause By his obedience Rom. 5.19 i. e. as the materiall cause By imputation viz. of his obedience Rom. 4.6 i. e. as the formall cause By faith Rom. 5.1 i. e. as the instrument Your inference Christ bare our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement therefore his righteousnesse cannot be the formall cause of a sinners righteousness is impertinent and argues that you understand not our doctrine We say not that the obedience of Christ is the formall but the materiall cause of a sinners righteousnesse and that imputation is the formall cause thereof Dialogu The Father is a sinners righteousnesse 1. Efficiently 2. Formally His Atonement so procured must needs be the formall cause of a sinners full and perfect righteousnesse Answ To say the Father is a sinners righteousnesse formally sounds too near Osianders errour who held that we were justified by the essentiall righteousnesse of God But the following words shew you mistake or at least inconveniently use the term formally and intend no other then your former error The efficient cause of a sinners righteousnesse is the Father Father taken not personally but essentially for God the Father Son and holy Ghost Dialogu The holy Ghost also doth make sinners righteous instrumentally by fitting preparing and qualifying sinners for the Fathers Atonement by quickening their souls with the lively grace of faith by which grace sinners are enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers Atonement Answ Faith is the instrument or instrumentall cause of justification 'T is also true that the grace of faith as the application of all other benefits of redemption unto the Elect is the effect of the holy Ghost and because a finishing work it is ascribed to the third Person yet according to that received Rule All the works of God upon the creature are wrought in common by all the three persons notwithstanding the work be principally ascribed unto that person whose manner of existence doth most eminently appear in it 'T is a great errour both in Divinity and Logick to say the holy Ghost who is God and onely God is an instrumental cause which alwaies notes inferiority Dialogu It is well that your Authour will grant remission of sins to be righteousnesse in effect if remission of sins be a sinners righteousnesse then I pray consider whose act it is to forgive sins formally I have already proved it to be the Fathers act to forgive sin formally and not Christs he doth forgive sin no otherwise but as a Mediatour by procuring his Fathers pardon and forgivensse Answ Righteousnesse is taken strictly for the matter and form of justification only or largely for justification as consisting of its causes Rom. 10.10 remission of sins is an immediate and inseparable effect of the former but a part of the latter Imputation which is the formall cause of justification is a transient act and is the effect of the Father taken essentially Our Question is not concerning the formall but the materiall cause of justification Dialogu M. Forbes is put to his shifts to declare that Christs passive Obedience is the matter of a sinners righteousnesse by a distinction between Christ as he was our Lamb for Sacrifice in his humane nature and as he was our Priest in his divine nature for else he did foresee that he should run into an exceeding grosse absurdity if he had made any action of Christs God-head or Priestly nature to have been a sinners righteousnesse by imputation Therefore to avoid that absurdity he doth place a sinners righteousnesse in his passive
doubtlesse parts of Evangelicall atonement or reconciliation But whether justification precisely considered be a part or necessary antecedent and means of Reconciliation as there is no need of discussing in order to the resolution of the present question so is it freely left to the judgment of the Reader or to any after disquisition only adding that satisfaction for an offence is an antecedent and means rather then a part of the reconciliation following thereupon between such as are made friends after variance Quamvis reconciliatio potius quiddam consequens justificationis effectus sit Syn. pur Theol. dis 33. n. 6. Reconciliation say the Leiden Divines is rather a consequent and effect of justification And both that Text God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them 2 Cor. 5.19 and the Analogy of faith may as well bear an interpretation agreeable hereunto as any other thus God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself how by not imputing their trespasses unto them so as the not-imputation of sinne may seem to be an antecedent and means rather then a part of atonement or reconciliation Dialogu Therefore his forgivenesse of sin is not only a bare acquittance of the fault but it doth comprehend under it his receiving of sinners into favour And I do also grant that his receiving of sinners into favour must be distinguished as another part of Gods Atonement Answ Here you do not obscurely what before you did in effect expresly viz. make forgivenesse and receiving into favour parts of Gods atonement yet pag. 154. lin 19. you make them effects of the Fathers atonement If they be parts they cannot be effects if effects they cannot be parts because the part is before the whole i. e. it s integrum but the effect is after the cause you may as well make the same thing before and after it self as make these stand together Dialogu This also must be remembred that no other person in Trinity doth forgive sins formally but God the Father only Mar. 2.7 Col. 2.13 he of his free grace did ordain the Mediatour as the meritorious procuring cause of his forgivenesse and therefore it is said that he doth forgive us all our sins for Christs sake Ephes 4.32 sometimes Christ is said to forgive sins Col. 3.3 but still we must understand his forgivenesse to be in a Mediatoriall way not formally Answ The acts or works of God are of three sorts Essentiall whose principle is the divine essence subsisting in the relative properties of Father Sonne and holy Ghost its object the creature Personal whose both principle and object or term is one or more of the three persons or mixt the principle whereof is the divine essence the object or term one of the persons such is the Incarnation having the divine essence for its principle the second person for its term or object The externall essentiall works of God are wrought jointly immediatly and formally by all the persons because the principle of them is the divine essence Essentiae in personis non discrepat potentia Aug. in Joan. tract 20. which is common to all the three persons the Son is God of himself the holy Ghost is God of himself the deniall herof argueth no little ignorance of the nature of God The Father father being taken essentially forgiveth sinne formally and authoritatively as the Supreme Lord Christ as Mediatour formally and authoritatively by an authority derived as a subordinate Lord. When we say Christ forgiveth sin formally the meaning is he actually taketh away sin by an authoritative and judiciall discharging the sinner from the guilt and punishment thereof and doth not only declare the forgivenesse of sinne as the Ministery doth Dialogu And whereas I have oftentimes in this Treatise made Gods atonement to comprehend under it our Redemption from sin as well as our justification and adoption I would have you take notice that I do not mean that Gods atonement doth contain under it Redemption as another distinct point differing from justification but I make our redemption and freedom from sin by the Fathers atonement to be all one with our justification from sinne Answ Redemption is taken actively Luk. 2.38 for the purchasing of grace and glory for the elect by laying down of a price so Redemption is the meritorious cause and atonement is an effect Or passively for the good of Redemption applied Rom. 8.23 so redemption is the whole and atonement is the part but atonement whether it be taken for reconciliation or for freedom from sin can in neither sense be the same with redemption Forgivenesse of sin Eph. 1.7 Col. 1.14 is mentioned as a principall but neither there or elsewhere as the totall good of redemption Dialogu The Fathers Atonement or Reconciliation is the top-mercy of all mercies that makes poor sinners happy Answ The great act of mercy is the gift of Jesus Christ to be our Head and Saviour He is the Gift of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 4.10 How shall he not with him also freely give us all things Rom. 8.32 No benefit following the Gift of Christ is to be compared with Christ himself Dialogu But the truth is a sinners Atonement must be considered as it is the work of all the Trinity 1. The Father must be considered as the efficient and as the formal cause of a sinners atonement 2. The Mediatour must be considered as the only meritorious procuring cause of the Fathers Atonement Rom. 5.10 3. The holy Ghost must be considered as the principal instrumental cause of the Fathers atonement by working in sinners the grace of faith by which sinners are enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers atonement Or thus The Father must be considered as the efficient cause the Son as the Mediatoriall procuring cause and the holy Ghost as the principall instrumentall cause of all blessings that poor believing sinners do enjoy Eph. 1.3 Answ The will of God which is an immanent act is the efficient cause but a created effectuall transient motion of the Spirit the formall cause of the working a sinners Atonement By that God from Eternity willeth the infallible being of atonement By this God in time worketh atonement according to his will The Universall efficient cause of all things is uncreated but created acts of God whether permanent or transient done in time or aeviternity are the formall causes of things i. e. of giving to them their actuall being All the external essential works of God i. e. all his works concerning the creature viz whatsoever being or thing is besides God are wrought jointly immediatly equally and formally as was said before by all the three persons because essentiall works universally both internall and externall proceed from the essence it self subsisting in the three Persons Father Son and holy Ghost not from the manner of the essence i. e. the persons as persons The order and manner of the working of the three
Persons upon the creature is answerable to the manner of their subsistence in the divine nature The Father worketh of himself the Son worketh from the-Father Joh. 5.19 30. and 8.28 The holy Ghost worketh from the Father and the Son Joh. 16.13 hence though all the works of God concerning the creature are wrought jointly by all the three persons yet is the work principally ascribed to that person whose manner of subsistence doth most eminently appear therein Beginning works as creation are ascribed principally to the first person the carrying works on to perfection as redemption to the second person the perfecting of them as the application of redemption under which last work the grace of justifying faith is contained unto the third person To make the first person an efficient and the third person an instrumentall cause in the working of reconciliation or faith were by consequence to affirm some inferiority of the third person in respect of the fiâ—st consequently an inequality between the persons which were to inferre an inequality in God because every person is God which leaving the consideration of more dangerous inferences to the intelligent Reader is inconsisting with the perfection of God so unsafe is it to speak unadvisedly in these mysteries The second person in the Trinity is to be considered as in himself so he is only God and not man or as subsisting in personall Union with the manhood so he is God-man The second Person in the Trinity considered in himself works together with the Father and the holy Ghost jointly and equally in all essentiall works consequently as concerning faith atonement c. as we have already seen The Mediatorly obedience of Christ i. e. of God-man consisting of the divine and humane nature in one person called by the Father unto that service is the procuring and only meritorious cause of the Fathers atonement and all other spirituall blessings that beleeving sinners do enjoy Dialogu To conclude If thou hast gotten any spirituall blessing by any thing that I have said in this Treatise Let God have all the glory Answ To conclude Herosis in capite Pol. Syn. l. 7. c. 22. Vide Par. 1. Cor. 1.11 and 11.19 Ames Cas Con. l. 4. c. 4 Val. tom 3. dis 1. q. 11. punct 1 2 3. Taking heresie for a fundamentall errour that is such as whosoever liveth and dieth in cannot be saved The Dialogue containeth three Heresies The first denying the imputation of the sin of the Elect unto Christ and his suffering the punishment due thereunto contrary to 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 Isa 53.5 6. and Other Arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative Thereby leaving the Elect to perish in their sinne 1 Cor. 15.17 18. This Heresie is maintained in the first part The second denying that Christ as God-man Mediatour obeyed the Law and therewith that he obeyed it for us as our surety contrary to Galat. 4.4 5. Matth. 5 17 18. Heb. 10.7 compared with Psa 48.7 8. Rom. 3.31 and Other arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative Thereby rendring Christ both an unfaithfull and an insufficient Saviour and spoiling the elect of salvation This Heresie is maintained in the former Section of the second part The third 1. Denying the Imputation of Christs obedience unto justification Contrary to Rom. 4. Rom. 5.19 Phil. 3.19 and the arguments in the answer proving the affirmative Thereby leaving all that be ungodly under an impossibility of being justified 2. Destroying the very being of a sinners righteousnesse by taking away the obedience of Christ unto the Law and imputation which are the matter and form that is the essentiall causes of justification 3. Placing a sinners righteousnesse in a fictitious Atonement or pardon of sin such as in effect manifestly doth not only deny it self to be the effect of but denieth yea and defieth the very being of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ to the Law for us This Heresie is maintained in the second Section of the second part The first holdeth us in all our sin and continueth the full wrath of God abiding upon us The second takes away our Saviour The third takes away our righteousnesse and our justification What need the Enemy of Jesus grace and souls adde more This threefold cord of Hereticall doctrine so directly and deeply destructive to the truth of the Gospel and salvation of man We desiring after Christs example to distinguish where there is cause between Peter and Satan reserving all charitable and compassionate thoughts according to rule touching the compiler thereof who we hope did it ignorantly do principally impute to him who is not only a lyar but also a murtherer from the beginning Now the good Spirit of Grace that great Defender and Teacher of the Truth as it is in Jesus who in his rich mercy causeth all then whom he loveth to beleeve the truth that they may be saved and in his righteous judgement giveth up such who receive not the truth in the love of it to beleeve a lie that they may be damned Grant that truth may look down from heaven in this hour and power of the spirit of errour so perilously prevailing to deceive if it were possible the very elect Preserve the Reader from every false way and leade him into all truth Magnifie his compassion in the pardon and recovery of the Authour a person in many respects to be very much tendred of us in so saving of him though as by fire as that his rising again may be much more advantageous to the truth comfortable to the people of God and honourable to himself then his fall hath been scandalous grieving or dishonourable And lastly Inspire us all with a discerning and conscientious spirit as concerning the mystery of piety working in the way of truth and the mystery of iniquity working in the way of lying so as that in these evil daies wherein errours and heresies must be we may manifest our selves approved and to be acted vigorously and efficaciously by the spirit of him who sealed that good confession before Pontius Pilate saying To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world that I should bear witnesse to the truth Christian Reader if as sometimes through grace it was with Augustine concerning the Heresie of Pelagius by occasion of this Dialogue and other perilous Treatises with which this hour of temptation abounds threatning it it were possible to deceive the very elect thou hast been stirred up more to search into and hate the unsound tenets contained therein and more to search into and love the sound doctrines contrary thereunto Remember to glorifie that God which brings Light out of Darknesse by his good Spirit leading all those whose Names are written in the Book of Life of the Lamb into all truth teaching them to abhorre the wine of deadly errours notwithstanding they are presented in a golden cup and to discern Satan though transformed into an Angel of Light Glory be to God in Jesus Christ.
followeth upon Adams sin Originall sin proceeding thence as an effect from the cause and actuall sin as an act from the habit As all evil is inflicted for sin so all evil in Scripture-language is called Death The evil of affliction Exo. 10.17 Of bodily Death Gen. 3.15 Rom. 8.10 Gen. 26.10 Exo. 21.16 Of spirituall death i.e. the death of the soul in sin 1 Tim. 5.6 1 Joh. 3.14 Of eternall death Joh. 8.51 Ezek. 33.8 Concerning the Distribution of Death Punishment is taken in a large or strict sense If taken largely the castigations of the elect are punishments but not so if taken strictly Poena est castigatio aeterna vel vindicta poena correctionis vel maledictionis Oecolampad in Ezek. 22. Castigatio electorum est poena latè sumptâ voce poenae eadem non est poena strictè sumptā voce poenae Polan l. 6. c. 4. The sufferings of the Elect are not vindicatively-paenall in a strict sense i.e. they are not inflicted by God upon them in a way of satisfaction to justice Death is either Death In sin Separation of the Image of God from the soul and the Castigatory or correctively-poenall and temporary in the Elect Properly poenall viz. Vindicatively or strictly-poenal i.e. in way of satisfaction to divine justice Presence of sin For sin Separation of the soul from the body Temporal and castigatory in the Elect. Temporal and properly-poenal in Christ Temporal and properly poenal in the Reprobate Separation from the sense of the good things in the promise Partiall temporary and castigatory in the Elect. Total temporal and properly-poenall in Christ Total perpetual and properly-poenall in the Reprobate Presence of the evil things in the Commination Separation of the whole person soul and body from God Totall eternall and properly poenal in the Reprobate The castigatory or correctively poenall part of death only was executed upon the elect the essentiall properly poenall part upon Christ both the essentiall and circumstantiall properly-poenall parts of death upon the Reprobate The castigatory but not poenall i. e. strictly-poenall part was and is executed upon the elect Post remissam culpam adhuc tam multa patimur tandem etiam morimur ad demonstrationem debitae miseriae vel ad emendationem labilis vitae vel ad exercitationem necessariae patieutiae August tractat 124. in Joannem for though Christ freed his from the punishment of sin yet not from the castigation or correction for sin thereby leaving a testimony against sin a remedy for sin a place for conformity unto their head The whole essentiall properly-poenall death of the curse that is the whole essentiall punishment thereof was executed upon Christ The whole properly-poenal death of the curse is executed upon the reprobate both in respect of the essential and accidental parts thereof Adam then standing as a publike person containing all mankinde and which is more so standing as that the first Adam a publike person contaiing all mankinde disobeying was a figure of Christ the second Adam a publike person containing all the Elect obeying so Paul expresly who is the figure of him that was to come Rom. 5.14 the meaning of these words In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die is this If man sin man shall die either in his own person as the Reprobate or in the person of the man Christ Jesus their surery as the elect according to the distribution above so is the Text a full and universal truth Man sins and man dies Touching the Reprobate there is no controversie Concerning the Elect thus Either Christ suffereth the poenall Death of the curse due to the Elect for sin or the Elect suffer it themselves or the curse is not executed but the Elect suffer it not themselves neither is the curse not executed for then the truth of the Commination and Divine justice should fail Therefore Christ suffered the poenall Death of the curse due to the Elect for sinne Briefly this Text Gen. 2.17 is Gods judiciall denunciation of the punishment of sinne with a reservation of his purpose concerning the execution of the execution of it The punishment is denounced to shew divine detestation of sin to deterre man from sin to leave man the more inexcusable in sin his purpose concerning the execution is reserved that the mystery of the Gospel might not be opened before its time This for the clearing of the Text. Since you dislike the last member of the disjunction you do ill to approve the former for thence it followeth Either that God is not true or else that Adam with his Elect posterity must perish for they sinned yet by your exposition neither die in themselves nor in their surety notwithstanding the Divine Commination and so either you take truth from God or salvation from the elect which also denieth the truth of God in the promise in your very entrance But why cannot the curse here threatned be extended unto the Redeemer Dialogu This Text doth not comprehend Jesus Christ within the compasse of it for this Text is a part of the Covenant only that God made with Adam and his posterity respecting the happinesse they had by Creation Answ Though Christ do not fall within the compasse of the Covenant of works it doth not thence follow that he is excluded the compasse of the Text. Damnation is no part of the Gospel yet it is a part of the verse wherein the Gospel is revealed He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved but he that beleeveth not shall be damned Adam in his eating intended and prohibited in this verse was a figure of Christ to come Rom. 5.14 Vel potiu◠ex ipso eventu Evangelij patefactione hunc typum Apostolu◠nos vult intelligere Pareus in loc Sequitur illam comminationem quo die comederis morieris ex intentione divinā non fuisse purè legalem c. Vide Rhetorf exercit pro div gratia ex 2. c. 2. 'T is certain then though Adam during the first Covenant perceived it not yet that Christ was couched and comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant 'T is very probable that the Tree of Life Gen. 2.9 was a Figure of Christ who is called and indeed is the Tree of life Rev. 22.2 If Christ be not within the compasse of the Text the Text is not true Dialogu Death here threatned concerns Adam and his fallen posterity only therefore Christ cannot be included within this Death Answ This is nakedly affirmed your reason annexed being impertinent and the contrary to your assertion is already proved Dialogu God laid down this rule of Justice to Adam in the time of innocency Why should the Mediatour be comprehended under the term Thou Answ Because God so pleased Because elect sinners not dying in their own persons must die in their surety else the Text should not be a truth Unde admirabilis Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cognoscitur qui in
morbo remedium in morte vitam in perditore â—ervatorem adumbratum voluit Paraeus in locum He that compareth Rom. 5.14 with Gen. 2.17 hath an unspeakable ground of consolation whilest he reades Gods purpose to redeem us in our first fathers sinning and we in him From hence Paul gathers an argument to conclude that all Adams posterity descended from him by way of ordinary generation to be guilty of Adams sin Whilest you acknowledge that in Gen. 2.17 God laid down a rule of justice to Adam you must needs imply the surety of the elect to have satisfied that rule of justice and consequently to have suffered the wrath of God and in conclusion you tacitely contradict your self and act our cause Dialogu The nature of death intended in this Text is such as it was altogether impossible the Mediatour should suffer it Answ The distinction premised concerning death in sin and death for sin is here to be applied and accordingly the castigatory part of death in sin was intended to the sinner not to the surety The essentiall part of death for sin was intended to the surety not to the elect sinner The essentiall and circumstantiall poenall part of death in sinne and death for sin was intended for the Reprobate The Text must needs proceed according to this interpretation in respect of the elect There iâ— as good and greater reason why it should so proceed in respect of Christ it being much more impossible that he should suffer death in sinne that is become a sinner then that the elect sinners should suffer poenall i. e. properly-poenall death for sinne that is be damned though both be impossible Dialogu The death here threatned must be understood primarily of a spirituall death or death in sin Answ All that you say concerning spiritual death befalling Adam in the day that he sinned and therefore primarily inflicted is vain and impertinent for that denyeth not the inflicting of eternall death to be intended afterward nay it rather argueth eternall death to be primarily intended because not executed according to that Proposition That which is first in intention is last in execution That which is of the essence or substance of the punishment of sin is primarily in the curse and therefore primarily to be understood but death for sin not death in sin is of the essence of the punishment of sin as we saw in the first Distinction Chapter the first Instead of proving your assertion viz. That it was impossible for Christ to suffer any of the cursed death intended Gen. 2.17 your arguing only proves another thing viz. that the death here primarily intended was spirituall death i. e. death in sinne which Christ could not suffer and so you lose your Question Though it be granted that death in sin be here understood primarily yet if death for sinne be understood secondarily then this argument concludes not against Christs suffering any death intended but only against his suffering the death primarily intended in the text Though death in sin compared with eternal death be primarily intended in regard of Adams reprobate posterity yet it cannot be said it was primarily intended in respect of Adam himself if you will yield him to be saved and his elect posterity because that would imply eternall death to be secondarily intended which was never at all intended as concerning them Howsoever certain it is that death for sin as concerning the essentiall poenall part thereof is solely intended concerning Christ and death in sin not at all Dialogu Calvin in Gen. 2.17 demandeth what kinde of death it was that God threatned to fall upon Adam in this Text he answereth to this purpose It seemeth to me saith he that we must fetch the definition thereof from the contrary Consider saith he from what life Adam fell at the first saith he he was created in every part of his body and soul with pure qualities after the image of God therefore on the contrary saith he by dying the death is meant that he should be emptied of all the image of God and possessed with corrupt qualities as soon as ever he did but eat of the forbidden fruit Answ It is a vain question saith Calvin upon the place how God threatned death unto Adam in the day wherein he touched the fruit since he deferred the punishment unto a long time afterward Your labour to confirm Adams falling into death in sin the same day that he sinned is altogether impertinent the Question being Whether â—uch poenall death for sin is not here intended as it was possible for Christ to suffer Mihi definitio petenda ex opposito videtur tenendum inquaÌ„ est ex quâ vitâ homo ceciderit erat enim omni ex parte beatus Calvin in loc That poenall death for sin is here intended Calvin proveth though you omit his proof by the nature of opposites thus The death that he fell into was opposite to the good he fell from But the good he fell from was all kinde of blessednesse Therefore the death he fell into comprehended all kindes of misery This is the scope of his argumentation your mistake thereof though it is easily pardoned yet your other defect in the citation the Reader that compareth Calvin and the Dialogue together can hardly excuse Dialogu If there be good and necessary reason as there is to exempt our Mediatour from suffering the first cursed spirituall death then there is good reason also to exempt him from suffering any other curse of the Law whatsoever Answ The sum is Christ could not sinne Therefore he could not suffer the punishment due to the elect for sin as a surety a most reason-lesse and sick consequence and the contrary true He could not as Mediator and Surety have suffered satisfactorily the punishment for sinne if he had not been without sinne Though Christ was not a sinner inherently yet he was a sinner imputatively whereupon the substantiall curse of the Law was justly executed upon him Dialogu Examine the particulars of any other curse of the Law and they will be found to be such as Christ could not suffer Diseases naturall death putrefaction of body after death eternall death are curses of the Law Christ did not bear diseases and bodily infirmities yet by the common doctrine of imputation you must affirm it nor suffer naturall death in our stead nor see corruption nor suffer eternall death therefore he did not suffer the cursed death meant Gen. 2.17 Answ We are to distinguish between the sufferings which are of the essence or substance of the curse and those the inflicting whereof in particular is not of the essence of the curse Bodily diseases Putrefaction the duration of punishment for ever are not essentiall to the curse because the wrath of God may be suffered where these are not The Devils are not sick the reprobate that shall not die but be changed therefore not see coruption yet shall suffer the wrath of God No reprobates endure all miseries
offender Lev. 17.4 Or that which is not his properly but as a legall Surety only So Philemon may put Onesimus his debt on Paul ver 18. or that which though it be not his properly yet is his in a way of grace So the word Impute is used ten times Rom. 4. Distinguish between the nature of sinne and the guilt of sin and there will be no cause to say with Socinus that it is against justice to impute sin understanding thereby the guilt of sin unto an innocent person especially upon these considerations 1. If the innocent be of the same nature with the nocent Ursin Paraeus in Rom. 5. Dub. 5. 2. If he voluntarily undertake the paenal satisfaction of the debt 3. If he can satisfie the punishment 4. If he can thereby free others from the punishment which they cannot undergo 5. If in this satisfaction he looks at the glory of God and the good of man It is therefore not only a perillous untruth but a high blasphemy to say and that without any distinction should God impute our sin to our innocent Saviour he should be as unjust as the Jews were The meer imputation of the guilt of sin doth no more infer a participation with the commission of sin then the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ inferreth a participation in the working thereof Dialogu If our Mediator had stood as a guilty sinner before God by his imputing of our sins to him Then he could not have been a fit person in Gods esteem to do the office of a Mediator for our Redemption Answ As it was requisite that Christ should be without sin i. e. without the commission of sin Heb. 7.26 So it was requisite that Christ should be made fin i. e. that the guilt of sin should be legally imputed to him 2 Cor. 5.21 both were necessary to make him a meet Mediator You erre not distinguishing according to the Scripture Dialogu The common doctrine of imputation is I know not what kinde of imputation it is such a strange kinde of imputation it differs from all the severall sorts of imputing sin to any that ever I can meet withall in all the Scriptures Answ It is a judiciall imputation of that unto a person which is not his properly but made his by way of voluntary and both Legall and Evangelicall account If you know not what kinde of Imputation it is the being of things depends not upon mans knowledge much lesse upon his ignorance but upon the will of God notwithstanding the term of imputation in this sense were not in the Scripture yet the thing intended by it is The terms of essence trinity satisfaction merit c. are not in the Scripture expresly yet are they acknowledged generally to be contained in the Scripture by just consequence because the things contained by those terms are found therein expresly The very term Impute taken for judicial imputation of that unto a person which is not his properly yet reckoned to be his in a way of grace is as was said before ten times used Rom. 4. Your other Reasons for what you assert which you promise immediatly before we shall expect in their place CHAP. IV. The Vindication of Isa 53.4 5. Isa 53.4 Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows Dialogu HE saith not only saith M. Jacob that he sustained sorrows but our sorrows yea the Text hath it more significatively our very sorrows or our sorrows themselves that is to say those sorrows that else we should have born Answ This Exposition of M Jacob understood according to that distinction premised Chap. 1. M. Jacob on Christs Sufferings p 33. is both solid and acute and that this Learned Authour is so to be interpreted his own words sufficiently argue Dialogu The Evangelist Mathew hath expounded this text in a quite contrary sense Mat. 8.17 saying that this Text was fullfilled when Christ did bear our infirmities and sicknesses from the sick not as a Porter bears a burthen by laying them on his own body but bear-them away by his own power Answ That the Prophet in this Text by griefs and sorrows intends sufferings due to us for sinne is plain from the scope of the Chapter and the comparing of the 4. and 5. verses with 1 Pet. 2.24 that by bearing those griefs and sorrows he intends Christs bearing them in our stead appears ver 5 6 8 10 11 12. of this chapter as also from the collation of the two Hebrew words used in this very place for though Nasa he hath born be of more generall use signifying sometimes to bear as a Porter beareth a burthen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes otherwise yet Sabal he hath carried signifying properly to bear as one beareth a burthen restraineth the sense of the former word and limits it to the received interpretation This Text therefore in Isaiah may either be understood as a compound Proposition containing these two truths 1. That Christ should bear our spirituall griefs and sorrows for us 2. That he should heal bodily diseases as a type and figure of his bearing our spirituall griefs and sorrows Piscat in Mat. 8.17 Veritas magis quid quam figura habere debet ficut dicitur plus hic est quaÌ„ Jonas Park l. 3. de Desc n. 63. Dialogu So the word fullfilled in Mathew is true properly of the type or specimen and symbolicaly or typically of the thing signified or the word fullfilled in Mathew is taken figuratively i. e. metonymically viz. the sign namely healing bodily diseases put for the thing signified namely a healing-bearing of spiritual diseases That of your coherence which concerns the question is already answered the rest is either impertinent or uncontroverted Isa 53.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities The chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed These words I confesse do plainly prove that Christ did bear divers wounds bruises and stripes for our peace and healing but yet the Text doth not say that he bare these wounds bruises and stripes of Gods wrath for our sins 1. It was Satan by his instruments that wounded and bruised Christ according to Gods prediction Gen. 3.15 2. Christ bare these wounds bruises and stripes in his body only not in his soul for his soul was not capable of bearing wounds Satan could not wound his soul the Jews fullfilled all his sufferings Act. 13.27 29. Peter expounds the Text of his bodily sufferings only 1 Pet. 2.24 If Peters phrase He bare our sins in his body on the Tree had meant any thing of his bearing Gods wrath for our sinnes the case of his sufferings had not been a fit example to exhort to patience his appeal to God had â—ot been suitable 3. The end was a triall of his mediatoriall obedience and our peace Answ Satan by his instruments did wound and bruise him true but not only Satan by his instruments Satan
from the words cited by him out of Maimony or yours out of him the Atonement rightly understood is so farre from opposing that it presupposeth satisfaction to divine justice by the surety of the meritorious cause thereof Dialogu If Gods imputing of the sins of the Elect to Christ was the cause of Gods extreme wrath upon him then by the same reason Christ doth still bear the wrath of God for Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much as ever be bare them upon earth Answ Christ on earth suffered the wrath of God that is the execution of divine justice because then he stood as a surety to satisfie the curse due for sin Isa 53.10 But having satisfied it Joh. 19.30 Col 2.14 the same justice that before punished him now acquits him Rom. 8.34 If the debtor be discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the surety is free the same justice that holds the surety obliged to the creditor whilest the debt is unpayed acquits him when the debt is payed CHAP. VII The Vindication of 2 Cor. 5.21 2 Cor. 5.21 God made him to be sin for us which knew no sin Dialogu THe meaning of these words is not that he was made sin for us by Gods imputation but that he was made sin for us that is to say a sacrifice for our sin sin is often used for a sin-offering sacrifices for sin are often called sin the word Made is a word of Election and Ordination Answ He was made sin for us as we were made righteousnesse that is by judiciall imputation without the violation yea with the establishing of justice he was made sin as he was made a curse Gal. 3.13 the Greek used here and there are the same But he was made a curse by judiciall imputation Because he was the sin-offering in truth therefore he was made sin by reall imputation as the legall sin-offering was made sinne by typical Imputation The summe of what you say touching the word Made to be a word of Election or Ordination how improperly soever concluding that God ordained concerning Christ so as he might make his soul a sin-offering concludes not against but consequently for us and against you from the typicall nature of a sin-offering Of which in the fore-going Chapter Dialogu The Apostle doth explain the word Sin Psal 40.6 thus for sin Heb. 10.6 therefore seeing the Apostle doth explain the word Sin by the particle for I may well conclude that Christ was not made sin by Gods Imputation Answ What David expresseth by Sin Psal 40.6 is expressed by For sin Heb. 10.6 both places intend the sin-offering therefore you still argue against your self and for us it is called a sin-offering because sin was typically imputed to it it is said to be for sin because it was offered for the expiation of sin the same offering is said to be a sin-offering in respect of its nature and said to be for sin that is for the expiation of sin in respect of its use the use of a thing destroyeth not the nature of it The particle For besides the taking away of sin notes the manner of its taking away viz. by way of expiation Dialogu The water of purification from sin is called sinne Numb 19.9 the money employed to buy the publique sacrifice for sinne is called trespasse-money 2 King 12.16 and in this sense God made Christ to be sinne Answ The water that did typically purifie from sin is metonymically called sin Numb 19.9 the money that was to buy the sin-offering 2 King 12.16 is also figuratively called sin and Christ who is the tru◠sin-offering is said to be made sin 2 Cor. 5.21 true Therefore For Christ to be made sin is not to have sinne imputed to him Vide Bezam in Gal. 3.13 is a meer non sequitur If Christ be made sin for us in the same sense that the water of purification and trespasse-money are called sinne then Christ is made sinne only figuratively consequently suffered for sin figuratively not properly the elect also are saved figuratively and not properly To say God made Christ to be sin not by imputing their sin to him but by ordaining him to be a sin-offering is as if you should say God made Christ sin not by imputing sin to him but by ordaining him to have sin imputed to him If sin was imputed to him consequently the guilt of sin was imputed which we here affirm and you deny Dialogu Isaiah tells that Christ made himself a trespass or a guilt for us Isa 53.10 and if Christ made himself a trespasse for us by imputing all our trespasses to himself then he must likewise inflict upon himself all the curses of the Law that are due to us for our trespasses Answ If Isaiah tels us Christ made himself a guilt for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubtlesse it is a truth The Hebrew word is not made himself but if his soul shall set it self God chargeth Christ with sin as the supream Law-giver and Judge Christ accepts the charge as a surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of justice which is the part of a surety but doth not execute that justice which is the part of a Judge so Isaiah and Paul do not only sweetly agree with the Leviticall phrase but Isaiah Paul and Moses jointly agree with us against you Paul saith Christ was made sin that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him Rom. 3.26 that is that we might be justified The same Paul saith That the Beleever in Christ is so justified as that God is just which cannot be without a judiciall imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety So when Paul saith Christ is made sin he means by judiciall Imputation of the guilt and punishment of sinne Doubtlesse Paul to the Corinthians agreeth with Paul to the Romans CHAP. VIII The Vindication of Mat. 26.37 Mar. 14.33 Luke 22.53 Dialogu MAthew saith that Christ was sorrowfull and grievously troubled chap. 26.37 Mark saith that he was sore afraid and amazed chap. 14.33 Luke saith that Christ was in an agony chap. 22.53 Christ made all this adoe about a bodily death only Answ If words have their taste as Elihu implieth Job 34.4 then your expression of the dolorous passion and lamentation of the Lord Jesus by that phrase of making this ado for I beleeve it 's not the language of any Orthodox writer ordinarily used by way of diminution and rebuke argueth a minde not affected as becomes a Christian with the sufferings of his Saviour Dialogu But how do you prove this sorrow and complaint to have proceeded ftom the fear of a bodily death only Answ Only do but consider what a horrid thing to humane nature the death of the body is then consider that Christ had a true humane nature and therefore why should be not be troubled with the fear of death as much as his humane nature could be without sin Because Regular affections such
God though some acknowledge not this word to afford an argument thereof K. James Translators as they reade piety in the margent which you mention so they reade fear in the Text which you mention not M. Tyndall and M. Overdale though they translate the Greek as you say yet how far that translation is from helping your cause or prejudicing ours will fully appear in the sequel of this chapter If the Greek word be translated Godly Fear Heb. 5.7 it may only thence be inferred that this word affords not an argument but it no way weakens the cause which hath Arguments enough beside Dialogu The Greek word doth properly signifie such a fear as makes a man exceeding wary and heedfull how he toucheth any thing that may hurt him Answ Cartwright in Rh. Test Heb. 5.7 Your explication is too generall to give the property of the word the word signifieth both Reverence and fear but the proper signification of this word being saith Cartwright never severed from fear and yet sometimes disjoyned from reverence It followeth that the property of the Greek word serveth better for to note fear then reverence Dialogu I come now to explain the very thing it self from which Christ prayed to be saved which was that he might be delivered from death and this petition was the masterpeece of all his prayers Answ He prayed that he might be delivered from death Good but this death was the death of the crosse for unto it his strong cries refer Mar. 14.37 the principall matter whereof was the curse viz. the wrath of God wherefore also out of this verse from the word Death if not from the word translated Fear it is truly argued that Christ suffered the wrath of God Not Christs salvation out of his sufferings but the glory of God in the salvation of the Elect was the master-piece of his prayers Joh. 17. Dialogu But for the better understanding the very thing it self that he did so often and so earnestly pray to be delivered from we must consider him with a twofold respect 1. As he was true man so he prayed to be saved from death conditionally Mat. 26.39 2. We must consider him in this Text as he was our Mediatour and so he prayed to be saved from death absolutely namely to be saved from his natural fear of death when he came to make his oblation for he knew well enough that if there had remained in him but the least naturall unwillingnesse to die when he came to make his oblation it would have spoiled the mediatorial efficacy of his oblation Answ To consider Christ as man distinct from the consideration of Christ as Mediatour is to consider the Mediatour without the consideration of him as man that is to consider the Mediatour as not a Mediatour for it is essentiall to Christ as Mediatour to be Godman That praier of Christ Mat. 26.39 was as much the praier of the Mediatour as this Heb. 5.7 neither was the manhood more concerned in that then in this To understand by death Heb. 5.7 his naturall fear of death and by that his fear of offending God by his naturall unwillingnesse to die for so you expound your self beside the manifest and fearlesse violence offered thereby unto the text is that you may wave the true cause of his fear namely the wrath of God together with your silencing the wonted cause asserted by you namely the fear of bodily death to devise a new cause of the fear of Christ viz. lest he should offend God i. e. lest he should sin choosing rather to say that Christ was afraid of the evil of sin then of the evil of punishment for sin That which it was impossible for Christ to be touched with that Christ was not afraid of But to offend God by his unwillingnesse to die was impossible for Christ to be touched with Therefore Christ was not afraid of unwillingnesse to die Unwillingnesse to die in Christ had been a sin he having received a command to lay down his life Damasc de fide orthod l. 3. c. 23. Joh 10.17 Heb. 4.15 Naturall fear is either pure and without vice this was in Christ or impure adverse to reason this was not in Christ So Damascene long since This spoiling of the mediatorly efficacy of this oblation is a supposition of impossibility therefore could not be an object of fear to him who was only subject to pure and reasonable fear Significat timorem rationabilem Cham. de descen l. 5. c. 5. Dialogu The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is noted to signifie a reasonable fear For he had from eternity covenanted with his father to give his soul by his own active obedience as a mediatoriall sacrifice of atonement for our sins Joh. â—0 17 18. therefore he must not die a positive death by the power of man but he must die as Mediator by the actuall and joynt concurrence of both divine and humane nature no man could force his soul out of his body by all the torments they could devise but he must separate his own soul from his body by the joint concurrence of both his natures Answ If he covenanted only to suffer a bodily death as you say you must needs think very unworthily to say no worse of him that was God whilest you put upon him so great fear of breaking covenant upon so small temptation Notwithstanding he covenanted to suffer spirituall death i. e. the wrath of God yet because he was God it was impossible that he should break his word and consequently impossible that he should fear an impossibility He laid down his life as a surety whicâ— none could have taken away against his will but he took not away his life as an executioner If he had covenanted to take away his own life as an executioner neither then could he have broken his word because he was God nor had so covenanting opposed but engaged him to the suffering of the wrath of God his death being the cursed death of the crosse Dialogu Christ made his oblation an exact obedience unto Gods will both for matter manner and time and this mediatorial action of his was the highest degree of obedience that the father required or that the son could perform for mans atonement and redemption Answ True But in our sense not yours of which afterwards Dialog His obedience in his death was not Legall but mediatoriall Answ It was both mediatorly and legall It was the obedience of the Mediatour as such unto the Law Such a person obeying and such obedience from that person were both requisite for the meritorious procuring of our atonement and redemption Dialog 2. He prayed also to be delivered from the dominion of death after he had made his oblation and God heard him and delivered him by his resurrection on the third day Act. 2.24 27. Answ By death then here we are not only to understand the fear of death which elsewhere you seem to say He prayed to be delivered
faith can admit of any better interpretation Christ in his death was made sin imputatively that is he suffered the guilt and punishment of sin a chief part whereof was this divine paenall desertion his death was joyned with the curse made up of the pain of sense and the pain of losse If the pain of losse be not joyned with the pain of sense there can be no sufficient cause given of so bitter and lamentable a cry for that person who was God man therefore it follows by good consequence that Christ doth complain Psa 22. that God had forsaken him in anger for our sinne Dialogu Our Saviours complaint must run thus Why hast thou left me into the hands of my malignant adversaries to be used as a notorious malefactor It 's not so fit a phrase to say Why hast thou forsaken me into the hands of my malignant adversaries as to say Why hast thou left me into the hands of my malignant adversaries Answ Our Saviours complaint runs so in your interpretation namely as concerning men but it runs not so according to truth either only or chiefly He was not only a notorious malefactor though unjustly according to men as you would have it but he was a notorious malefactor having upon him the guilt of the sinnes of the Elect by imputation and that justly before God It is as fit a phrase to say Why hast thou forsaken me in the hands of my malignant adversaries as to say Why hast thou left me into the hands of my malignant adversaries The words of the Psalmist are Why hast thou forsaken me or Why hast thou left me and no more the addition fit or unfit is the Dialogues paraphrase not the Psalmists phrase Dialogu God forsakes the damned totally and finally because there is no place of repentance left open to them but he did not so forsake his son neither did he forsake his son by any inward desertion as he doth sometimes forsake his own people for the triall of their grace but he left his son only outwardly when he left him into the hands of Tyrants to be punished as a malefactor without any due triall of his cause Answ Rather there is no place of repentance left open to the damned because they are forsaken totally and finally we say that Christ was forsaken paenally yet partially and temporally not totally and finally Christ was forsaken in way of trial though not only nor principally in way of triall Luke 22.28 Heb. 2.18 4.15 And he was in all points tempted like unto us Dialogu Therefore the complaint of Christ lies fair and round thus Why hast thou left me in my righteous cause unto the will of my malignant adversaries to be condemned and put to death as a wicked Malefactor Answ This is but the same in effect in more words with what you lately said in fewer words and therefore receiveth the same answer Dialogu John Hus appealed to Jesus Christ for justice saying My God My God why hast thou forsaken me Ammond de la Roy Martyr in the time of his torments said Lord Lord why hast thou forsaken me Answ It 's a most lame and sick consequence The Martyrs or others in the time of their desertions under the castigatory wrath of God complained in these words therefore Christ suffered not paenall desertion As weak is the other consequence God for the manifestation of his glory in the witnessing of his truth for the good example of others the discovery of the tyranny of Antichrist forsook David and others with a castigatory desertion therefore he forsook not Christ with a paenal desertion for the manifestation of the glory of his justice Dialogu Christopher Carlile upon the Article of Christs descent into hell saith not one word of the suffering of his fathers wrath yet he makes use of Psal 22.1 and of M. Calvins judgement in other points though he doth differ from him in his exposition of Psa 22.1 Answ If he doth differ from him without reason we may oppose Calvins authority with reason against his without it It 's not the authority of Calvin that concludes for much lesse the authority of Carlile that concludes against but the reason of either according to truth that determines the question Dialogu The holy Ghost hath indited this Psalm by the Prophet David in the Person of Christ If so then all the words of this Psalm must have relation to the person of Christ The Psalm it self hath two principal parts the first is from ver 1. to 21. in all which Christ doth complain to his father of his unjust usage by his malignant Adversaries the 2d part of the Psalm is from the 22. ver to the end Answ The inditing of the Psalm by David with the distribution thereof nothing disproveth the desertion mentioned vers 1. to proceed from the wrath of God In this Psalm Christ complaineth of his unjust usage by his malignant adversaries but not of that only nor principally The passions whereof Christ complaineth in this Psalm may be conveniently distributed into four heads The suffering the wrath of God ver 1.2.11 The grief of his spirit by reproaches ver 6 7 8 17 18. His fear from the cruelty of his enemies vers 12 13 16 20 21. The torture of his body by crucifying ver 14.15 16 17. the greatest whereof was the sense of the wrath of God Dialogu Therefore seeing Christ in this place doth double the term of his affiance in God saying My God My God it proves evidently that God had not forsaken his Son in anger for our sins but that God was still his hope and that he would at last turn all his sufferings but unto the tryal of his perfect obedience Answ Of forsaking and anger we have distinguished before where we saw that God forsook Christ temporally and partially in executing upon him as our surety the vindicative justice due to the elect for their sins all which consists fully With this stedfast and unshaken affiance in God Therefore his sufferings were not only in way of testimony but also in way of satisfaction to divine justice Dialogu Why art thou then so far from my help and from the words of my roaring Why dost thou leave me unto the will of my malignant adversaries notwithstanding my prayers and my righteous cause Answ You wrong the Text in restraining it unto the wrath of man Christ principally if not wholly herein looks unto the wrath of God Our Lords complaint here expressed by a Metaphor of roaring is by the Evangelists called crying with a loud voice Mat. 27.46 Mar. 15.34 Luke 23.46 By Paul strong crying Heb. 5.7 This last Text M. Ainsworth cites to the same purpose whose judgement the Dialogue seems much to account of Dialogu My heart is melted in the midst of my bowels that is to say the evil spirit that is in my malignant Adversaries and their doctors do make my humane affections to melt in the midst of my bowels Answ If
appeareth by the causall particle For who proveth the fore-going part of the Text which is his answer to the objection raised as we saw before out of vers 10. namely Christ hath redeemed c. by the following part for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree If those words Gal. 3.13 Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree and that Text Deut. 21.23 have both but one and that the same one sense what then hinders that the foregoing part of the verse namely redemption of us from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us is true of every one that was hanged upon a tree in Judea from Moses time until the passion of Christ inclusively the latter words containing in them a proof of the former as we saw just now from the causative particle For. Then which inference what is more abominable The typicall reason excepted namely of signifying Christ bearing the morall curse upon the tree there can be no sufficient nor probable reason given why hanging upon a tree should infame and fasten upon the person hanged this speciall curse whence followed the defiling of the Land in case the body continued unburied after Sun-set above all other capitall sufferings For were all received which is said by the Hebrew Doctors that is not repugnant unto Scripture yet it is certain that some crimes for which they were hanged were not so great as some crimes which were punished according to other capitall sentences without hanging As also that hanging after the manner of the Jews was not so painfull as some other deaths in use with them Adde hereunto which is also acknowledged by you that the Jews manner was often to hang them not alive but after they were dead yet not he that is stoned alive to death is accursed but he that is hanged though first stoned to death is accursed hanging after stoning though it be acknowledged yet it is not so clearly expressed in Scripture as burning after stoning is Josh 7.25 burning the body to ashes was as sore an execution in it self as hanging up the body for a short space There were Malefactors hanged before the giving of this Law Deu. 21.23 yet we reade not that they were accursed during the space between the giving of this Law and the Passion of Christ a malefactor hanged out of Judea was not accursed In Iudea no person how great a malefector soever if not hanged was thus accursed The person hanged was equally accursed whether he was hanged alive or dead whether he was hanged after this manner or after that Jewish or Romane c. whether his crime were more hainous or not so hainous yea for ought appeareth though he were innocent yet if hanged judicially he was accursed Since the Passion of Christ hanging in Iudea is not ceremonially accursed For otherwise saith Iunius neither according to the Law of nature nor according to civill Law Nam alioqui neque secundum naturae legem c. Junius paral lib. 2. par 52. nor in respect of the thing it self is he that is hanged accursed seeing therefore the cause why the carcasse of him that is hanged must not continue all night unburied is ceremoniall Christ being the body and fullfilling of the ceremonies it is no doubt but in this ceremoniall curse Moses himself being a Type of our eternall Mediatour had respect unto our eternall and perfect mediation This Exposition making the man that was hanged upon a tree a ceremoniall curse and Christ hanged upon a tree a morall curse is both generally received and every way agreeing to the analogy of faith which is a rule of interpreting Scripture In that Christ Gal. 3.13 is expresly said to be a curse it will thence unavoidably follow that sinne was some way judicially upon Christ for we reade of no curse inflicted according to the determinate and revealed way of proceeding with the reasonable creature but presupposeth sin Wherefore he could neither have been made a curse nor die since the only cause of the curse and of death is sin from the which he was free Luther in Gal. 3.13 but because he had taken upon him our sins So Luther This Proposition then Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree is a typicall proposition and containeth in it these two truths 1. That every one that hangeth upon a tree in Iudea from the promulgation of that curse untill the Passion of Christ inclusively is ceremonially accursed i. e. all that are hanged shall be infamed with this speciall infamy that the carcasses of such in case they be not buried before Sun-set shall defile the Land 2. That Christ in testimony that he redeemed us by beating the morall curse should be hanged upon a tree Est enim propria destinata Jun. in Deut. 21.23 Suspensi propter crimen capitale c. Pisc obs in Deut. 21. Park de desc l. 3. For Christ our Saviour by this manner saith Iunius speaking of hanging upon the crosse is figured by a ceremony proper appointed of God and singular who as the Apostle excellently delivereth Gal. 3.13 was made a curse for us They that were hanged for a capitall crime amongst the Israelites typified Christ who was to be hanged upon a tree for the sins of the Elect Piscator Parker in his learned discourse of the Descent of Christ into hell not only owneth and useth the distinction of the judiciall and morall curse but saith also that the malediction of the morall Law may be proved by the malediction of the judiciall Law How farre M. Ainsworth Ainsw on Exo. 27.1 who though the Dialogue often quote him in this controversie is wholly ours is like minded judge by his ensuing words upon Deut. 21.23 and here in the utmost rigour and severity of the Law God saith he fore-signified the riches of his grace toward sinners in Christ who redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us as appeared in that he was hanged upon a tree Gal. 3.13 This premised for the clearing of the Text let us see why according to you the word Curse in those words being made a curse for us Gal. 3.13 doth not signifie the morall and eternall but an outward and temporall curse Dialogu This latter curse is no other then an outward temporary curse for the text in Deut. 21 22. runs thus If there be in a man a sin worthy of death and thou hang him on a tree c. then he that is hanged is the curse of God What curse of God is it that is meant I answer that may be discerned by taking notice of what kinde of persons and for what kinde of sin this curse of God doth fall upon any The persons the Text describes them thus namely he that is put to death as a Malefactor by the Magistrate The kinde of sins that are said to deserve this curse of hanging upon a tree are described by this generall
signifying that it put on the nature of the Antitype or thing signified whereas the type as the type can no more put on the nature of the Anti-type then the adjunct can put on the nature of the subject Adam as a publike person disobeying and communicating guilt and punishment to his seed was a type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 5.14 of Christ obeying and communicating righteousnesse and life unto his seed Did then the first Adam put on the nature of the second and so become a mediator or did obedience put on the nature of disobedience Moses the Minister of the Law dying before he came into Canaan as M. Ainsworth observeth on Numb 20.12 signified the impotency of the Law to save was therefore Moses no instrument of salvation unto any Cyrus was a type of Christ must therefore Cyrus not only be saved but also put on the nature of a Mediator who neither then Isa 45.4.5 nor afterwards for ought that appeared beleeved Who ever reasoned thus before that in any measure understood the nature of a type Dialogu But if the circumstances of the Text be well marked they will tell you plainly that this hanging upon a tree cannot be a type of the eternall curse for 1. This Law of Moses must not be understood of putting any man to death by hanging but of hanging of a dead body upon a tree after it was first put to death by stoning but Christ was crucified whilest he was alive 2. This hanging in Moses time was done by the judiciall Law and civil Magistrates and not by the ceremoniall Law nor the Priests 3. This hanging in Moses was commanded to be practised by the Magistrates of the Iews Common-wealth but the death which Christ suffered was a Roman kinde of death Answ Yet Paul who well marked and understood also the Circumstances of the Text telleth us plainly Gal. 3.13 that Christ hanging upon the Crosse though by the Romane power and also after a Romane manner was intended in and proved out of Deut. 21.23 The ceremoniall curse therefore was laid upon every one that was judicially hanged upon a tree in Judea from the time of the giving of this Law until the time of the passion of Christ by what lawfull authority soever or after what manner soever The principall scope of this Text is not to command putting to death by hanging upon a tree the ground whereof is had elsewhere but to give a Law concerning him that is hanged namely that he should in any wise be buried that day with the reasons thereof annexed Dialogu When the Romans did put Christ to that kinde of death which they used to inflict upon their base fugitive slaves they made him cursed in his death in the highest degree they could and yet at the self-same time Christ did redeem us from the curse of the Law even from the eternall curse because Christ died not only as a Malefactor by the power of Roman souldiers but he died also as a Mediator by his own Mediatoriall obedience Answ If he that only granteth Christ died as a Malefactor in the Romans and Jews account but denieth that he died a Malefactor in Gods account should not put in that yet Christ died as a Mediator he could expect no other but utmost abhorrence from every Christian man for such a tenet as did not secretly steal away by subtle sophisms but openly and before the Sun spoil them of their Mediator The curse laid upon Christ hanging upon a tree was not the curse of the Romans or a humane but a divine curse Gal. 3.13 Deut. 21.23 for he that is hanged is accursed of God Christs death as a Malefactor in the Jews and Romans account unjustly was a part though but a small part of the just punishment of God inflicted upon him as the great Malefactor imputatively in Gods account Christ died both as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor in Gods account Of his dying as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor in the sense of the Dialogue See before Ch. 10. Dialogu This act of Christ was an everlasting act of Mediatoriall obedience it was no legall obedience nor was it any humane act of obedience as all legall obedience must be but it was a supernaturall act of obedience it was no lesse then a Mediatoriall oblation and therefore it was the meritorious procuring cause of our Redemption from the curse of the Law even at that very same time when Christ was made a curse for us by hanging as a Malefactor upon a tree Answ Christ acted in his death not as his own Executioner but as our Priest and faithfull Surety yeelding up his life according to his voluntary pre-consent This act of Christ in laying down his life was an act of legall obedience because it was done in obedience to the Law This commandment have I received from my Father Joh. 10.18 He was obedient to the death he humbled himself and became obedient to the death even the death of the Crosse Phil. 2.8 He was made under that is subject to the Law Gal. 4.4 and fullfilled the Law Mat. 5.17 this act of laying down his life was supernaturall but not only supernaturall it was both divine and humane according to both natures for it was the act and obedience of him who was God-man as God-man-Mediator otherwise it could not have been effectuall This reasoning is as full of perill as empty of sound reason Dialogu Therefore the Tree on which Christ was crucified as a Malefactor cannot be the Altar neither were the Roman Souldiers the Priests by whom this mediatorial sacrifice was offered up to God but it was his own Godhead that was the Priest and his own Godhead was the Altar by which he offered up his soul to God a mediatorial sacrifice for the procuring of our redemption from the curse of the Law Answ Who saith the Tree was the Altar or that the Souldiers were the Priests when the crosse is sometimes in Writers resembled unto the Altar it is an illustration by way of allusion unto the type that is the Altar whereon the beast was laid but not unto the Antitype Christ was both Priest Sacrifice and Altar which yet is not to be understood as excluding either of his natures in any of these considerations He was a Sacrifice in respect of his humane nature yet he who was the Sacrifice was both God and Man He was the Altar in respect of his divine nature yet he that was the Altar was both God and Man He was Priest as God-man CHAP. XII Christ redeemed us not from the curse of the Law by his soul-sufferings only And of the meaning of Haides Dialogu GOod Divines do affirm that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law not by his bodily but by his soul-sufferings only which God inflicted upon his soul when his body was crucified upon the Tree Answ I do not finde that any Orthodox Divine so affirmeth Willet cen 5. err 3. par 3.
to this order which is the scope of the Dialogue in this discourse for order of succession is not of the essence of punishment Again the reasons that require this order in the Reprobates in inflicting paenall wrath upon the damned have no place concerning Christ Adde hereunto that according to extraordinary dispensation some of the Reprobates namely those that shall be found alive immediatly before the Judgement 1 Cor. 15.51 shall suffer eternall death without any separation of the soul from the body so as eternall death which is a finall separation of the soul and body from God being opposed to naturall death which is a separation of the soul from the body is not necessarily a second death no not in the Reprobates Dialogu The second part of the tormentt of hell is the pain of sense or the sense of all torturing torments Answ As we did formerly in the pain of losse so now in the pain of sense we are to distinguish between what is essentiall and what is accidentall thereunto Fallacia compositionis div sionis otherwise the Question intending that which is essentiall only but the description including both that which is essentiall and accidentall is apt to deceive the Reader by a fallacy for the better preventing whereof as before the Reader had a description of the pain of losse so let him here if he please take along with him this description of the pain of sense The pain of sense taken essentially is the inflâ—cting of all the substantiall positive evill of the curse flowing from it as such without any respect to the condition of the patient The pain of sense taken essentially and accidentally superaddeth unto the essential punishment fore-mentioned the suffering of such positive punishments as were concomitant effects of justice in respect of the disposition of the patient viz. the evil of sin desperation duration of the pains for ever c. Dialogu As Gods rejection is the principall efficient cause of their damnation so Jesus Christ the Mediatour is the principall instrumentall cause thereof because they beleeved not in him that was promised to be the seed of the woman Answ Gods rejection that is Reprobation as it is the Antecedent not the cause of sin so it is also the Antecedent not the cause of condemnation Reprobation is an act of absolute Lordship and Soveraignty not of Justice Condemnation that is the judiciall senâ—encing unto punishment for sin is an act of Justice not of Lordship no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger because a Reprobate but because a sinner Dialogu Now come we to examine the particulars and whether Christ did suffer these torments of hell for our Redemption 1. Did Christ suffer these torments of hell for our Redemption Did Christ suffer the second death Was he spiritually dead in corrupt and sinfull qualities without any restraining grace and did God leave him to the liberty of these corrupt and sinfull qualities to hate and blaspheme God for his justice and holinesse as inseparable companions of Gods totall separation for these sinful qualities are inseparably joyned to them that suffer hell-torments as the effect is to the cause Did Christ suffer this pain of losse when he said My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Answ Except the Dialogue had laid a better foundation for the disproving of Christs suffering the paenal wrath of God flowing from the curse as such without any consideration of the condition of the Patient that is the essentiall punishment then such a description as disproveth only his suffering of the circumstantiall part of the punishment these vain and reasonlesse interrogatories as so many triumphs before the victory might well have been spared There are that deny that the damned sinne whom though I see not why to consent unto therein yet it concerned such a Questionist though that being done his work had still been to do to have satisfied their objections by the way The sinfull qualities of the damned proceed not from hell-torments as an effect from the cause Parker de descensu lib 3. the torments of hell are an effect and execution of justice whereof God is the Authour sinfull qualities are a defect not an effect therefore have a deficient not an efficient cause therefore of them God cannot be the Authour to to say the contrary were to say God is the Authour of sin which is high blasphemy Sinfull qualities are of the circumstantiall not of the substantiall part of punishment which is manifest 1. Because God is the Authour of punishment essentially but he is not the authour of sin 2. Christ suffered the essentiall punishment but was without sin 3. The Elect sin yet suffer not the punishment due to sinne otherwise they should be both elected and not elected and in the conclusion both saved and damned In that Proposition God punisheth sin with sin the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin it self the infallible and paenall futurition of sin is an effect of justice Sin as sin is not an effect of justice but a defect in man Though the separation of the damned from God is totall and finall yet the separation or rather desertion of Christ was partiall and temporall in respect of the sense of the favour of God and only for a time Separatio quoad substantiam quoad sensum Wilict cen 5. err 3. par 9. q. 3. 1141. There are two kindes of paenall desertion or forsaking one is only in part and for a time so Christ was forsaken the other is totall and finall so the Reprobates in hell are forsaken Totall separation from God is not of the essence of the curse Gen. 2.17 Otherwise the Elect whilst elect could not be ministerially obnoxious to the Curse In a word we must carefully keep in minde the distinction between the essentiall part and the circumstantiall part of the punishment of sin Christ suffered the former not the latter Defects saith Damasoone are either simply miserable or detestable and vitious Christ suffered the former not the latter When our Lord Jesus Christ that man of sorrows cried out upon the Crosse My God My God Austin Damascen Jun. cont 2. l. 4. c. 5. why hast thou forsaken me he suffered the pain of losse understanding alwaies thereby the substantial not the circumstantial pain of losse Dialogu Did Christ at any time feel the gnawing worm of an accusing conscience Was he at any time under the torment of desperation truly if he had at any time suffered the tormets of hell he must of necessity have suffered these things Tho. par 3. q. 46. art 6. Perk. de desc l. 3. n. 53. Willet cen 5. err 3. par 6. q. 3. 1129. Neque enim in eo questionis hujus cardo vertitur an inhaesivè verum an imputativè tantum peccatis nostris pollu us Christus dicendus sit Dialogu for they are as nearly joyned to those that suffer the torment of hell as the effect is
to the cause Answ Guilt is either taken for the personal commission of sin or for a personall obligation unto punishment upon our voluntary taking thereof for the sin committed by another in the last sense only Christ was guilty of sin that is he was guilty imputatively not inherently as Christ was guilty of sin so also he was sensible of an accusing Conscience If Christ saith D Willet truly bare our sins he sustained also the grief of conscience for them which is the inseparable companion of our sin The question is not Whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently but only whether he may be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively Desperation is not of the essence but accidental in paenal wrath The rest is but a repetition of what was said and also answered a little before Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in the proper place of hell seeing none can suffer the torments of hell as long as they live in this world none can suffer the second death till after this life is ended Answ The place of punishment is not of the essence of punishment as the place of the third heaven is not of the essence of blessednesse so neither is the place of the damned of the essence of misery As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joys of heaven out of the place of heaven if not at other times as Luk 9.28 yet after the Resurrection so might it suffer the pains of hell out of the place of hell The prison is no part of the essentiall debt The most Popish enemies of Christs soul-sufferings of the wrath of God whilest though in their erroneous asserting the locall descent they affirm an actuality concerning Christs being in the place of hell without the pains of hell cannot with any reason deny a possibility of being in the pains of hell without the place of hell Vide Rivet â—athol orth â—o 1. tract â— q. 60. Christ was in a paenall hell not in a locall hell the distinction between a paenall hell and a locall hell is nor only acknowledged unto this day by the Orthodox but was long ago taught by sundry of the Learned and sounder Schoolmen The dispensation of God is either extraordinary or ordinary according to the ordinary dispensation of God the full pains of hell are not suffered in this life but according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not only could but did suffer the pains of hell in this life Many Reprobate suffer the pains of hell here in a degree The Reprobate as was said before that shall be found alive 1 Cor. 15.51 shall passe into the pains of hell without any separation of the soul from the body Dialogu Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his body as well as in his soul to redeem our bodies as well as our souls from the torments of hell Answ We have already seen that Christ suffered the torments of hell in his body as well as in his soul as it is evident that Christ suffered the torments of hell for kinde in his soul so who can deny but he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of hell though not inflicted after the same manner August de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 10. All the flames of hell are not corporeall and materiall witnesse that fire wherein the rich man was tormented such as his eyes and tongue were such was the flame Luk. 16.23 24. Willet syn 20. gen cont qu. 3. par 4. Those flames of hell which torment the bodies of the damned though justly acknowledged to be materiall are materiall after a spirituall manner They therefore are not to be heard who object against Christs suffering hell-pains in his body because there was no visible instrument of such bodily pain If any say his bodily pains were not equall to the bodily pains of them that are in hell that being granted to them therein which they are unable to prove it is sufficient to integrate and make up the execution of the full measure of wrath upon Christ that if his bodily torments were not equall to the bodily torments of the damned yet what was not executed upon his body was executed upon his soul The measure of hell-pains is made up without bodily pains in the Angels that fell and if haply some mindes labour concerning the capacity of the soul of a meer man to hold such a measure of torment they may remember that the soul of Christ who is both God and Man is above that objection exceeding the capacity of all Men and Angels by reason of his personall union Dialogu How long did he suffer the torments of hell was it for ever or how long did he suffer them and when did the torments of hell first seize on him and when was be found freed from them or did he suffer the torments of hell at severall times or in severall places or but at one time or place only Answ His sufferings though temporall in respect of duration were eternall in efficacy in respect of the eminency of the Person it was more for an infinite person to suffer for a time then for all finite persons to suffer for ever Christ suffered the torments of hell upon the Crosse where he bare the moral curse Gal. 3.13 and in the garden Mat. 26. though his sufferings in the garden and upon the Crosse are the principal and therefore called the Passion emphatically yet the rest of his sufferings from his conception unto his passion are integral parts thereof that is such without which his passive obedience is not compleated He was freed from them at his death Job 19.30 he was freed from the sensible part of his sufferings at his death from sufferings simply at his Resurrection That Christ suffered the torments of hell is revealed which is the question though many circumstances of time and place are not revealed These are impertinent and captious quere's Dialogu Was he tormented without any forgivenesse or did Abraham deny him the least drop of water to cool his tongue Answ Christ was tormented without any forgivenesse God spared him nothing of the due debt Rom. 8.32 Mat. 26.39 but God gave him a discharge when the debt was paid Isa 53.10 Col. 2.14 He had not then so much as the least drop of water to ease him of the least particle of suffering due unto him according to justice but was wholly forsaken in respect of any participation of the sense of the good of the promise for the time Mat. 27.46 Dialogu Did Christ inflict the torments of hell upon his own humane nature was his Divine nature angry with his humane nature or did his Divine nature forsake his humane nature in anger as it must have done if it had suffered the torments of hell if so then he destroyed the personall union of his two natures and then he made himself no Mediatour but a cursed damned sinner Answ The second Person of the
one Sanctulus a Presbyter that offered himself to be beheaded for a certain Deacon that was to be put to death by the Longobards I dare almost say saith Grotius Caterùm ubi consensus c. Grotius de satisfacti-Christ c. 6. a man excelling in this kinde of learning that where there is consent there is not any of all those whom we call Pagans who would esteem it unjust that one should be punished for the delinquency of another Dialogu And this distinction of the souls case from the bodies case may sufficiently serve as an answer to M. Reynolds who doth labour to iustifie the imputation of our sins unto our innocent Saviour in Psa 110. p. 444. 445. Answ This distinction of the case of the body in this life liable and the case of the soul not liable unto punishment is grounded upon presumption of that which is not namely such an act wherein the body is guilty and the soul both guiltlesse and uncapable of guilt either inherently or imputatively M Reynolds distinguisheth between inherent and imputative guilt and concludes Christ was guilty imputatively that is obnoxious unto the punishment that others had deserved Ursin expos Catech. p. 1. qu. 13. Paraeus in Rom. cap. 5. Dub. 5. Mr Reynolds on Psa 110. pag. 446. The arguments whereby he proveth that Christ though inherently innocent might be guilty imputatively and suffer the punishment that others had deserved they that please to examine shall finde solid and in effect much the same with what Vrsin and Paraeus had taught before Were there place for this distinction concerning any other subject yet it holds not concerning Christ who was guilty imputatively though not inherently and in himself which hath been proved in its proper place before PART II. SECTION I. Wherein the Dialogue pretendeth to prove I. That Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law not by suffering the said curse for us but by a satisfactory price of Atonement namely by paying or performing unto his Father that invaluable precious thing of his Mediatorial obedience whereof his Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement was the master-piece II. A sinners Righteousnesse or Justification is explained and cleared from some Common Errours CHAP. I. Of the nature of Mediatorly obedience both according to the Dialogue and the Orthodox Dialogu THat which Christ did to redeem us from the curse of the Law was not by bearing of the said curse really in our stead as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach but by procuring his Fathers atonement by the invaluable price or performance of his own Mediatoriall obedience whereof his Mediatoriall sacrifice of atonement was the finishing master-piece this kinde of obedience was that rich thing of price which the Father required and accepted as satisfactory for the procuring of his atonement for our full Redemption Justification and Adoption Answ The Dialogue having hitherto denied and contended against Christs suffering of the wrath of God due unto the Elect for their sins in way of satisfaction to divine justice as also against the imputation of the sins of the elect unto Christ the latter whereof the order of cause and effect would have placed first the imputation of the sins of the Elect unto Christ being the cause of his suffering the wrath of God due to them which passive obedience the Orthodox beleeve and teach to be essentiall unto the Mediatorly obedience of Christ a truth of no lesse moment then the Redemption and salvation of souls The Dialogue I say thus engaged feeleth a neeessity lying upon it to present the Reader with some Mediatorly obedience because without it at least in appearance no Christian who is in earnest concerning his Redemption will be satisfied It concerneth us then the received Mediatorly obedience being denied diligently to attend what this new Mediatorial obedience is Dialogu And according to this tenour the Apostle Paul doth explain the matter he doth teach us to place the obedience of the Mediatour in a direct opposition to the first disobedience of Adam Rom. 5.19 he makes the merit of Christs Mediatoriall obedience to countervail the demerit of Adams disobedience for the disobedience of Adam was but the disobedience of a meer man but the obedience of Christ was the obedience of God-man and in that respect God the Father was more highly pleased with the obedience of the Mediatour then he was displeased with the disobedience of Adam Answ The disobedience of the first Adam and obedience of the second are opposites these opposites are compared in respect of some things wherein they are alike viz. Both are publike persons both communicate what is theirs to their seed respectively and some things wherein they are unlike viz. 1. In respect of their efficacy the obedience of Christ is more potent to communicate the good of his obedience unto his then the disobedience of Adam is able to communicate the evil of his disobedience unto his 2. In respect of the effect the disobedience of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit makes his seed guilty only of that first act of disobedience but the obedience of Christ dischargeth beleevers which are his seed not only from the guilt of that one act of the disobedience of Adams sin but also from the guilt of all other disobedience both originall and actuall The obedience of the second Adam did not only countervail but exceed all the disobedience of the first Adam much more Rom. 5.15 16. Grace abounded ver 16. abundance of grace vers 17. where sin abounded grace did much more abound ver 20. It is a truth most precious that God was more highly pleased with the obedience of the Mediatour then he was displeased with the disobedience of Adam but so unhappy is the Dialogue contending against the Mediatorly obedience of Christ as that in the prosecuting of that opposition it cannot speak this truth without insinuating a fallacy of putting that for the cause which is not the cause for the ground of the acceptation of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ proceeds not wholly though principally from the eminency of the Person which the Dialogue acknowledgeth but also from the kinde of his obedience which the Dialogue denieth But how doth this either prove the bearing of the curse really to be no part of the obedience of the Mediator which the argumentation intends though the obedience whereof the Text speaketh intends the contrary or inform the Reader what the Dialogue means by its new Mediatorly obedience which the order of disputation here called for The Dialogue denying the received doctrine concerning the Passive obedience of Christ as Mediator yet acknowledging a Mediatorly obedience but not giving any tolerable description of it in any one place whence the ordinary Reader may know what it is only here and there mentions the name thereof and occasionally adding to that name such a something as indeed renders it a dark nothing which manner of handling it is rather a snare then a guide to the
of both natures with the needlesse repetition of which it is full time to cease troubling the Reader any further So to attribute the Mediatorly obedience of his death unto the divine nature as to exclude the humane nature from its influence thereunto is not only to derogate from the humane nature but indeed not to attribute such mediatorly obedience unto Christ for Christ is a person consisting of both Natures Christs shedding of his bloud in such a large manner as we reade in the Scripture is a truth worthy of all attention and acknowledgement but understood in the sense of the Dialogue for the shedding of his materiall bloud only it is comparatively but a small part of his obedience for Christ suffered not only a naturall death Job 19.30 but also a spiritual death Mat. 26.46 Heb. 2.9 not only a bodily but also a spiritual death he shed his blood together with the sense of the wrath of God here his death is not called a death simply but a suffering wherein the iniquities of us all gathered together as in an heap were laid upon him Isa 53.6 and a curse but this is already largely spoken to The death or shedding of the bloud of Christ in Scripture is often put for the whole satisfactory obedience which he performed in the state of his humiliation Rom. 3.25 Eph. 1.7 Col. 1.20 because it was the compleating and consummation of all or synechdochically taking a part for the whole namely the visible part of his sufferings for both visible and invisible Med. lib. 1. c. 22. th 5. Polan Pis 2 Pet. 2.4 like as in the relating the moral acts of his obedience the external part is oftentimes only mentioned the internal understood and in setting down the works of the Creation the visible creatures are named the invisible included Dialogu And secondly In this respect the bloud of Christ is called the bloud of God Act. 20 28. not only because his humane nature was united to his Divine nature for by the communication of properties that may be attributed to the Person which is proper to one nature only but secondly 't is called the bloud of God in another respect namely because he shed his bloud by his own Priestly nature that is to say by the actuall power of his divine nature for he offered himself by his eternall Spirit Heb. 9.14 Answ As it was the bloud of him that was God-man so it was shed by him that was God-man Christs offering up of himself unto God was a free and a willing act otherwise his offering had not been effectual it could not have been obedience if it had not been done freely In respect of God He had done none any wrong if the second Person had continued only in that subsistence wherein he was equal unto God without admitting any subsistence in personal union with the Manhood in which respect he is inferiour unto God by voluntary dispensation He laid down his life of his own accord otherwise there was no one could have taken it away Ioh. 10.18 Christ had power of right authority and Majesty and might dispose of his own life yet having received commandment of the Father to lay down his life he put not forth his Divine power to rescue the manhood from deadly sufferings but cooperating with subordinate instruments according to the concourse of the first cause with the second gave way to the course of nature and patiently suffered a violent death That which the Dialogue is to prove is that the Mediatorly obedience of Christ whereby we are redeemed is by way of price only not by way of Suretiship and just satisfaction unto the Law but that which it here saith is that the bloud of Christ was shed with a large and liberal quantity that his bloud was shed for the atonement of mens souls that the bloud that was shed was the bloud of him that was God all which are true but conclude not the question he shed his bloud most true but he did not only shed his bloud but so as the sense of the wrath of God was mixed with it he suffered both a naturall and a supernatural death Separation of the soul from the body is either by the first and universal efficient so the Divine nature considered in it self separated one from the other or by an universal subordinate efficient acting by way of consent so the Divine nature subsisting in Personal union acted together with the humane in the separation of his soul from his body or else by the next formal cause so the executioners separated his soul from his body Dialogu In like sort he is called Jehovah our Righteousnesse Jer. 20.3 because his Mediatorial obedience whereof his oblation was the masterpiece was actuated by Iehovah that is to say by his divine nature as well as by his humane Answ He is called Iehovah our righteousnesse because he merited our justification by obeying and because he obedience imputed is the matter of our righteousnesse You now plainly acknowledging that his Mediatorly obedience was actuated by Iehovah that is to say by his divine nature as well as by his humane acknowledge therewithall that it was performed by the joint concurrence of both natures as elsewhere you say And so shew that your Reader is troubled in vain to finde out the meaning of those novell propositions viz. He poured out his soul to death by the active power of his own Divine Priestly nature He separated his soul from his body by the power of his God-head without mentioning the humane nature We must needs look at that as a piece of the mystery of darknesse which hath no other strength but in imagination and that only whilest it is not understood but when understood becomes just nothing The Father of Popery proveth a known Impostor if men once speak in the mother tongue Popery liveth no longer then it speaks Latine to plain people Dialogu So then I may well conclude that the death of Christ was a Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement because it was the act of the Mediatour in both his natures in his humane nature he was the Lamb of God without spot and in his Divine nature he was the Priest to offer up his humane nature to God as a Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement for the full Redemption of all the Elect. Answ It is an inviolable rule in disputation that the conclusion should run in the formall terms of the question The question therefore being whether the natural death of Christ without his suffering the wrath of God was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement other inferiour acts done by him as God-man included the Conclusion should have proceeded thus The natural death of Christ without his suffering of the wrath of God was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement The weaknesse and fallaciousnesse of which conclusion deduced from the annexed reason viz. because it was the act of the Mediatour in both natures immediatly discovereth it self unto him who
other namely to the joint desire of the Trinity all the Trinity desired to fullfil all that righteousnesse which appertained to the Mediators Person and Office at this time they desired to fulfil that part of righteousnesse which appertained to his publike Installment Answ This is not to explain a difficult but to take the Name of God in vain by forcing a far fetched and impertinent conceit upon a plain place whose sense he that runs may reade 't is ignorance or worse to turn the Greek thus is our Desire the word is rendred according to its meaning Thus it Becometh Vs The speaker is Christ The Persons spoken of are Christ and John The Righteousnesse spoken of is the Office and Service committed respectively to Christ and John part of which consisted in the present work which though John at first hearkned not to yet soon after he did If the Dialogue intends those words to fullfill that righteousnesse which appertained to the Mediator formally that is to make the Trinity the Mediator If efficiently then though the Interpretation were good it is altogether impertinent to the confirming of that misleading distinction of Legal and Mediatorial obedience CHAP. IV. Of the Dialogues further Reasoning against the influence of Christs obedience unto Justification by way of Imputation Dialogu THe Apostle in that Text Rom. 8.4 that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us doth not speak of that part ef Legal obedience which God requires of every man that looks to be saved thereby but in this place he speaks only of that part of righteousnesse which the Gospel-part of the Law taught and typified by their sacrifices of Atonement which sacrifices are called sacrifices of Righteousnesse because they taught sinners how they might obatin the Fathers Atonement by the Mediators sacrifice of Atonement for their full and perfect Righteousnesse Answ In plainer words the meaning of the Dialogue is The Apostle here by the Law understandeth not the Law of works the Righteousnesse whereof consists in Legal and Personal obedience But the Law of faith namely the Gospel whose Righteousnesse consists nor in Legal obedience either personal or sureties but in the Fathers Atonement It is plain enough by the dependence of this upon the fore-going verse that the Law here spoken of is the same with the Law there spoken of namely the Law that was weak through the flesh that is unable to justifie by reason of sin which all know to be the Law of works The way of fullfilling this Righteousnesse is by the Gospel which teacheth and giveth faith in Christ Bucan loc 30. qu. 28. Vide Par. Rom. 10. dub 5. col 2. which consists not in Atonement as the Dialogue speaks of but in the Legal obedience of another made ours by faith and therefore called the Righteousness of faith so that Righteousnesse or Legal obedience is the matter of our Justification both according to Law and Gospel the difference lieth in the manner of Justification The Law justifieth by our Personal obedience fullfilled thereunto the Gospel by our Sureties obedience thereunto received by faith Typical Sacrifices of Atonement are called Sacrifices of Righteousnesse because they taught and typified this truth The phrase SACRIFICES of RIGHTEOVSNESSE signifieth Righteous sacrifices that is Sacrifices done in Righteousnesse Sacrifices saith M. Ainsworth just and right and in faith contrary to those which the Prophet reproveth Mal. 1.14 Not Sacrifices causing Righteousness which if so it were did but further confirm that Christ the Antitype of the Legal Sacrifices by his obedience unto the death purchased Righteousnesse by faith So that hence there is neither cause nor occasion to confound Righteousnesse and Atonement But let us proceed to your other Reasons Dialogu Did Christ condemn sinne in the flesh by his Legall Obedience no but by his Mediatorial Obedience only Rom. 8.3 4. Answ It hath been before sufficiently shewn that the Legal and Mediatorial obedience of Christ is one and the same whereunto the Reader is referred as touching the confutation of this erroneous and misleading distinction Dialogu God sent his Son for sinne when he sent him to make his soul a sacrifice of Atonement for sin as I have opened the phrase at large in 2 Cor. 5.21 Answ That the Dialogue hath not opened but misinterpreted that phrase the Reader may please to see in the answer thereof Dialogu In brief the meaning of the Apostle lies thus when God sent his Son to die as a Malefactor in the similitude of sinful flesh Christ did at the same time condem◠sin because he did at the same time die as a Mediatour and made his soul a Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement for sin and so he procured his Fathers Atonement to poor sinners and by this means he condemned sinne in the flesh and made sinners sinlesse that is to say Righteous But this distinction of the double death of Christ I have opened more at large in Gal. 3.13 and Luke 22.19 and in Psa 22.15 The strength then of this misinterpretation being built upon your distinction of the double death of Christ namely his dying as a Mediator Answ and as a Malefactor that is to say a Malefactor in the Jews account but not in Gods The Reader again is desired to accept of the answer given to your distinction in the places mentioned where if the distinction fals all which is built thereupon will perish with it To be sinlesse is not enough to being Righteous the unreasonable creature is sinlesse but not Righteous The Dialogue having taken away from us the righteousnesse or Justification of the Legal obedience of Christ imputed now telleth us what is our Righteousnesse namely Gods Atonement or the Fathers Atonement and pag. 120. we have the Dialogues meaning concerning Atonement explained by the several terms thereof in pardoning and forgiving sin blotting out and covering sin bearing and taking away sinne purging and cleansing of sinners passing over and not imputing of sin so that a sinners righteousnesse justice or justification according to the Authour is nothing else but the Fathers Atonement pardon and forgivenesse pag. 118. The Hebrew translated Atonement properly signifieth to cover something 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet not with a garment or the like which may be taken off again but with some cleaving and tenacious matter as pitch lime mortar c wherewith the thing covered is wholly hidden hence referred unto wrath it signifieth to pacifie or appease and that either with a gift prepared Gen. 32.20 or compensation made for an injury done Expiare est piaculum pro peccato praestare 2 Sam. 21.3 referred to sin it signifieth to explate whence the day of Atonement Lev. 16. is called a day of expiation An expiation is a sacrifice given for the purging and satisfaction of some great offence To purge Psal 65.3 Psal 79.9 To be propitious or mercifull Deut. 21.8 And lastly to pardon Psa 78.38 in which last sense the Dialogue takes it for
any thing to the charge of them that God justifieth but what shall it avail for the Dialogue to justifie any whose very pardons God will condemn The Popes pardons and the Dialogues how differing soever in their nature may go together in respect of their efficacy Dialogu And in this very sense all sacrifices of Atonement are called sacrifices of Righteousnesse Deut. 33.19 Psa 4.5 Psa 51.19 Answ This is the same with what was before where the contrary is proved and the interpretation of the phrase is also given Dialogu And in this sense Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10.4 Answ Christ is the perfecting end of the Law by fulfilling the duties required in the moral c. the truth signified by the Ceremonial Law Dialogu And thus I think I have explained the true nature of a sinners righteousnesse justice or justification which I have described to be nothing else but the Fathers mercifull atonement pardon and forgivenesse so that I may more fitly call a sinners righteousnesse a mercifull justice put upon poor beleeving sinners by Gods fatherly pardon and forgivenesse then a strict Legall righteousnesse imputed to us from Christs obedience as our actuall righteousnesse as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach Answ Whether you have rightly explained a sinners righteousnesse it is with the Reader to judge To exclude justice from Justification which is in effect to say God is not just but only merciful in justifying a Beleever what is it else but to contradict the Apostles saying God is just and the justifier of him that beleeveth Bucha loc 31. 4. 28. Paraeus Rom. 5. dub 7. Willet med l. 1. c. 20. Rhet. ex 2. cap. 3. Twiss de praed l. 1. dig 3. s 4. cap. 5. Dialogu The received doctrine of Imputation holdeth not forth mercy only but both justice and mercy tempered together in the justification of a sinner they receive abundance of grace there is mercy c. of the gift of righteousnesse there is justice Rom. 5.17 Justice in respect of Christ mercy in respect of the Beleever that Christ satisfied the Law is justice that this satisfaction was for us and is given to us is mercy And indeed the righteousnesse which God the Father bestowed upon poor beleeving sinners in making them sinlesse by this Atonement is an example of the highest degree of mercy Answ True yet not of mercy only but of mercy tempered with justice and in some sense with the highest degree of justice The Geneva note on Psa 130.3 is excellent Dialogu c. speaketh thus he declareth that we cannot be just before God but by forgivenesse of sins for Gods forgivenesse is a part of his merciful Atonement Answ Forgivenesse of sin is inseparable from our righteousnesse being the immediate effect thereof We saw before that Atonement is sometimes taken for the forgivenesse of sins strictly sometimes it is taken for the expiation of sin comprehending both the forgivenesse and the meritorious cause thereof The Atonement mentioned in the Geneva Bible is to be interpreted according to the doctrine of Geneva which acknowledgeth and teacheth the meritorious satisfaction of Christ to divine justice to be the cause of the pardon of sinne a truth which the Dialogue denieth Dialogu Hence it is evident that Gods Atonement pardon and forgivenesse communicated to poor beleeving sinners must needs be the formal cause of a sinners righteousnesse Answ That this is not evident yea that the contrary is evident c. shall God assisting be made yet more evident in its proper place I doubt not CHAP. V. Whether the Iustice and Righteousnesse of a sinner doth lie only in Gods merciful Atonement Dialogu THe justice and righteousnesse of a sinner doth not lie in his own righteous nature nor in his own iust actions nor yet in the righteousnesse of Christ imputed but it doth lie only in the Fathers righteous atonement pardon and forgivenesse procured by the meritorious Sacrifice of atonement and conveyed by the Father through the Mediatour to every beleeving sinner as soon as they are in the Mediator by faith This doctrine of a sinners righteousnesse hath ever been well known and witnessed among the godly in all ages from the beginning of the world 1. It is witnessed by the practices of all sacrifices of Atonement before the Law 2. It is witnessed by the practices of all sacrifices under the Law 3. It is witnessed by the doctrine of the Prophets 4. It is witnessed by the doctrine of the New Testament and it was never so much obscured as it hath been of late daies by the doctrine of imputation Answ Because in the ensuing prosecution of the heads of Arguments here propounded the Dialogue makes frequent mention of Mediatorial sacrifice and atonement in the right understanding of which expressions according to the minde of the Scripture lieth the truth and in the differing understanding thereof lieth the controversie both parties agreeing unto the being of Mediatorly sacrifice and atonement but disagreeing concerning the nature of them Let the Reader here once for all being reminded keep in minde what the Orthodox and what the Dialogue understands by Mediatorly obedience and the fathers atonement or that so often as the phrases do occurre in the next following pages he may neither be at a losse nor deceived by these dark and equivocal terms of the Dialogue but being informed beforehand of both our meanings thereby passe on with more ease and judge accordingly Mediatorial obedience according to the Dialogue are certain actions performed by Christ not in way of obedience unto the Moral Law but by him as God-man and especially after thirty years of age the master-piece whereof was his yeelding himself to suffer a bodily death Atonement or pardon of sin according to the sense of the Dialogue is such as not only denieth it self to be the effect of Supra pag. 105. but also denieth the very being of the satisfactory and meritorious obedience of Christ unto the moral Law Mediatorly obedience according to the Orthodox what see Atonement or pardon of sin according to the sense of the Orthodox both acknowledgeth the being of and it self to be the effect of the satisfactory and meritorious obedience of Christ both active and passive unto the moral Law We have seen before 1. That Atonement or pardon of sin and righteousnesse differ in their natures to take away unrighteousnesse from a sinner is not to give righteousnesse to a sinner 't is an impossibility for that which is not justice to be justice 2. That the righteousnesse of the Dialogue is such a thing as consists of a form without any essentiall matter and is indeed a Non-ens such a thing as is a nothing 3. That 't is such an Atonement as denieth it self both to be from and also denieth any being of the Legall meritorious Obedience of Christ Behold then the presumption of the Dialogue that forgetting just conscience
unto God the reverence of the truth dread of so pestilent an untruth to the perill of the Reader that distinguisheth not between ostentation and reason and to the vexing and just indignation of him that doth engageth the godly in all ages from the beginning of the world the practice of all sacrifices before the Law and under the Law the doctrine of the Prophets and of the New Testament to witnesse that fiction of the Authour to be a truth which includes an impossibility in nature a contradiction in reason and an abomination in Divinity Dialogu It is evident that our first Parents were well acquainted with the doctrine of a sinners iustification by Gods Atonement for as soon as ever God had told them that the seed of the woman should break the devils head-plot he explained unto them the manner how the seed of the woman should do it namely by his Mediatoriall sacrifice of Atonement Answ It is out of doubt with us that our first Parents were acquainted with the doctrine of justification and that it was taught unto them by that first and famous publication of the doctrine of the Gospel Gen. 3.15 wherein the person office and victorious efficacy of Christ together with the victory of all Beleevers in him over Satan and all other both his and their enemies was fully held forth but we deny the doctrine of the Dialogue to be the doctrine of justification made known to Adam which was here undertaken to be proved but is onely said and not proved Dialogu After the floud when Noah offered a sacrifice of Atonement Jehovah smelled a smell of Rest Gen. 8.21 and to that resting of God in the promise the sweet smell of rest which God smelt in Noahs sacrifice did look The word Rest implieth that now Gods Spirit was quieted and that he did rest satisfied and well pleased in the sacrifice of Christ which was thereby typified confer to this Eph. 5. the fathers by faith saw Christs sacrifice Answ It is also out of doubt with us that Noahs sacrifice typified the sacrifice of Christ and that God did and doth rest satisfied and well pleased in the Antitype Your task undertaken is to prove that Noahs sacrifice witnessed Christ to be a sacrifice in the sense of the Dialogue and that Noah so understood it Dialogu By this means Noah knew and beleeved that he was made righteous or sinlesse by Gods mercifull Atonement procured by Christs Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement Answ Here indeed you implicitly say again that Atonement is our righteousnesse and confound being righteous and sinlesse but you do but say the one or the other yet you begge but prove not the Question Dialogu For the God of glory Iesus Christ appeared to him that is to Abraham whilest he dwelt at Ur of the Caldees Act. 7.2 no doubt but Iesus Christ did then tell him in what a miserable lost condition he was and how he should be that seed of the woman that should break tht devils head-plot by his sacrifice of Atonement and how he should thereby procure his Fathers Atonement to all poor broken-hearted sinners All which Abraham beleeved and so his sinnes were done away by Gods Atonement which he received by his faith and so he was made perfectly iust and righteous in Gods sight Answ Your often repeating the same thing forceth us to tell you again that your Atonement is but a fiction 2. That Scripture Atonement is an effect of our righteousnesse not a part much lesse the whole thereof That which Abraham was made perfectly just and righteous by was that which was accounted unto him for righteousnesse That which was accounted unto him for righteousnesse was that which he beleeved namely the righteousnesse of Christ his head The rest that is here said if rightly understood is true if in the sense of the Dialogue 't is false But whether true or false hitherto all is but said nothing is proved as concerning the doctrine of sinners righteousnesse in the sense of the Dialogue Dialogu The doctrine of a sinners iustification or righteousnesse was abundantly taught under the Law by their sacrifices of atonement namely by their burnt-offerings sin-offerings and trespasse-offerings in Lev. 1. Lev. 4. Lev. 5. c. as I have explained their use above Answ No doubt it was But whether as you have explained is the Question nor may we yet take your word for a reason they were called sacrifices of Atonement or sin offerings to make atonement because they typically did expiate sinne pacific wrath and procure reconciliation to the sinner which was really done by the bloud of Christ Heb. 2.17 in such manner as hath been formerly both said and proved Dialogu The doctrine of a sinners justification or righteousnesse by the Fathers Atonement was taught and explained by the Prophets The Prophet David saith in the Person of Christ I have preached thy Righteousnesse to the great Congregation Ps 40.9 what righteousnesse was it that he by himself and by his Officers preached to the Church of the first born Was it his Legal Righteousnesse made theirs by his Fathers Imputation no the Text denieth that and saith that it was such a righteousnesse as he obtaineth by his sacrifice of Atonement saying Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire and then said I Lo I come I delight to do thy will O my God Ps 40.8 By the doing of which will saith Paul we are sanctified from sin or made perfectly righteous Answ If Righteousnesse be obtained by his Sacrifice of Atonement then Atonement is not Righteousnesse Righteousnesse as formally performed is an ingredient into the meritorious cause of justification Righteousnesse as it is imputed not formally as it is an ingredient in the meritorius cause but virtually in respect of its efficacy is the matter of the justification of a sinner It were better said Atonement is obtained by the sacrifice of Righteousnesse then that Righteousnesse is obtained by the sacrifice of Atonement The obedience of Christ both active and passive is the cause and sacrifice of atonement atonement or pardon of sin is an effect thereof Those words by which will Heb. 10.10 signifie the will of the Father who appointed his son to take our nature upon him to make satisfaction for our sins or we are to understand will with its correlate viz. the fullfilling thereof by the obedience of his Son we are sanctified that is we are made perfect Sanctification here is taken largely for all the benefits of Christ Dialogu Or thus Christ purchased or procured such a righteousnesse of his Father for sinners as shall last to all Eternity by the same way and means by which he purchased their eternal redemption but he did not purchase their redemption and freedom from sin by his active Legall Obedience but by his active Meditoriall Obedience when he made his soul a Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement for poor sinners Compare Heb. 9.12.14 with Dan. 9.24 therefore Christ purchased and procured such a
righteousnesse for sinners as shall last to all Eternity by no other way or means but by his Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement therefore his Fathers Atonement is a sinners Righteousnesse Answ Christ by his Legal Obedience that is his obedience active and passive unto the Law purchased our Redemption by his passive obedience he purchased our freedome from sin by his active our right unto eternal life no part of Christs Obedience was so active wherein he was not also passive nor any so passive wherein he was not also active To speak plainly and properly atonement is the effect and the legal obedience or righteousnesse of Christ the Mediatorly sacrifice and cause of this effect therefore Atonement is not righteousnesse But to speak after the stile of the Dialogue If Righteousnesse for sinners be purchased and procured by the sacrifice of Atonement neither then can atonement be a sinners Righteousnesse That which procures or purchaseth is the cause that which is procured is the effect the cause cannot be the effect Dialogu The New Testament doth also bear witnesse to this doctrine S. Paul the Apostle doth tell us Rom. 8.4 that the Righteousnesse of the Law namely the righteousnesse which was taught and typified by the sacrifices of the Law might be fullfilled in us that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit as I have explained this Text a little before Answ The fulfilling of the Righteousnesse of the morall Law which the Dialogue thinks to evade by saying Christ fulfilled the righteousnesse typified by the Sacrifices of the Law is hereby proved because the fulfilling of the Righteousnesse of the moral Law by Christ was that which the Sacrifices of the Ceremonial Law typified so unhappy is the Authour in his arguing Christ fulfilled both the Righteousnesse required in the moral and signified in the Ceremoniall Law Atonement acquits from unrighteousness but doth not formally fulfill any righteousnesse Your explaining a little before is there disallowed and disproved we cannot look at your reference thereunto as a reason Dialogu Secondly The Apostle Paul doth in another place confirm this doctrine saying God made him to be sin for us that is to say God ordained him to be a Sacrifice of Atonement for our sins that we might be made the Righteousnesse of God in him that is to say that we might be made righteous or sinlesse by Gods Atonement Answ Here being nothing said but what was often said and answered before I shall spare reciting again the same things You should not only have said but have proved that we are made righteous by Atonement you should have proved according to your speech that a sinners righteousnesse or justification lieth in Atonement and that according to the sense of the Dialogue namely such a pardon of sin as neither is the effect of nor doth acknowledge nay doth deny the very being of the satisfactory meritorious Legall Obedience of Christ And that this your doctrine of a sinners righteousnesse hath ever been well known and witnessed amongst the godly in all ages from the beginning of the world that it hath been witnessed by the practice of all sacrifices before the Law and under the Law by the doctrine of the Prophets and by the doctrine of the New Testament for the making good of which false testimony of yours concerning the witnesse of the forementioned you produce no not so much as one reason but after so slanderous and blasphemous an assertion pardon my true testimony of your false testimony you abuse the ignorant and weary the intelligent Reader with a continual missing or begging the question That the doctrine of Imputation is not a doctrine of late daies only the Reader that pleaseth may be fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius who at the end of his defence of the Catholike faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ against Socinus hath gathered together the testimonies of many of the Ancients still extant to this purpose from Ireneus Anno Christi 180. until after Bernhard who lived Anno 1120. or thereabout CHAP. VI. How Abrahams Faith was imputed to him for Righteousnesse Dialogu ABrahams Faith was imputed to him for Righteousnesse because by it he did receive the Fathers Atonement for his full and perfect Righteousnesse because he beleeved all this both in Gen. 11.31 and again Gen. 12. therefore God imputed that faith to him for righteousnesse for by that faith he apprehended and received the Fathers Atonement and applied it to his own soul as an effectual remedy to acquit him from the guilt of all his sins and so by that means he became sinlesse that is to say iustified and righteous in Gods sight Answ We deny that Abraham apprehended at all any such Atonement as the Dialogue teacheth and it remaineth still to be proved I take it for granted with us that faith doth not justifie us as a work but objectively or relatively that is for the sake of that which is beleeved Though Abraham apprehended the Fathers Atonement by faith it doth not therefore follow that the Atonement apprehended was his righteousnesse Abraham by faith apprehended Atonement or pardon of sin not as the matter but as the effect of Righteousnesse Atonement is frequently taken for expiation noting both the cause and the effect namely both the Legal meritorious obedience of Christ and the acquitting of us from the guilt of sin But so the Dialogue takes it not because it acknowledgeth no essential influence of the obedience of Christ no not of its own Mediatorial obedience into the being of our righteousnesse Atonement according to the Dialogue is the pardon of sin to apply therefore Atonement as an effectual remedy to acquit us from the guilt of sin is to make atonement it s own cause and its own effect that is to make it before and after it self The imputation of Abrahams faith for righteousnesse doth plainly argue that Abraham was made partaker of the righteousnesse of the morall Law or Law of works by faith without works 1. Because no man can attain eternall life without fullfilling the Law either in himself or in his surety Without the righteousnesse of the Law there is no life Lev. 18.5 Deut. 27 26 Ezek. 18.11 Gal. 3.10 2. Because the nature of righteousnesse consists in conformity and obedience to the Law you may as well say that a man may be learned without learning or that he may be a man without a reasonable soul as to say there is a created righteousnesse without conformity to the Law 3. Because the Scripture saith the righteousnesse of the Law that is the righteousnesse which the Law requireth is fullfilled in us that beleeve Rom. 10.4 Most vain is the shift of the Dialogue endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place by interpreting against text context and Scripture those words Righteousnesse of the Law onely of the righteousnesse typified by the Ceremoniall Law which it wrests to its own imaginary righteousnesse that is indeed no righteousnesse but a non-ens as
Orthodox writer say faith justifieth in stead of the Law their meaning is we are made partakers of the righteousnesse of the Law Evangelically that is to say by faith which we cannot be partakers of legally that is to say by works The righteousnesse of Christ in respect of which faith is said to justifie consisting both of originall righteousnesse and actuall obedience justifieth us as well from originall as from actuall unrighteousnesse We receive by faith the righteousnesse of the Law namely that righteousnesse which the Law requireth Rom. 8.3 4. And so Evangelicall righteousnesse or the righteousnesse which is by faith is given to us in stead of Legall righteousnesse We are through sin uncapable of the righteousnesse of the Law legally Haec propositio side justificamur legaliter intollecta cum papistis non est vera sed blasphema-correlative autem accepta est vera Ursin exp Cat. in the stead whereof we are made partakers of the righteousnesse of the Law Evangelically without which we cannot attain eternall life Faith justifieth not properly as a work or quality but relatively for the objects sake namely the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended thereby This Proposition We are justified by faith saith Vrsinus understood legally with the Papists is not true but blasphemous but taken correlatively that is evangelically it is true The true manner how the Law taught sinners to get righteousnesse by faith When a poor humbled sinner brought his sacrifice of atonement to the Priest to be offered for him upon the Altar he must lay both his hands with all his might upon the head of the sacrifice of atonement This kinde of imposition was ordained by God to teach and typifie unto sinners how they must by faith rest and depend upon the sacrifice of Christ as the onely meritorious procuring cause of the Fathers atonement for their full and perfect righteousnesse Answ That he laid on his hands with all his might cannot be proved nor doth the proving thereof prove any thing of the Question Of it hath been already spoken in its proper place The atonement of the Dialogue being disproved it is therewithall disproved That the laying on of hands typified their relying upon the sacrifice of Christ for such atonement Dialogu Vers 25. Whom God hath fore-ordained to be a propitiation or a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his bloud The Apostle explains the matter by another sentence Rom. 5.11 by whom we have received the atonement The Apostle doth imply three things in this sentence 1. That Christ is the Mediatour by whom sinners do receive 2. The main thing which they do receive by him is the Fathers atonement 3. That the means or manner by which they receive the Fathers atonement is the grace of faith Answ The Apostle Rom. 3 25. alludeth unto the Mercy-seat Exo. 25.22 as appeareth by Heb. 9 5. where speaking of the Mercy-seat in Exodus he calleth it by the same word in Greek which is used here teaching us thereby that the Mercy-seat was a Figure of Christ by whom our transgressions of the Law are forgiven and covered the Mercy-seat covered the Ark of the Testimony that is the Ark wherein was the Law which was the testimony of Gods will concerning the duty of man The Atonement of which Rom. 5.11 is to be understood of reconciliation applied according to the sense of the latter reconciliation mentioned vers 10. and notes a change in respect of dispensation on Gods part and a change in respect of state relation and disposition on our part See more Sect. 2. Chap. The Greek words are not the same and may in respect of their signification if we seclude the meritorious cause of atonement from atonement be distinguished as the whole and the part his bloud signifieth his passive obedience the meritorious cause of the forgivenesse of sin faith is the instrument by which we receive it Atonement or remission of sins is a principall good received by faith yet it is not righteousnesse But the Dialogues atonement is neither principall nor lesse principall but a meer fiction Dialogu Vers 25. To declare his righteousnesse by the passing over sins that are past through the forbearance of God 1. God declares his righteousnesse toward sinners by ordaining Jesus Christ to be a propitiation 2. By ordaining the grace of faith as the instrument of the spirit whereby poor sinners might be enabled to beleeve in the Mediators propitiatory sacrifice and receive through him the Fathers atonement for their righteousnesse Answ Then God declared justice as well as mercy in the forgivenesse of or passing over sin A truth much opposed throughout a great part of the Dialogue which contradiction had it been attended to doubtlesse the Authour would have provided against it by some Socinian evasion or mis-applied distinction The Fathers Atonement is received by faith but not for our righteousnesse This errour of the Authours especially in his sense is oft annexed unto some foregoing truth or words that are capable of a construction according to truth by a formall repetition of the question without so much as a threed of reason to hold them together But I hope saying the same thing frequently and boldly though sometimes with the word Therefore inserted without any tolerable inference of reason is not enough to deceive the Reader Dialogu And therefore justified persons have need of new justice to their consciences every day Answ Very true if understood of the sense of their justification but not true if understood in regard of a new Justification Justification is an individuall act which receiveth not more or lesse in respect of it self though in respect of the sense of it it receiveth more or lesse Paul was as much justified the first instant of his beleeving as he is now in glory Because the righteousnesse of Christ which is the matter of justification is the same CHAP. VII Of the Enumeration of the causes of Justification according to the Dialogue and according to the Orthodox Dialogu ANd now for a conclusion I will summe up the Doctrine of Justification into six heads 1. The subject matter of Justification is beleeving sinners of all sorts both Jews and Gentiles all the world over 2. The formall cause of Justification or of a sinners righteousnesse is the Fathers atonement pardon and forgivenesse 3. The meritorious procuring cause of the Fathers atonement for a sinners Justification is Christs Mediatoriall Sacrifice of atonement 4. The next instrumentall means by which a sinner doth receive and apprehend the Fathers atonement for his Iustification is faith in Christ 5. The only efficient cause of all the former causes and effects is Gods free grace and mercy in himself 6. The end of all is the glory of Gods free grace and mercy in the beleeving sinners justification and salvation Answ Divers Orthodox Divines handling the doctrine of justification distribute the matter of justification into the matter taken actively that is one of the essentiall causes by which we
are justified viz. the active and passive obedience of Christ and the matter taken passively i. e. the Subjects which are justified viz. beleeeving sinners In the last you follow them in the first you leave them Your leaving out one of the essentiall causes both renders and leaveth your justification a non-ens a nullity there being no created being but consists at least of a logicall matter and form Atonement or pardon and forgivenesse i. e. the judiciall declaration of a beleever to be discharged from the guilt and condemnation of sin is an effect of a sinners righteousnesse which also hath been shewed before so far is it from being the formall cause thereof The meritorious procuring cause not only of our atonement but also of our righteousnesse is Christs Mediatorly Sacrifice but not in the sense of the Dialogue for there is no such Mediatorly obedience as it imagines Faith apprehends the righteousnesse of Christ as the matter of our righteousness and atonement or pardon as the effect thereof You leave out part of the final cause viz. the glory of his justice But because it is not sufficient for the edification of the Reader that errour be discovered except the truth be also manifested I shall shut up this fourth and last head of controversie between the Dialogue and us with an enumeration of the causes of justification according to the doctrine of the Orthodox The efficient cause The efficient cause is the gracious good pleasure of God the Father Son and holy Ghost Tit. 3.4 Rom. 3.22 Psal 3.9 He is God Lord Law-giver and Judge his will is the Rule of Righteousness All reason in one reason and the reason of all reasons to whom it was free to justifie man in whether way he pleased either legally by our own works or evangelically by the works of another The meritorious cause The meritorious cause is the whole Legall obedience of Christ consisting of his habituall conformity together with his active and passive obedience from the instant of his incarnation unto his passion inclusively performed by him as God-man our Mediatout and Surety in way of Covenant to the fullfilling whereof the application of all the good of election consequently justification as a part thereof was due unto the Elect according to the order of justice though as concerning themselves purposed purchased and perfected altogether in way of meer grace Four things to be attended for the clearing of the meritorious cause Four things attended to will help to clear the meritorious cause 1. The Person 2. The Office 3. The Service 4. The merit whereupon debt ariseth according to order of justice 1 The Person The Person obeying is God-man the eminency of the person is requisite to the value of the Service 2 Office By Office he was Mediatour which he took not upon him but was called thereunto an essentiall part whereof was to stand as our surety and pay our debt even unto the death during which space only Christs Mediatorship is to be looked at as having influence into the meritorious cause of our justification Notwithstanding Christ still continueth a Mediatour and Surety yet no more to pay our debt that being already discharged death had no more dominion over him Heb. 7.27.9.28 1 Pet. 3.18 He was offered once he suffered once 3 Service His service or his perfect obedience consists of his originall conformity and his active and passive obedience unto the Law His originall righteousnesse is that gracious inherent disposition in Christ from the first instant of his conception whereby he was habitually conformable to the Law Luk. 1.35 there was more habituall grace in Christ then there is duty in the Law or then there is or shall be habituall grace in the Elect both Angels and men because Christ was God-man and received the Spirit out of measure as much as was possible to be in a creature This originall righteousnesse of Christ answered for our originall unrighteousnesse Concerning his active and passive obedience to the Law observe these three propositions Prop. 1 All his obedience to the Law proceeded from him as God-man Mediatour See this proved Cha. part 2. Prop. 2 Both active and passive obedience were requisite unto the work of the Mediatour That passive obedience was requisite is unquestionable That active obedience was requisite is thus proved There was no part of Christs obedience which was not active As there was no part of Christs active obedience that was so active as that it was no way passive so there was no part of his passive obedience which was so passive as that it was not also active The Law requireth not only death in case of sin Gen. 2.17 but also doing of the Legall obedience unto the command Deut. 27.26 Gal. 3.10 otherwise there is no life The command then must be obeyed in our selves or in our Surety It cannot be obeyed in our selves Obedience of the Saints whether in grace or glory is not Legall viz. such as is 1. Performed in our own persons 2. From a concreated principle of grace received in the first Covenant 3. In way of merit 4. Perfect Therefore in our Surety Because this double satisfaction answereth to our double misery viz. the guilt of punishment or condemnation and defect of righteousnesse Because righteousnesse properly and truly so called consisteth in actuall obedience Prop. 3 All his active and passive obedience concurres to compleat the work or service of the Mediator He was born for us Luk. 2.10 11. he was made subject to the Law for us Gal. 4.4 for our sakes he sanctified himself Joh. 17.19 and that from the womb unto his last oblation of himself upon the crosse He obeyed the Law for our sakes I come to do thy will O God Heb. 10.7 by the which will we are sanctified cap. 10. that is that will whereby he was appointed to this office and by doing his will in that office according as he was appointed What Christ did in way of discharging his office he did for us Christ fulfilled the Law Mat. 5.17 in way of discharging his office Therefore he fullfilled the Law for us He came to fullfill all the Law As he came so he was sent and his sending or mission was nothing else but his actuall entring upon his Office according to the pleasure and command of the Father Briefly He came as he was sent He was sent as Mediatour Ergo. Either all Christs active obedience was for us Obedientia Christi est una copulativa Alste Theo. Sect. 3. loc 22. Med. l. 1. c. 21. 23 24. Wolleb l. 1. c. 18. or some of it only for himself but there can no reason be given why any of it should be only for himself If it should be granted which the Protestant Writers do generally deny that Christ merited for himself yet the Proposition stands if that Christ merited not only for himself but for us also Every action of Christs obedience was an integrall part of
his posterity which otherwise had continued righteous and sinlesse In like sort Christs Mediatoriall obedience had this effect that it procured Gods fatherly atonement and acceptance of all his posterity and seed that should be born of the same promise Gen. 3.15 Answ If the sinfull nature of Adams posterity was the effect of Adams disobedience in like sort as Atonement i. e. remission of sin is the effect of Christs obedience then it was the effect thereof according to justice as indeed it was for original sin is the penal effect of Adams sin he is just to forgive us our sin 1 Joh. 1.9 Dialogu By one man namely Adams sin in eating the forbidden fruit death entred into the world and death by sin namely spirituall death in sin fell upon Adam and his posterity for his sin and so death passed upon all men for that all men had sinned That is to say in whose loins all men have sinned by receiving from his loins his corrupt nature which is sin and also is the punishment of Adams sinfull eating not whose act of disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit all men have sinned in eating the forbidden fruit for then we must have been united to Adam as one person with him Answ What is to be understood by death see in the vindication of Gen. 2.17 The Dialogue not enduring the imputation either of our disobedience unto Christ or of Christs obedience unto us to avoid the Apostles argument taken from the imputation of Adams disobedience to mankinde Rom. 5. denieth that we are guilty of Adams sin acknowledging only that we receive from Adam a corrupt nature or a spirituall death in sin viz. that which we call originall sin Whilest you acknowledge corruption of nature to be the punishment of Adams sinfull eating and yet deny that we sinned in eating the forbidden fruit you make a contradiction for there can be no punishment without sin and by consequence also you put injustice upon God who notwithstanding by his absolute will he might yet having limited himself he doth not afflict without sin That all descended of Adam by ordinary generation are guilty of Adams sin is evident 1. From the expresse Text for that all have sinned Rom. 5.12 or in whom i. e. in Adam all have sinned as it is upon the margent and according as the Learned Interpreters generally turn it Both come to the same sense In this Chapter the Apostle insists upon Adams sin as in the 7th upon originall sinne 2. From the effect all sinned in Adam because all died in Adam even those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression viz. Infants who sinned not actually in their proper persons but only in their publike person Rom. 5.14 Gen. 2.17 1 Cor. 15.22 3. There can be no other reason given according to the revealed will of God of the propagation of of originall sin This doctrine of yours too much favours Pelagius who denied Infants to be guilty of Adams sin and of original sin 4. Adam in his first transgression stood as a publike person by the free constitution of God whose will is the rule of righteousnesse who is the figure of him that was to come Rom. 5.14 Adams being a publike person was a great aggravation of Adams sin hence a world of sin was in Adams sin 1. Because Adam was the whole world the world sinned in Adams sin 2. Because Adam by that sinne slew the whole world 3. Because all sin by consequence was contained in this sin Thence is Originall sin as an effect from the cause hence actuall sinne as an act from the habit 4. It was a universall sin because in it was in sum the violation of the whole Decalogue Dialogu But it passeth my understanding to conceive how God in justice can impute the act of Christs Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement to us as our act unlesse he do first make us one with Christ in the personal unity of both natures noither can I see how any of the actions of Christ can be imputed to Beleevers as their actions Answ Though there needs no other ground for the justice thereof then the good pleasure of God and the free consent of Christ yet herein the pleasure of God and consent of Christ and the mysticall not personall union of Christ and Beleevers concurre The Legal acceptance of the offended or creditor Justitia Christi non imputatur nobis ut causis sed ut subjectis tantura Bellarm. encr Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. and the consent of the surety are sufficient for the Legall charging the offence or debt of a third person who is the offender or debtor upon the surety Christs obedience is imputed to us not formally as if we were the performers thereof but in respect of its efficacy because we have the benefit of it as effectually as if we had performed it our selves The obedience of Christ is imputed to us as the Subjects meerly not as the causes of it Christs actions are ours not properly but virtually in respect of their vigour good benefit and efficacy Dialogu In like sort our blessed Mediatour as he is the mysticall head of all beleevers in the Covenant of grace did take care to do all and every act of Mediatoriall obedience that might procure his Fathers Atonement for the good and benefit of every member of his mysticall body as fully and effectually as if every member could have performed those acts of Mediatoriall obedience themselves And in this sense God doth imput◠the efficacy of all Christs Mediatoriall obedience to all beleevers as the only meritorious price of his Fathers atonement for them Answ The Reader may at the first sight hereof haply think that as it was sometimes with Bellarmine who having spent whole Books in a laborious disputation for mans merit against grace Bellarm. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 7. Tutissimum c. at length saith It is most safe to place our confidence in the alone mercy of God So it is here fallen out with the Authour who after his labour hitherto against the doctrine of Imputation now at length may seem to acknowledge it But though his words be equivocall yet his meaning is the same that it was before and so much the more dangerous because the same evil sense is insinuated in a better language To suppose a sinner to have performed those acts of Mediatorly obedience which Christ performed is to suppose an impossibility Christ was and is God-man and without sin neither of which can be found in him who is a sinner The voice of this whole clause this supposition excepted or somewhat qualified is not unlike the voice of Jacob but the sense is the sense of Esau i. e. the minde of the Dialogue uttered by the tongue of the Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is with the minde of the Orthodox as hath been said of old concerning the Scripture it lieth not in the sound but in the sense
Nec putemus in verbis scripturarum esse Evangelium sed in sensu Hieron in Ep. ad Gal. ca. 1. If most pestilent doctrines have oftentimes been communicated in the language of the Scripture marvell not then that they are communicated in a language which doth not unbecome the Orthodox Neither let us saith Hierome speaking against the heresies of Ebion Photinus Marcion and Bafilides think the Gospel to be in the words of the Scripture but in the sense Who is ignorant that the Arrians speak heresie by that Text The Father is greater then I Joh. 14.28 or that the Papists idolatry by that Proposition This is my Body Mat. 26.26 And they who please may reade Pelagius by those words For that all have sinned or In whom all have sinned Rom. 5. August contra Julian l. 6. c. 12. 12. breathing forth no small seeds of Pelagianism so interpreting or rather corrupting of them as that he acknowledgeth not the meaning of them to be that all sinned in Adam wherein the Dialogue followeth him thereby laying a ground for the deducing the corruption of nature not to be by propagation as a penal effect of Adams sin but by way of imitation An error or heresie expressed by the words of the Scripture or the words of the Orthodox is never the lesse erroneous though so much the more dangerous This admonition here may suffice to preserve the Reader against the infection of the unchanged doctrine of the Dialogue notwithstanding the change of its voice Mediatorly obedience and atonement following thereupon being both according to the sense of the Dialogue and the sense of the Orthodox sufficiently understood out of what hath been said before CHAP. IX Of Atonement or Reconciliation Dialogu THe Fathers Atonement comprehendeth under it justification and adoption These two parts of the Fathers atonement or reconciliation are evident by the effects which all the Sacrifices of atonement under the Law did procure to poor beleeving sinners for all sacrifices of atonement under the Law did typifie Christs Sacrifice of atonement and they procured the Fathers atonement which hath a threefold effect towards poor beleeving sinners 1. All Sacrifices of Atonement in generall were ordained to procure a savour of rest unto Jehovah namely to procure a savour of rest to God the Father 2. The sin-offerings which were Sacrifices of atonement were ordained by God to procure Gods merciful atonement pardon and forgivenesse to poor beleeving sinners by which means only sinners are made sinlesse that is to say just and righteous in Gods sight 3. The burnt-offerings which also were Sacrifices of Atonement were ordained of God to procure his favourable acceptance towards poor beleeving sinners by receiving them into speciall favour as Adopted sinners Answ The Dialogue throughout all its Discourse concerning Atonement Par. 2. seemeth to understand pardon of sinne by atonement See pag. 151. and 162. here it seemeth by Atonement to understand reconciliation and so indeed it is to be understood The Reader is here desired to keep in minde that our Question is not Whether justification and Adoption are parts of Atonement The affirmative whereof the Authour therein following M. Wotton asserts in this place But whether the obedience of Christ be the matter of a sinners righteousnesse Although therefore that the Dialogue here said the truth yet it is impertinent according to the sense of the Orthodox neither making for nor against as concerning the matter of the controversie Atonement or Reconciliation as also Justification and Adoption are joint effects of the same cause viz. the Mediatorly obedience of Christ which was the Sacrifice of Atonement but it doth not therefore follow that Justification and Adoption are parts of atonement one joint or fellow-effect because a fellow-effect is not therefore a part of its fellow-effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though the Hebrew word that signifieth to cover sin and to expiate sin be translated atonement which Translation the Dialogue hath formerly followed and the Greek word signifying propitiation which is the same in effect with reconciliation be generally ascribed unto Chrsst Rom. 3.25 1 Joh. 2.2 and 4.10 the cause put for the effect because Christ is our propitiation causally Heb. 2.17 yet neither covering of sin nor the expiation of sin nor Christ himself is our reconciliation properly and formally pardon of sin is a necessary and inseparable antecedent Christ is the procurer and expiation holds forth the manner of procuring reconciliation but none of them are reconciliation it self Reconciliation in generall Reconciliation what Ex hoc colligimus duplicem reconciliationem in Scripturis confiderari unam generalem applicabilem in cruce peractam alteram particularem applicatam Dav. in Col. 1.23 is the restoring of friends after offence given and taken or taken though not given into the same condition of friendship wherein they were before the offence was given or conceived to be given The Scripture mentions reconciliation under a double notion either as procured Rom. 5.10 2 Cor. 5.19 Col. 1.20 or as applied Rom. 4.11 Colos 1.22 we speak of it in the last notion only Because man by reconciliation though he be restored into a better yet is not rrstored into the same estate formally wherein he was before the fall for then though he was a son Luke 3.38 and in a state of favour with God yet he was not just nor was his condition immutable but now being reconciled he is not only just but also in a state of speciall favour a son and his condition immutable hence it may be described thus Evangelicall reconciliation is a transient act of Gods special grace whereby a beleever for the sake of Christ who is the propitiation for our sin received by faith is restored into an estate of everlasting favour son-ship and one-ness of spirit Reconciliation notes a change of the parties reconciled August in Joan. tract 110. and consequently a change both in respect of God and man on Gods part it infers no change in respect of affection but in respect of the manifestation of his love and dispensation God alwaies loveth the persons of the elect Lomba l. 3. dist 19. dist 32. Thom. p. 3. q. 49. art 4. ad 2. Calv. instit l. 2. c. 16. sect 2 3 4. Dav. Col. 1.20 the love of God is an immanent act and is nothing else but God himself loving To affirm any change in God in respect of his affection were to affirm that God is unconstant and mutable to deny his immutability and by consequence to deny him to be God By reconciliation Gods affection is not changed but Gods dispensation and our condition and disposition That is taken away by the Mediatorly obedience of Christ in respect of which God might justly have been angry with us for ever and proceeded against us unto just condemnation In respect of man it notes a change in regard of state relation and disposition A state of favour and adoption are essentiall unto therefore
seeth herein the Dialogues usuall fallacy of putting that which is not a cause for a cause since not onely the eminency of the Person but also the kinde of obedience and acceptation of God are required as essential to Mediatorly obedience But the Dialogues conclusion expressing it self in ambiguous terms capable both vf the sense of the Orthodox and Heterodox doth by this unseasonable and irregular equivocation betray the weaknesse of its cause and arguments both at once Dialogu It was the holinesse of his Divine nature that gave the quickning power to the oblation of his humane nature Joh. 6.63 Answ 'T is true the sacrifice of the humane nature could not have profited any thing but by reason of the Person whereunto it was united which notwithstanding the Person was not the sole cause of the efficacy of the oblation had the eminency of the Person been sufficient alone then one drop of his bloud might have been as effectual as his life-bloud and so your reasoning would be against your self Dialogu In this answer Joh. 6.63 our Saviour declareth two things 1. That the grosse and carnall substance of his flesh and bloud considered by it self alone had no meritorious efficacy and therefore his legal obedience cannot profit us 2. Our Saviour in his answer declared wherein the true force and efficacy of his sacrifice did lie namely in these two things 1. In the Personal union of his humane nature with his divine nature 2. It lies in his Priestly offering up of his humane nature by his divine nature Answ Though neither the flesh nor the actions of his flesh considered alone can profit us it doth not thereupon follow that his legall obedience cannot profit us the consequent is as false as the antecedent is true for the legall obedience of Christ is not only humane obedience as the Dialogue speaks but the obedience of God-man of the errour of this distinction of legal and mediatorial obedience hath been spoken before The efficacy of it lay in the eminency of the Person offering that is the Person who offered up himself was such a man who was also God Joh. 6.63 Act. 20.28 Heb. 9.14 but not in that only this is but the same in more words which is usually expressed in fewer viz. the value and efficacy of the Sacrifice depends yet not wholly upon the dignity of the Person Godman offered properly Godman was offered but not without the limitation of communication of properties The humane nature suffered properly but the divine nature suffered not Whole Christ suffered but not the whole of Christ i.e. though the God-head did not suffer yet he that did suffer was God CHAP. IV. Whether the Iews and Romans put Christ to death Dialogu NEither did he die a passive death by the power of the Roman souldiers as the Iews thought and as the Papists and other carnal Protestants do think All the men and devils in the world could not put him to death by their power I mean they could not separate his soul from his body till himself pleased to do it by his own Priestly power Joh. 10.17 18. his soul was not separated from his body by the sense of those pains which the Romane souldiers inflisted upon him as the souls of the two theeves were that were crucified with him for Christ died not sooner nor later then the very punctual hour in which God had appointed him to make his oblation Answ The Dialogue unable to prove the meer naturall death of Christ to be meritorious that is to be a sufficient price of our Redemption from the meer eminency of the person that died what it cannot do by argument it attempts by amazement beguiling the lesse attentive Reader into a credulity of the conclusion not by any reason alledged but by asserting some wonders concerning his natural death and first that his death was active only i.e. he separated his soul from his body shed his own bloud actuated his own death but the Jews and Romans put him not to death Suppose it were true that men did not instrumentally inflict upon Christ a naturall death and that they kil'd him not which yet is against the expresse letter of the Scripture Act. 2.23 it doth not therefore follow God did not inflict upon him a spirituall death As they killed their own Prophets so they killed Christ 1 Thes 2.15 but they killed their own Prophets not only in appearance but effectually Neither Christs being active as concerning his death sc as voluntarily permitting or giving way and consenting unto it neither the inability of man to take away his life till himself pleased neither his not dying either sooner or later then the very punctual hour in which God had appointed deny the sense of those pains which the Romane Souldiers inflicted upon him to have instrumentally and as next externall causes separated his soul fron his body when he pleased by suspending the assistance of the Divinity to give way unto the course of nature in the appointed hour By the last reason no man dieth a violent death because no man dieth sooner or later then his appointed time Dialogu The Centurion did plainly see a manifest difference between the manner of Christs death and the death of the two theeves that were crucified with him for as yet they did still continue alive in their torments till after the time that Joseph of Arimathea had begged our Saviours dead body of Pilate at the Sun-set Evening for Joseph did not go to Pilate to beg our Saviours body until the Evening was come Mat. 27.57 Mar. 15.52 53. and that was at Sun-set it could not be when the first Evening was come but Christ was dead long before this for he gave up the ghost at the ninth hour which was about three hours before the two theeves were killed and yet by the course of his nature he might have lived in his torments as long as the two thieves did for the Romane Souldiers did crucifie all three alike Answ Put case Ioseph of Arimathea begged not the body of Christ until Sunset-Evening and that he died three hours before the theeves this disproveth not the Jews as procurers Pilate as a Commander and the Roman souldiers as Executioners to have effectually put Christ to death neither doth all being granted touch the question mans not putting Christ to his natural death no way disproving Gods putting of him to a supernatural death so impertinent are these new assertions though true 'T is true the latter Evening began not until Sun-set but 't is not true that Ioseph came not to beg the body of Christ until Sun-set for he came as the Evening was coming as the Greek hath it therefore before it was actually come Besides otherwise he could not have taken down the body and buried it the same day for it was before Sun-set even after the exposition of the Dialogue it self on Gal. 3.13 according to the Law Deut. 22.23 which Iohn testifieth they were careful and mindeful