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
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
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
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
himself layeth both his hands upon the live goat and confesseth over him the iniquity of the children of Israel Lev. 16.21 which confession of sin though it be only expressed in the case of the Scape-goat yet it is judged to have accompanied imposition of hands upon the sin-offering From the collation of the texts with Lev. 5.56 as also because there is like reason in all Calvin in Lev. 1.1 Junius in Lev. 1. Ainsworth Lev. 1.4 Willet in Lev. 1. qu. 9. 4.10 16.23 Annot. in Le. 16.21 Ita per fidem oportet nos peccata nostra imponere Christo h.e. certò staâ—uere quòd illa ei impofita sint â Deo ut ea expiaret Orthodox and judicious Expositors seem rather to understand that the rite of imposition of hands did typifie the profession of their faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for sin imputed to him and that the present sacrifice or beast slain was a type thereof then that it did typifie the Lords laying our sin upon Christ by imputation there is difference between an act typifying Gods imputation of sin unto Christ and an act testifying our faith concerning Gods imputation of sin unto Christ You should have produced your Expositors for they do not generally so speak the man saith M. Ainsworth that brought the offering was to lay or impose his hands thereby testifying his faith in Christ the true sacrifice to be slain for sin But it being granted that Expositors did so understand it how doth the Dialogue disprove their exposition A private mans imposition cannot represent Gods act the imposition of the hands of the Elders cannot for the Elders actions represent the Churches astions neither can the imposition of the Priests and High-Priests they were types of Christs Priestly nature and not of the father Answ If these Reasons were good for what they are alledged yet they are impertinent as not reaching the minde of Expositors at least generally upon the place There is nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing but that the act of a private person was capable if God so pleased to become a type of Gods act which is also true concerning the Elders Priests and High-Priests The act of an Israelite though a private person in letting his Hebrew servant go free for nothing either at the seventh year Exo. 21.2 or at the year of Jubilee Lev. 25.40 figured or represented God the Fathers gift of free redemption by Jesus Christ Cyrus as every King or Emperour which receiveth his office from the people was Persia's representative yet in letting the Jews go without price and reward he typified our free salvation which is the act of God the Father the putting of Gods name upon the children of Israel by Aaron and his sons Num. 6.27 was saith Ainsworth a sign that the name and blessing of God was imposed upon them It 's improper to say the Priests were types of Christs Priestly nature they were types of his Priestly office or if you please of the Priestly part of his office whereof the person consisting both of divine and humane nature was the subject Dialogu Imposition of hands with confession of sins upon the head of the sin offering signified the owners faith of dependance Then it signified the owners faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for our sin imputed to him for besides that this notion of faith in particular is included in the faith of dependance as the part is in the whole he that asserteth the faith of dependance asserteth therewithall the object thereof for faith and its object are Relates a part of which object and that directly intended in these texts is this truth to wit That Christ did bear and take away the guilt and punishment due to the elect for sin In your reasoning against the doctrine of Imputation from the Text alledged omitting any other you commit these two errours 1. You put upon us an interpretation which is not ours nor hath our doctrine need of it our conclusion sufficiently proceeding from these Texts according to the Exposition given The Question is not whether this rite of Imposition of hands with confession uf sin doth represent Gods laying of the sins of the Elect upon Christ but whether the sins of the elect were laid upon Chtist by God 2. In disputing for these rites to signifie faith of dependance you do not only not dispute against us but in conclusion against your self because the faith of the truth controverted is included in the faith of dependance nor do you in your whole discourse concerning it interpose a syllable to the contrary to provide against the retorting of your Argument upon your self The conclusion then you argue for being for us though we approve not your arguments we think it best to passe them by and ease the Reader of so much impertinence only minding you that your assertion so often used viz. that they imposed hands and leaned upon the sacrifice with all their might is groundlesse whatsoever you refer us to in Ainsworth out of Maimony neither the Hebrew text nor any other reason countenancing of it Dialogu If you make the act of laying on of hands on the sin-offering to signifie Gods laying our sins upon Christ by imputation then the same act of laying on of hands with confession of sins upon the Scape-goat must also signifie that God did impute our sin to Christ as well after he was escaped from death by his resurrection and ascention as when he made his oblation here upon earth and thus by this doctrine Christ is gone as a guilty sinner into heaven We have already said that we make not this act a type of Gods laying sin upon Christ the live-goat and the scape-goat were both types of Christ that of him dying this of him delivered from death sin was laid upon the scape goat not after but before its escape and signifieth that notwithstanding his bearing of sin typified by both goats yet after he had suffered which was typified by the killed goat he then should be delivered from those sufferings which were typified by the scapegoat and thus by the doctrine of the Scapegoat Christ is risen again ascended and sits at the right hand of God the Father acquitted from all sin Dialogu But the Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition of hands with confession of sins of Gods imputation but they understood it to be a typicall sign of the faith of dependance upon Christs sacrifice of Atonement and so much the prayer of the High-Priest imports See Ainsworth Lev. 16.21 Answ M. Ainsworth on this very place saith that this act shewed how our sins should be imputed unto Christ it is not likely therefore he so understood the Hebrew doctors otherwise we might well think he would either have forborn a needlesse citation contrary in his judgement to the truth or would have taken notice thereof Neither is there any reason so to interpret their meaning
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
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
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.
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
in Rom. 8.13 and in Gal. 3.13 which Scriptures I have opened at large in the first part Luke 22.19 compared with 1 Cor. 11.24 Luke 22.20 so Isa 12. with Rom. 4.25 The Scripture doth sometime speak of his Mediatorial death only as Isa 53.10 he gave his soul to be a trespasse-offering for our sins and he offered himself by his eternall spirit Heb. 9.14 and he laid down his own life Joh. 10.17 18 and he sanctified himself Joh. 17.19 therefore seeing the holy Scriptures do teach us to observe this distinction upon the death of Christ it is necessary that all Gods people should take notice of it and engrave it in their mindes and memories Answ In the examination of this distinction which the Authour labours much in and makes much use of consider we 1. The sense of it 2. The Scriptures alledged for the ground of it 3. The scope of it 4. The deductions from it By it the Dialogue means that the naturall death of Christ for the spirituall death it denieth is either Active actuated by the Divine nature yea the joint concurrence of both natures so he died as a Mediatour and this was reall or Passive wherein the Jews and Romans inflicted upon him the sores of death but did not put him to death though they thought they did so he died as a Malefactor This was not real but only in the Jews account Such is the minde of the distinction Those Texts wherein Christ is said to be put to death Luke 18.33 1 Pet. 3.18 killed Gal. 3.13 teach us that Christ was passive in his death but make no mention of the Dialogues twofold naturall death nor do they deny Christ to be active in that death wherein he was passive They shew plainly his bloud was shed and that by Jews but not one of them affirmeth that Christ shed it himself Isa 53.10 Heb. 9.14 Ioh. 10.17 18. and 17.19 teach expresly that Christ was active and imply him to be be passive as concerning the same oblation of himself by his death Luke 22.19 20. 1 Cor. 11.24 shew us that the body of Christ was given for us primarily by the Father who gave his Son and subordinately by Christ who by voluntary consent gave himself according to his Fathers will for us as also that the breaking of the bread in the administration of the Sacrament is to be used as significative of his sufferings What is this to the distinction Rom. 4.25 clearly intimates Christ to be passive but denieth him not be active in one and the same natural death Rom. 8.13 Isa 12. speak not of the death of Christ at all Some of these Texts alledged say that Christ was active others that he was Passive in his death that is in one and the same death whether it be naturall or supernaturall but not one saith his death was passive Divers of the Scriptures alledged hold forth manifestly both his naturall and supernaturall death the most include his supernatural death none deny it The scope of the distinction is to make Christ the formal taker away of his own life The deduction from it therefore neither Jews nor Romans put Christ to death of both which before and in the answer immediatly following This distinctions twofold death is but one for he died not a passive death as a Malefactor according to the Dialogue p. 97. and 100. It denyeth the death of Christ as Mediatour to be Passive which can hardly escape a contradiction It denieth Christ as he was Mediatour to be a Malefactor though to be imputatively a Malefactor was essential for the time unto his being a Mediatour As in your distinction of Legall and Mediatoriall obedience you understand the terms Legal and Mediatorial to signifie two kindes of obedience which are but two appellations of the same obedience so in this distinction of the active and passive death of Christ according also as you expresse your self clearer upon the margent you make these terms to signifie two kindes of death which only signifie diverse affections in the Person dying The terms Mediator and Malefactor are to be distinguished as the whole and the part of the same office To be a Malefactor imputatively was an essentiall part for the time of the office of the Mediatour The terms Active and Passive do not denote or distinguish two deaths but are to be distinguished as adjuncts or affections of the same Person and Officer as concerning one and the same death Dialogu When I speak of the death of Christ as a Malefactor then the Scribes and Pharisees must be considered as the wicked instruments thereof yet this must be remembred also that I do not mean that they by their torments did separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death himself only did separate his own soul from his body by the power of his Godhead but they put him to death because they inflicted the sores of death upon his body they did that to him which they thought sufficient to put him to death and men are often said to do that which they indeavour to do as in the example of Abraham Heb. 11.7 Haman Esth 8.7 Amalek Exod. 17.16 Saul Psal 143 3. The Magicians Exo. 8.18 The Israelites Numb 14.30 as the matter is explained in Deut. 1.41 and in this sense it is said that the Iews did kill and slay the Lord of life because they endeavoured to do it Answ In respect of the natural death of Christ God was the universal efficient The second cause cannot act without the concurse of the first Act. 17.28 The formall efficiency of the second cause consists with and is subordinate to the universal efficiency of the first cause so as the efficiency of the second cause is both ordered by and is also the effect of the first cause but the deficiency of the second cause though it be ordered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad efficientem causam indirectè refertur voluntas ipsius Christi Synops pur theol disput 27. thes 19. yet it is not the effect of the first cause Christ as Mediatour was the voluntary cause freely and readily consenting to the Fathers will Heb. 10.7 and 9.14 Gal. 2.20 Christ was Lord of his own life he had power of right concerning it Ioh 10.18 It was his own and he had done no wrong in case he had not taken upon him the form of a servant Phil. 2.6.7 He had power of might to have preserved his life no man could take it from him against his will Ioh. 10.18 All which notwithstanding he voluntarily humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Crosse Phil. 2.8 Thus Christ was active concerning his death but not as his own executioner and formall shedder of his own bloud The Executioners were the immediate external and blameable cause so are these Texts to be understood 1 Pet. 3.18 Act. 2.32 and 3.15 1 Thes 3.15 Jam. 5.6 Two of your instances hold
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
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 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
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