justice that he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Rom. 3.36 yea with the establishing of justice Do we then make void the Law by faith God forbid Yea we establish the Law ver 31. Therefore the meritorious mediatorly obedience of Christ was performed in such a way of satisfaction unto justice as included also a suffering of justice You disagree with the truth and us and scarcely agree with your self Dialogu Secondly Though I say that Christ did not suffer his Fathers wrath neither in whole nor in part yet I affirm that he suffered all things that his Father did appoint him to suffer in all circumstances just according to the prediction of all the Prophets even to the nodding of the head and the spitting of the face as these Scriptures do testifie 1. Peter told the Jews that they had killed the Prince of Life as God before had shewed by the mouth of all the Prophets that Christ should suffer and he fullfilled it so Act. 3.17 18. 2. Christ did expresly by his Disciples tell that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things of the Elders and cheif Priests and Scribes and be killed and raised again the third day Mat. 16.21 3. After his resurrection he said to the two Disciples O fools and slow of heart to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken Ought not Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory Luk. 24.25 26. and in ver 44.46 he said thus to all his Disciples These are the words which I speak unto you that all things must be fullfilled which are written in the Law of Moses in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning me thus it is written and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day 4. Paul told the men of Antioch that the Rulers of the Iews condemned him because they knew not the voices of the Prophets concerning him and therefore though they found no cause of death in him yet they desired Pilate that he should be slain and when they had fullfilled all things that were written of him they took him down from the tree and laid him in a sepulchre Act. 13.27 28 29. mark this phrase They fulfilled all things that were written of him if they fulfilled all his sufferings then it was not Gods wrath but mans wrath that he suffered 5. The Lord told Adam not only that the promised seed should break the devils head-plot but also that the devil should crucifie him and pierce him in the foot-sole Gen. 3.15 the devil did it by his instruments the Scribes and Pharisees by Pilate and the Romane souldiers Answ He that saith Though Christ did not suffer his Fathers wrath in whole nor in part yet he suffered all things that his Father appointed him to suffer saith that his Father did not appoint him to suffer his wrath either in whole or in part That you say thus cannot be denied but with what reason you so say let the Reader judge by what follows None of the Scriptures alledged by you confirm though some of them alledged by you deny what you affirm Christ sheweth that he must suffer many things by the Elders chief Priests and Scribes Matth. 16.21 true yet he doth not there shew that he must not suffer the wrath of God God fullfilled those things which he had before shewed by the mouth of all his Prophets that Christ should suffer Act. 3.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to this sense the Greek Text is to be read and not as you seem to mistake it this may include but certainly excludes not the suffering of the wrath of God Luke 24.25 26. concludes that Christ was to suffer the word All ver 26. includes the suffering of divine justice the word All Act. 13.27 28 29. is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fullfilled by the Romanes and the Jews as the instruments thereof not absolutely for all things whatsoever he was to suffer from any They fullfilled all things that he was to suffer from them true but it doth not therfore follow that they fulfilled all things he was to suffer The meaning of those words Thou shalt bruise his heel Gen. 3.15 is that Christ chiefly and with him beleevers that live godlily both which are the seed of Eve shall suffer affliction and persecution by Satan and his malignant agents which are the seed of the Serpent Notwithstanding what you have hitherto said touching the stating of the matter controverted that the Reader who shall be pleased to cast his eye upon this poor paper may not be at a losse but may with the more facility clearnesse and distinctnesse go along with us in the following discourse he is desired here to take just and seasonable notice that the whole controversie between you and us consisteth of four parts 1 Concerning Christs suffering the wrath of God due to the elect for sin 2. Concerning Gods imputation of sinne to Christ 3. Concerning the nature of Mediatorly obedience or the meritorious price of redemption 4. Concerning the Justification of a sinner The Dialogues method wherein though in respect of the two first immethodical for the second should have been first the answer is constrained to observe and accordingly to begin with the first viz. Whether Christ suffered the wrath of God due to the Elect for their sins we assert the Affirmative you endeavour to prove the Negative and that first by disproving the received interpretation of Certain Texts alledged by the Orthodox for the proof of the Affirmative which we are now Christ assisting to consider with you CHAP. III. The Vindication of Gen. 2.17 Gen. 2.17 In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death Dialogu YOu say that the term Thou is thou in thine own person and thou in thy posterity thus far I approve of your exposition but whereas you extend the term Thou unto the Redeemer this last clause I dislike for the death and curse here threatned cannot extend it self unto the Redeemer in the manner of his ing out our redemption Answ For the better understanding this Text the misunderstanding whereof seemeth not a little to have mislâ—d the Authour and the true understanding whereof may be of good use to preserve the Reader Consider these three things 1. What is here intended by death 2. The distribution of death 3. The application of that distribution The Death here spoken of is the wages of sin Rom. 5.21 and 6.23 That is all evill the evil of Adams sin excepted in one word As all lines unite in the center so all sorrows meet in that one term Death The commination Thou shalt surely die is not particular concerning some kinde of Death but indefinite therefore aequivalent to a universall comprehending all kindes of death God inflicts no evill upon man but for sin and all evill not only of affliction but also of sin followeth upon Adams sin Originall sin proceeding thence as an effect from the cause and actuall sin as
morbo remedium in morte vitam in perditore â—ervatorem adumbratum voluit Paraeus in locum He that compareth Rom. 5.14 with Gen. 2.17 hath an unspeakable ground of consolation whilest he reades Gods purpose to redeem us in our first fathers sinning and we in him From hence Paul gathers an argument to conclude that all Adams posterity descended from him by way of ordinary generation to be guilty of Adams sin Whilest you acknowledge that in Gen. 2.17 God laid down a rule of justice to Adam you must needs imply the surety of the elect to have satisfied that rule of justice and consequently to have suffered the wrath of God and in conclusion you tacitely contradict your self and act our cause Dialogu The nature of death intended in this Text is such as it was altogether impossible the Mediatour should suffer it Answ The distinction premised concerning death in sin and death for sin is here to be applied and accordingly the castigatory part of death in sin was intended to the sinner not to the surety The essentiall part of death for sin was intended to the surety not to the elect sinner The essentiall and circumstantiall poenall part of death in sinne and death for sin was intended for the Reprobate The Text must needs proceed according to this interpretation in respect of the elect There iâ— as good and greater reason why it should so proceed in respect of Christ it being much more impossible that he should suffer death in sinne that is become a sinner then that the elect sinners should suffer poenall i. e. properly-poenall death for sinne that is be damned though both be impossible Dialogu The death here threatned must be understood primarily of a spirituall death or death in sin Answ All that you say concerning spiritual death befalling Adam in the day that he sinned and therefore primarily inflicted is vain and impertinent for that denyeth not the inflicting of eternall death to be intended afterward nay it rather argueth eternall death to be primarily intended because not executed according to that Proposition That which is first in intention is last in execution That which is of the essence or substance of the punishment of sin is primarily in the curse and therefore primarily to be understood but death for sin not death in sin is of the essence of the punishment of sin as we saw in the first Distinction Chapter the first Instead of proving your assertion viz. That it was impossible for Christ to suffer any of the cursed death intended Gen. 2.17 your arguing only proves another thing viz. that the death here primarily intended was spirituall death i. e. death in sinne which Christ could not suffer and so you lose your Question Though it be granted that death in sin be here understood primarily yet if death for sinne be understood secondarily then this argument concludes not against Christs suffering any death intended but only against his suffering the death primarily intended in the text Though death in sin compared with eternal death be primarily intended in regard of Adams reprobate posterity yet it cannot be said it was primarily intended in respect of Adam himself if you will yield him to be saved and his elect posterity because that would imply eternall death to be secondarily intended which was never at all intended as concerning them Howsoever certain it is that death for sin as concerning the essentiall poenall part thereof is solely intended concerning Christ and death in sin not at all Dialogu Calvin in Gen. 2.17 demandeth what kinde of death it was that God threatned to fall upon Adam in this Text he answereth to this purpose It seemeth to me saith he that we must fetch the definition thereof from the contrary Consider saith he from what life Adam fell at the first saith he he was created in every part of his body and soul with pure qualities after the image of God therefore on the contrary saith he by dying the death is meant that he should be emptied of all the image of God and possessed with corrupt qualities as soon as ever he did but eat of the forbidden fruit Answ It is a vain question saith Calvin upon the place how God threatned death unto Adam in the day wherein he touched the fruit since he deferred the punishment unto a long time afterward Your labour to confirm Adams falling into death in sin the same day that he sinned is altogether impertinent the Question being Whether â—uch poenall death for sin is not here intended as it was possible for Christ to suffer Mihi definitio petenda ex opposito videtur tenendum inquaÌ„ est ex quâ vitâ homo ceciderit erat enim omni ex parte beatus Calvin in loc That poenall death for sin is here intended Calvin proveth though you omit his proof by the nature of opposites thus The death that he fell into was opposite to the good he fell from But the good he fell from was all kinde of blessednesse Therefore the death he fell into comprehended all kindes of misery This is the scope of his argumentation your mistake thereof though it is easily pardoned yet your other defect in the citation the Reader that compareth Calvin and the Dialogue together can hardly excuse Dialogu If there be good and necessary reason as there is to exempt our Mediatour from suffering the first cursed spirituall death then there is good reason also to exempt him from suffering any other curse of the Law whatsoever Answ The sum is Christ could not sinne Therefore he could not suffer the punishment due to the elect for sin as a surety a most reason-lesse and sick consequence and the contrary true He could not as Mediator and Surety have suffered satisfactorily the punishment for sinne if he had not been without sinne Though Christ was not a sinner inherently yet he was a sinner imputatively whereupon the substantiall curse of the Law was justly executed upon him Dialogu Examine the particulars of any other curse of the Law and they will be found to be such as Christ could not suffer Diseases naturall death putrefaction of body after death eternall death are curses of the Law Christ did not bear diseases and bodily infirmities yet by the common doctrine of imputation you must affirm it nor suffer naturall death in our stead nor see corruption nor suffer eternall death therefore he did not suffer the cursed death meant Gen. 2.17 Answ We are to distinguish between the sufferings which are of the essence or substance of the curse and those the inflicting whereof in particular is not of the essence of the curse Bodily diseases Putrefaction the duration of punishment for ever are not essentiall to the curse because the wrath of God may be suffered where these are not The Devils are not sick the reprobate that shall not die but be changed therefore not see coruption yet shall suffer the wrath of God No reprobates endure all miseries
our righteousnesse and justification This the Reader is desired to take full notice of it in the Dialogues corrupt sense being that Helena in defence whereof a good part of the ensuing discourse spends it self and the just confutation whereof here given and kept in minde may serve as an answer to the after frequent repetitions of the same thing That Atonement or pardon of sin only especially such as denieth the Legal Obedience of Christ imputed cannot be the righteousnesse of a sinner is proved thus The difference of the nature of justice and pardon of sin manifests that pardon of sin only is not justice or righteousnesse Pardon and sinlessenesse take away deformity in respect of the Law but righteousnesse consists in a conformity unto the Law Pardon of sin is an effect of that which is the sinners righteousnesse For the clearing whereof three distinct notions in the justification of a sinner are to be attended to 1. Righteousnesse it self i. e. the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed called by some justification taken actively or the application thereof on Gods part 2. The receiving of this gift of righteousnesse by faith Rom. 5.17 whereby we are just called by some justification taken passively or the application thereof on our part 3. Vid. Buch. loc 31 q. 6. Remissio peccatorum est pars nostrae justificationis sed non est pars nostrae justitiae Polan syntag p. 1493. The judicial pronouncing of the beleever in the Court of conscience hereupon to be just by the vertue of the promise of the Gospel for the merit sake of Christ this Divines call our justification because we are now declared to be just and are judicially just that is the Beleever now made righteous by faith is judicially discharged and declared to be discharged from the condemning guilt and punishment of sin and accepted as righteous unto eternall life The first is our righteousnesse or justice it self The second is our being justified The third is the judiciall pronunciation that we are justified so that pardon of sin is not a part of righteousnesse it self but a part of the judiciall sentence concerning one that is righteous and because he is righteous To say pardon of sin is righteousnesse is self is to confound the effect with the cause Whence the reason is plain why notwithstanding both righteousnesse or justice and the pardon of sins be by Divines frequently made ingredients into the definition of justification yet righteousnesse and pardon of sins are not to be looked at as the same thing Such definitions are not nor is it by the Authour thereof so intended perfect definitions adequate to thing defined but they are descriptions or imperfect definitions so expressed as best seems to communicate the truth unto the capacity of the reader Again Justification is an accident now Logicians teach us such definitions of accidents to be oftentimes helpful to the understanding that make use of other terms besides those which are essentiall If pardon of sin were a part of a sinners righteousnesse yet being but a part it could not be the whole Pardon of sin cannot compleat righteousnesse because righteousnesse doth not only consist in being sinlesse but also in being just the heavens are sinlesse yet they are not just the Law is not satisfied with negative obedience Not only he that doth do what the Law forbiddeth shall die Gen. 2.17 but he that continueth not in the things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 Being sinlesse acquits from obnoxiousnesse unto hell but being just giveth a right unto heaven There is an observable difference between being unjust Injustus non-injustus non-justus justus not-unjust not-just just The sinner yet not a beleever is unjust the unreasonable creature is not-unjust Adam in innocency was more then not-unjust yet was not just The Beleever is just There is no such pardon of sin as the Dialogue affirms namely such a pardon of sin as doth not only disown the Legal obedience of Christ imputed as its cause but also disclaims the very being of it The being of the Dialogues pardon is the not being of Christs active and passive mediatorly obedience to the Law It is such a fiction as the Authour of it and that at his conclusion undertaking to shew its being from the causes thereof Dial. p. 133. telleth us the formal cause is the fathers atonement pardon and forgivenesse but the subject matter is beleeving sinners of all sorts the subject matter are the persons receiving justification which some Divines call the matter of justification taken passively yet adding therewith the Legall obedience of Christ which they call the matter of justification taken actively namely that which is the matter whereby a person elect and called is justified but if you enquire after the essential matter of justification amongst the causes enumerated by the Authour behold the Dialogue is speechlesse and presents you with a form without a matter such a being as is neither created nor increated If Christs Legal obedience was the expiation of sin that is if Christ in way of obedient fulfilling the Law was a person accursed the sacrificing of whom in way of satisfaction to divine justice was necessary to the taking away of sin Then there is no pardon of sin without Christs Legal obedience so fulfilled and imputed But Christs Legal obedience was the expiation of sin which appeareth thus The Legal offerings of atonement were typical expiations of sin Exod. 29.36 ch 36. Lev. 16. therefore Christ was the reall expiation of sin He in way of obedient fulfilling of the Law Heb. 10 9. Psa 40.8 Mat. 5.7 was a person accursed and that with a paenal and eternal curse Gal. 3.13 which is already proved in the fore-going vindication of the Text. The sacrificing of whom in way of satisfaction to divine justice was necessary to the taking away of sin Isa 53.10 Rom. 3.26 Heb. 9.22 where bloud is understood synechdochically part of his suffering put for the whole his bloud was shed together with the wrath of God because it was shed as the bloud of a person accursed And he went a little further c. fell on his face c. praied saying O my Father if it be possible Let this cup passe from me to the same effect he praied the second time and the third time Mat. 26.39 42 44. If it be possible If it be possible If it be possible hereby the definitive way of God being set concerning the salvation of the Elect Christ abundantly sheweth there was no other possible way of redemption but by his drinking up the cup of his Fathers wrath for us whatsoever the Dialogue saith to the contrary God doubtlesse will not own those pardons for disobedience unto his Law which will not own Christs meritorious obedience to that Law and that as the cause of pardon If our very pardons minister matter of condemnation how great is that condemnation Who can lay
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
his posterity which otherwise had continued righteous and sinlesse In like sort Christs Mediatoriall obedience had this effect that it procured Gods fatherly atonement and acceptance of all his posterity and seed that should be born of the same promise Gen. 3.15 Answ If the sinfull nature of Adams posterity was the effect of Adams disobedience in like sort as Atonement i. e. remission of sin is the effect of Christs obedience then it was the effect thereof according to justice as indeed it was for original sin is the penal effect of Adams sin he is just to forgive us our sin 1 Joh. 1.9 Dialogu By one man namely Adams sin in eating the forbidden fruit death entred into the world and death by sin namely spirituall death in sin fell upon Adam and his posterity for his sin and so death passed upon all men for that all men had sinned That is to say in whose loins all men have sinned by receiving from his loins his corrupt nature which is sin and also is the punishment of Adams sinfull eating not whose act of disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit all men have sinned in eating the forbidden fruit for then we must have been united to Adam as one person with him Answ What is to be understood by death see in the vindication of Gen. 2.17 The Dialogue not enduring the imputation either of our disobedience unto Christ or of Christs obedience unto us to avoid the Apostles argument taken from the imputation of Adams disobedience to mankinde Rom. 5. denieth that we are guilty of Adams sin acknowledging only that we receive from Adam a corrupt nature or a spirituall death in sin viz. that which we call originall sin Whilest you acknowledge corruption of nature to be the punishment of Adams sinfull eating and yet deny that we sinned in eating the forbidden fruit you make a contradiction for there can be no punishment without sin and by consequence also you put injustice upon God who notwithstanding by his absolute will he might yet having limited himself he doth not afflict without sin That all descended of Adam by ordinary generation are guilty of Adams sin is evident 1. From the expresse Text for that all have sinned Rom. 5.12 or in whom i. e. in Adam all have sinned as it is upon the margent and according as the Learned Interpreters generally turn it Both come to the same sense In this Chapter the Apostle insists upon Adams sin as in the 7th upon originall sinne 2. From the effect all sinned in Adam because all died in Adam even those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression viz. Infants who sinned not actually in their proper persons but only in their publike person Rom. 5.14 Gen. 2.17 1 Cor. 15.22 3. There can be no other reason given according to the revealed will of God of the propagation of of originall sin This doctrine of yours too much favours Pelagius who denied Infants to be guilty of Adams sin and of original sin 4. Adam in his first transgression stood as a publike person by the free constitution of God whose will is the rule of righteousnesse who is the figure of him that was to come Rom. 5.14 Adams being a publike person was a great aggravation of Adams sin hence a world of sin was in Adams sin 1. Because Adam was the whole world the world sinned in Adams sin 2. Because Adam by that sinne slew the whole world 3. Because all sin by consequence was contained in this sin Thence is Originall sin as an effect from the cause hence actuall sinne as an act from the habit 4. It was a universall sin because in it was in sum the violation of the whole Decalogue Dialogu But it passeth my understanding to conceive how God in justice can impute the act of Christs Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement to us as our act unlesse he do first make us one with Christ in the personal unity of both natures noither can I see how any of the actions of Christ can be imputed to Beleevers as their actions Answ Though there needs no other ground for the justice thereof then the good pleasure of God and the free consent of Christ yet herein the pleasure of God and consent of Christ and the mysticall not personall union of Christ and Beleevers concurre The Legal acceptance of the offended or creditor Justitia Christi non imputatur nobis ut causis sed ut subjectis tantura Bellarm. encr Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. and the consent of the surety are sufficient for the Legall charging the offence or debt of a third person who is the offender or debtor upon the surety Christs obedience is imputed to us not formally as if we were the performers thereof but in respect of its efficacy because we have the benefit of it as effectually as if we had performed it our selves The obedience of Christ is imputed to us as the Subjects meerly not as the causes of it Christs actions are ours not properly but virtually in respect of their vigour good benefit and efficacy Dialogu In like sort our blessed Mediatour as he is the mysticall head of all beleevers in the Covenant of grace did take care to do all and every act of Mediatoriall obedience that might procure his Fathers Atonement for the good and benefit of every member of his mysticall body as fully and effectually as if every member could have performed those acts of Mediatoriall obedience themselves And in this sense God doth imput◠the efficacy of all Christs Mediatoriall obedience to all beleevers as the only meritorious price of his Fathers atonement for them Answ The Reader may at the first sight hereof haply think that as it was sometimes with Bellarmine who having spent whole Books in a laborious disputation for mans merit against grace Bellarm. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 7. Tutissimum c. at length saith It is most safe to place our confidence in the alone mercy of God So it is here fallen out with the Authour who after his labour hitherto against the doctrine of Imputation now at length may seem to acknowledge it But though his words be equivocall yet his meaning is the same that it was before and so much the more dangerous because the same evil sense is insinuated in a better language To suppose a sinner to have performed those acts of Mediatorly obedience which Christ performed is to suppose an impossibility Christ was and is God-man and without sin neither of which can be found in him who is a sinner The voice of this whole clause this supposition excepted or somewhat qualified is not unlike the voice of Jacob but the sense is the sense of Esau i. e. the minde of the Dialogue uttered by the tongue of the Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is with the minde of the Orthodox as hath been said of old concerning the Scripture it lieth not in the sound but in the sense
fear of death by prayers therefore there was a necessity for him to pray and to strive in prayer untill he had overcome it as I shall further explain the matter by and by in Heb. 5.7 Answ There can no reason be given why the fear of naturall death should be as much as the humane nature of Christ could bear without sin because the object of that fear may be and is much exceeded paenal-spiritual death is a greater object of fear incomparably Dialogu Again Because the humane nature of Christ whatever had been inflicted upon it could not have sinned there can no sufficient reason be given why Christ should fear naturall death either more or so much as other men there being therefore not such a measure of fear in Christ of naturall death as the Dialogue affirmeth there was no such fear foretold nor was his earnest prayer to be delivered from that fear which could not be what it was and what he praied to be delivered from we shall see where you promise us to explain Heb. 5.7 We must observe the due time of every action the manner the place and the persons and all other circumstances to fullfill every circumstance just as the Prophets had foretold nothing must fail if he had failed in the least circumstance he had failed in all and his humane nature could not be exact in these circumstances without the concurrence of the divine nature in all these respects his naturall fear of death could not chuse but be very often in his minde and as often to put him unto pain till he had overcome it Answ As things were foretold by the Prophets concerning Christ so he fullfilled them Act. 3.18 Luke 22.37 that there might be a ready concurrence of the divine nature with the humane for the enabling of it unto the fullfilling of them he was both God and man Heb. 9.14 Rom. 1.4 there could not therefore be in Christ any fear as concerning his failing to fullfill his office to the utmost Your mentioning other causes though false of Christs fear besides his naturall death is a secret acknowledgement that his conflict with the fear of naturall death only was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows felt before his death Dialogu Scanderbeg was in such an agony when he was fighting against the Turks that the bloud hath been seen to burst out of his lips with very eagernesse of spirit only I have heard also from credible persont that Alexander the great did sweat bloud in the couragious defence of himself and others The sweaeting sicknesse caused many to sweat out of their bodies a bloudy humour and yet many did recover and live many years after but if their sweating bloud had been a sign of Gods wrath upon their souls as you say it was in Christ then I think they could not have lived any longer by the strength of nature Answ The effusion of certain drops of bloud at Scanderbergs lips through the commotion of his spirits was no sweat Your information concerning Alexander in all probability is a mistake there being no such matter reported of him by the ordinary Historiographers of his life It was but a bloudy humour if so and in a time of sicknesse not bloud Arist l. 3. depart animal c. 5. l. 3. De Historia anim c. 9. Fernelius lib. 6. that you mention at the sweating sicknesse Aristotle reports of one that sometimes sweat a kinde of bloudy excrement which yet he looked at proceeding from an evil disposition of the body Theophrastus confirmeth the same Fernelius writes that he saw bloud effused out of the extremity of the veins through infirmity of the Liver and the Retentive faculty Lib. de dignosc morb c. 11. 8. Vid. Gerh. Herm. in Luc. 22.43 Rondelettius tels us that he saw in the year 1547. a kinde of bloudy sweat in a certain Student occasioned by some defects of the veins bones and thinness of bloud Maldonat upon Mat. 26. makes mention of a man at Paris strong and in health who having received the sentence of death was bedewed with a bloudy sweat But this bloudy sweat of Christ properly so flowing from such a person and free from all distemper either of body or minde and in such a manner and plenty as Luke reports differed much from all these Whether the sweat of Christ were naturall or miraculous we leave it to them that have leisure and skill to enquire though the Evangelist mentioneth it as an effect proceeding from a greater cause then the fear of a meet naturall death all which notwithstanding yet is not our doctrine built only or chiefly upon this Argument Dialogu Do but consider a little more seriously what an horrid thing to nature the approach of death is see in how many horrid expressions David doth describe it Psa 116.3 18.4 55.4 5. Answ There were many times many causes why David was much afraid of death none of which are to be found in Christ yet you make Christ much more afraid of death then David was Though death be horrid unto nature yet not so to faith much lesse so horrid as to cause affections of fear above the nature of the evil feared that is erring affections in an unerring subject Dialogu Suppose Adam in innocency had grapled with the fear of death like enough it would have caused a violent sweat over all his body Answ Adam being a sinner did grapple with death Genes 5.5 without any such sweat mentioned doubtlesse Adam innocent would not have been inferiour to Adam a sinner Christ was much superiour to Adam innocent though you make him inferiour in this matter to Adam a sinner Dialogu It 's no strange new doctrine to make the naturall fear of death to be the cause of Christs agony seeing other learned men do affirm it Christopher Carlile in his Treatise of Christs desceut into hell p. 46. saith thus Was not Christ extreamly afflicted when he for fear of death sweat drops in quantity as thick as drops of bloud John Fryth a godly Martyr saith thus in his answer to Sir Thomas Moor B. 2. Christ did not only weep but he feared so sore that he sweat drops like drops of bloud running down upon the earth which was more then to weep Now saith he if I should ask you why Christ feared and sweat so sore what would you answer me was it for fear of the pains of purgatory he that shall so answer is worthy to be laughed to scorn wherefore then was it Verily even for the fear of death as it appeareth plainly by his prayer for he prayed to his Father saying If it be possible let this cup passe from me Answ These Authours I not having by me cannot examine the quotations their words therefore rather better bearing the sense of the Orthodox then the sense of the Dialogue charity untill the contrary appeareth construeth in the best sense M. Fryth's other writings call to have it so But though
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
one Sanctulus a Presbyter that offered himself to be beheaded for a certain Deacon that was to be put to death by the Longobards I dare almost say saith Grotius Caterùm ubi consensus c. Grotius de satisfacti-Christ c. 6. a man excelling in this kinde of learning that where there is consent there is not any of all those whom we call Pagans who would esteem it unjust that one should be punished for the delinquency of another Dialogu And this distinction of the souls case from the bodies case may sufficiently serve as an answer to M. Reynolds who doth labour to iustifie the imputation of our sins unto our innocent Saviour in Psa 110. p. 444. 445. Answ This distinction of the case of the body in this life liable and the case of the soul not liable unto punishment is grounded upon presumption of that which is not namely such an act wherein the body is guilty and the soul both guiltlesse and uncapable of guilt either inherently or imputatively M Reynolds distinguisheth between inherent and imputative guilt and concludes Christ was guilty imputatively that is obnoxious unto the punishment that others had deserved Ursin expos Catech. p. 1. qu. 13. Paraeus in Rom. cap. 5. Dub. 5. Mr Reynolds on Psa 110. pag. 446. The arguments whereby he proveth that Christ though inherently innocent might be guilty imputatively and suffer the punishment that others had deserved they that please to examine shall finde solid and in effect much the same with what Vrsin and Paraeus had taught before Were there place for this distinction concerning any other subject yet it holds not concerning Christ who was guilty imputatively though not inherently and in himself which hath been proved in its proper place before PART II. SECTION I. Wherein the Dialogue pretendeth to prove I. That Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law not by suffering the said curse for us but by a satisfactory price of Atonement namely by paying or performing unto his Father that invaluable precious thing of his Mediatorial obedience whereof his Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement was the master-piece II. A sinners Righteousnesse or Justification is explained and cleared from some Common Errours CHAP. I. Of the nature of Mediatorly obedience both according to the Dialogue and the Orthodox Dialogu THat which Christ did to redeem us from the curse of the Law was not by bearing of the said curse really in our stead as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach but by procuring his Fathers atonement by the invaluable price or performance of his own Mediatoriall obedience whereof his Mediatoriall sacrifice of atonement was the finishing master-piece this kinde of obedience was that rich thing of price which the Father required and accepted as satisfactory for the procuring of his atonement for our full Redemption Justification and Adoption Answ The Dialogue having hitherto denied and contended against Christs suffering of the wrath of God due unto the Elect for their sins in way of satisfaction to divine justice as also against the imputation of the sins of the elect unto Christ the latter whereof the order of cause and effect would have placed first the imputation of the sins of the Elect unto Christ being the cause of his suffering the wrath of God due to them which passive obedience the Orthodox beleeve and teach to be essentiall unto the Mediatorly obedience of Christ a truth of no lesse moment then the Redemption and salvation of souls The Dialogue I say thus engaged feeleth a neeessity lying upon it to present the Reader with some Mediatorly obedience because without it at least in appearance no Christian who is in earnest concerning his Redemption will be satisfied It concerneth us then the received Mediatorly obedience being denied diligently to attend what this new Mediatorial obedience is Dialogu And according to this tenour the Apostle Paul doth explain the matter he doth teach us to place the obedience of the Mediatour in a direct opposition to the first disobedience of Adam Rom. 5.19 he makes the merit of Christs Mediatoriall obedience to countervail the demerit of Adams disobedience for the disobedience of Adam was but the disobedience of a meer man but the obedience of Christ was the obedience of God-man and in that respect God the Father was more highly pleased with the obedience of the Mediatour then he was displeased with the disobedience of Adam Answ The disobedience of the first Adam and obedience of the second are opposites these opposites are compared in respect of some things wherein they are alike viz. Both are publike persons both communicate what is theirs to their seed respectively and some things wherein they are unlike viz. 1. In respect of their efficacy the obedience of Christ is more potent to communicate the good of his obedience unto his then the disobedience of Adam is able to communicate the evil of his disobedience unto his 2. In respect of the effect the disobedience of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit makes his seed guilty only of that first act of disobedience but the obedience of Christ dischargeth beleevers which are his seed not only from the guilt of that one act of the disobedience of Adams sin but also from the guilt of all other disobedience both originall and actuall The obedience of the second Adam did not only countervail but exceed all the disobedience of the first Adam much more Rom. 5.15 16. Grace abounded ver 16. abundance of grace vers 17. where sin abounded grace did much more abound ver 20. It is a truth most precious that God was more highly pleased with the obedience of the Mediatour then he was displeased with the disobedience of Adam but so unhappy is the Dialogue contending against the Mediatorly obedience of Christ as that in the prosecuting of that opposition it cannot speak this truth without insinuating a fallacy of putting that for the cause which is not the cause for the ground of the acceptation of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ proceeds not wholly though principally from the eminency of the Person which the Dialogue acknowledgeth but also from the kinde of his obedience which the Dialogue denieth But how doth this either prove the bearing of the curse really to be no part of the obedience of the Mediator which the argumentation intends though the obedience whereof the Text speaketh intends the contrary or inform the Reader what the Dialogue means by its new Mediatorly obedience which the order of disputation here called for The Dialogue denying the received doctrine concerning the Passive obedience of Christ as Mediator yet acknowledging a Mediatorly obedience but not giving any tolerable description of it in any one place whence the ordinary Reader may know what it is only here and there mentions the name thereof and occasionally adding to that name such a something as indeed renders it a dark nothing which manner of handling it is rather a snare then a guide to the
lesse attentive Reader before we proceed to examine the arguments for this new Mediatorly obedience what the rules of disputation required of the Authour namely that he should first have given us some such definition or description thereof whence we might have understood what it is that he so much contends for for to be willing to dispute say the Logicians before we undrstand certainly what is the Question is to be willing to lose our time and that serious and affectionate counsell of Keckerman is here seasonable Kec Log. Sact. Post cap. 1. Let us not saith he dispute of any thing in Divinity before the various signification of that whereof we dispute is diligently distinguished that I shall endeavour to supply namely to acquaint the Reader with what the Dialogue intends by its new Mediatorly obedience according to what is to be collected out of it self comparing one place with another whereto I shall also subjoyn a description of Mediatorly obedience according to the received doctrine of the Orthodox that so the Reader conferring both together may the better judge both of the question and disputation Truth loves the light and errour lurks in ambiguities The minde of the Dialogue concerning Mediatorly obedience is to be gathered 1. By its dictinction 2. By putting together what in severall places it speaks concerning it It is necessary saith the Dialogue to distinguish between Legall and Mediatoriall obedience Legall or naturall obedience is no more but humane obedience performed by Christ as a godly Jew unto the Law of works all the actions of Christ from his birth until he was thirty years of age must be considered but as natural or but as legall acts of obedience I cannot see saith the Dialogue how any of these actions which yet it somewhat corrects as we shall finde in due place can properly be called Mediatoriall obedience Pag. 111. 112. The Mediatorial obedience of Christ Mediatorial obedience of the Dialogue what Largely according to the Dialogue consists of those acts of his obedience which he did actuate by the joynt concurrence of both his natures some whereof viz. many mediatoriall praiers of his intercession though they were acted by him before 30 years of age yet the far greater part of the acts thereof and all the publike actions were performed after he was thirty years of age viz. after his publique installing into the office of Mediatorship Mat. 3. See pag. 112. 113. amongst the which mediatorial acts of his obedience is his giving up his Manhood by the power of his Divine nature to suffer a natural death such and no other as the sons of Zebedee suffered Mar. 10.39 Pag. 46. without suffering any degree of Gods wrath at all either in soul or body pag. 2. yet so as the Divine nature separated his soul from his body which was the master-piece and was accepted of God the Father as the price and meritorious procuring cause of our Redemption pag. 86. for that was the most precious thing that either God the Father could require or that the Mediatour could perform for our atonement or redemption pag. 87. The sum whereof take thus Briefly Christs Mediatorly obedience according to the Dialogue are certain actions performed by him not in way of obedience to the moral Law for all such actions he performed as a godly Jew and as man only but as God-man Mediatour unto the Law of Mediatorship especially after 30 years of age the Master-piece whereof was his yielding himself to suffer a bodily death Mediatorly obedience according to the Orthodox what Mediatorly obedience according to the received doctrine of the Orthodox is the inherent conformity and whole course of the active and passive obedience of Christ from his conception to his passion inclusively performed by him as God-man Mediatour unto the Law in way of Covenant whereunto the whole good of Redemption was due unto the Elect for Christs sake according to order of justice though conferred upon them in a way of meer grace Touching the Dialogues Mediatorly obedience here are divers things which the Reader is desired to take distinct and seasonable notice of 1. Concerning the distinction Mediatorly and Legal obedience are not two kindes of obedience in Christ but one and the same obedience called Mediatorly from the office of the person obeying Legall from the Rule which was obeyed 2. Concerning the nature of Mediatorly obedience we have First a new Law given which is called the Law of the Mediatour excluding from it wholly the Law of works Secondly we have a new Mediatorly obedience conformable to that new Law and excluding expresly the essential obedience of the Mediatour which consists in obedience to the Law of works That obedience which the Creditor according to the Law demands and the Debtor owes that the Surety is to pay but the obedience unto the Command i.e. the Law of works Lev. 18.5 Gal. 3.10 and suffering of the punishment due to sin Gen. 2.17 is that which God according to Law demands and the Debtor namely the sinner oweth therefore obedience unto the Law of works is that which the Surety ought to pay It is a fiction not only unwarrantable and from beginning of time as I beleeve unheard from any Classical authour but above measure presumptuous expresly to deny about or neer 30 years of the obedience of Christ to be Mediatorly obedience and upon point to acknowledge only an uncertain little part of his life to be spent in that service it is also an ignorant and snaring contradiction to affirm that to be meritorious which is not done in a way of justice Justice is of the form of merit Merit is a debt according to order of justice it is a just debt Christs mediatorly obedience was an act of a far higher nature then is the fictitious obedience of the Dialogue It is an untruth of perillous consequence to corrupt the Faith of the Reader by asserting Gods high acceptance of such a Mediatorly obedience which is not Mediatorly obedience nor will be so owned of God That Christ in giving up his life in respect of the Divine nature as considered in Personall union with the humane nature acted in way of consent but not as his own executioner hath been oft seen CHAP. II. Of the divers waies of Redemption Dialogu IF so then there is no need that our blessed Mediator should pay both the price of his Mediatoriall obedience and also bear the Curse of the Law really for our Redemption Answ Even so it was viz. that the obedience of the second countervailed yea far transcended the disobedience of the first Adam because our blessed Mediatour paid the price of his Mediatorly obedience by beating the curse of the Law really for our Redemption the Meritorious obedience of Christ not the fictitious obedience of the Dialogue was the cause of Gods actual acceptation thereof not of his volition to accept and not Gods actual acceptation the cause of his meritorious obedience
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
was no more repugnant to that estate then to the state of the Angels he had been also through proportionable concourse of the first cause able to have yeelded like obedience thereunto the concreated image of God in Adam and in the Angels being the same in kinde Why then was not that principle in Adam able to have carried him out to have beleeved in Christ as a Head and Redeemer could that command have consisted with the state of innocency The cause of Adams not beleeving in Christ in the state of innocency was not through the defect of a principle enabling him thereunto But by reason First of the inconsistency of justifying faith with that estate Secondly By reason of the not revealing of the object of faith Adam in innocency had a principle enabling him to parental duties yet never was he called thereunto as also to duties of mercy and charity which yet were inconsistent with that estate the Saints in glory have a principle whereby they are able to perform the duties of repentance patience mortification the like may be said of Christ though neither Christ nor the Saints are called thereunto those services inconsisting with their estate More might be added to evince this truth if that were the Question but it may suffice that by what is spoken your Argument taken from the engraving of faith in Adams heart to prove that the term Morall is unfitly applied to the ten Commandments is of no force The Law of works was the same to Adam before and after the fall because the Covenant of works is allwaies the same the Law being the same the obligation is the same Such duties after the fall as are inconsisting with the Covenant of works are temporary neither infer any alteration in the Law nor do they exceed the compasse of its former obligation The Law of God saith Zanchy speaking of the Law of Moses Zanch. de rel gione Christiana sidei To. 8 cap. 10. aphor 3. given in the interim between the promise of Redemption made first to Adam afterwards to Abraham and the fullfilling thereof is nothing else but a true and lively expressed picture of the image of God according to which man was created Here again the Reader is to keep in minde that the Dialogue is all this while besides the Question for our Quere is not Whether the ten Commandments in the full latitude of them were given to Adam in innocency but whether the obedience of Christ to the Law that is to the Law as given to Adam in innocency were for our Justification whose affirmative by the way appeareth thus That obedience unto the Law whereby Adam in case of his personall performance thereof had been justified legally is that by Christs performance whereof received by faith we are justified Evangelically but the performance of obedience unto the Law as given to Adam in innocency is that performance of obedience unto the Law by which Adam in case of performance personally had been justified legally therefore Christs performance of the Law that was given to Adam in innocency whatsoever its extent be more or lesse as given to him after the fall received by faith is that whereby we are justified evangelically Dialogu If the whole Law and the Prophets do hang upon the ten Commandments as the generall heads of all that is contained within the Law and the Prophets then the ten Commandments must needs contain in them rules of faith in Christ as well as morall duties Answ If you intend no more then what you said before namely that the ten Commandments require faith in Christ Jesus we do not only acknowledge it but also thence infer what you deny namely that Adam was obliged to beleeve in Christ in case God should call for it because the Law now called the Decalogue was given to Adam as a Rule of Universall and absolute obedience he stood obliged thereby not only unto what God did at present but unto whatsoever God should afterwards require If you intend that whatsoever is contained in the Law and the Prophets is reducible to some one or more of the ten Commandements we also consent But if you mean that the ten Commandments strictly taken viz. for the Law of works as distinguished from the Law of faith contain rules that is the doctrine of faith in Christ then your inference is denied for this is to confound Law and Gospel Dialogu And this is further evident by the Preface of the ten Commandments which runs thus I am Jehovah thy God which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt Christ was that Jehovah which brought them out of the Land of Egypt So it was Christ that gave the first Commandment Thou shalt have no other Gods but me that is to say Thou shalt have no other Gods but the Trinity and no other mediatour but me alone to be thy Redeemer and Saviour In like sort Christ in the second Commandment doth require obedience to all his outward worship and in speciall to all his Leviticall worship and the observation of that worship is especially called the Law of works though the ten Commandments also must be included But the right application of the typicall signification of the Leviticall worship to the soul is called the Law of faith the third Commandment doth teach holy reverence to the person of the Mediator Faith in Christ is also typically comprehended under the fourth Commandment Answ The Law given at Mount Sinai admits of a threefold consideration either as a Law of works obliging man unto a pure legall obedience and accordingly to expect life or death or as a rule of universal and absolute obedience obliging man not only to what was commanded at present but also unto whatsoever should afterwards be required Or as the Covenant of grace it self though dispensed after a Legall manner comprehending the Law as a perpetual rule of righteousnesse freed from its pure legal nature of coaction malediction and justification by works Now that by the Law as given at Mount Sinai we are not to understand the Law of works only but also the Covenant of grace dispensed after a Legal manner appeareth thus Vide Will. in Exo. 19. quest 20. 21. item c. 20. qu. 7. Because it is called a Covenant Exod. 24.6 8. the speaker whereof was Jesus Christ God-man Ast. 7.38 for he was the speaker that brought them out of the Land of Egypt Exod. 20.2 but Jesus Christ brought them out of the Land of Egypt which act was a type of their redemption the delivery of it written in Tables of Stone by Moses therein a typicall Mediatour figuring Christ the Antitype Gal. 3.29 It was confirmed by the bloud of beasts a type also of the bloud of Christ Exod. 24.5 8. compared with Heb. 9.19 Paul calleth it a Testament a phrase proper to the Covenant of Grace presupposing the death of the Testator and never attributed to the Covenant of works See Heb. 9.18 19 20. though the Covenant
of which Exo. 24.6 8. be called the first Covenant implying that the Covenant as dispensed under the Gospel is a second we are not to understand by the first and second two distinct Covenants but two distinct dispensations of one and the same Covenant By the Law in the first consideration faith is not required in the second Man stands obliged to faith in Christ conditionally viz. when God shall call for it in the third Faith is not only required but is a part of our obedience Unto whom also as to God the Father Son and holy Spirit our obedience is due not only according to the four first Commandments as the Dialogue speaks but also according to all the ten Commandments fullfill the Law of Christ Gal. 6.2 ye serve the Lord Christ Col. 3.23 24 The old Testament or Covenant saith Paraeus in its first and proper signification was the doctrine of spiritual grace Palam quidem sub conditione perfectae obedientiae rectè verò sub conditione paenitentiae fide Par. in Heb. 8. quest 1. promising eternal Salvation to the Fathers and dull people of the Jews openly indeed under the condition of perfect obedience unto the moral Law and threatning of eternall malediction except they fullfill it together with the unsupportable burthen of rites and yoke of the most strict Mosaical polity but secretly under the condition of faith in the Messiah to come prefigured with the shadows and the types of the Ceremonies that by this manner of doctrine-worship and polity a people of a stiffer neck might partly be tamed and be led by the hand as it were by a kinde of paedagogy unto Christ lying hid in those shadows thus Paraeus As the Gospel is called the Law of faith because it giveth salvation by faith without personall works so the first Covenant is called the Law of works because it requires works i. e. personall keeping of the Law unto salvation The observation of the Leviticall worship cannot be especially called the Law of works because it is a part of the Ceremoniall Law long before which was the Law of works besides its ceremonial leading us unto Christ takes us off from the Law of works and carieth us to the Law of faith CHAP. II. Of the Dialogues Arguments against the Imputation of Christs Obedience Dialogu I Cannot see how the common doctrine of Imputation can stand with Gods justice God cannot in justice impute our Saviours Legall obedience to us for our just righteousnesse or justification because it is point blank against the condition of the Legall Covenant so to do for the Legall promise of eternall life is not made over to us upon condition of Christs personal performance but upon condition of our personal performance Answ Mans desert by sin is such whence that God in justice cannot justifie him by the Law but mans desert is not such whence God in iustice cannot justifie him in another way Nothing is due to man according to justice but what God hath appointed the Law is not against the promises Gal. 3.21 God is just and the justifier of him that beleeveth Such was the demerit of sin Longè itaque ista differunt c. Rhetorf de oration exer 2. c. 3. why man according to justice could not be justified legally but not such why it should be unjust for God to justifie him Evangelically according to Gods righteous constitution Such was mans desert why he should not be justified by his own righteousnesse yet mans demerit not being absolute but having dependance upon Gods free constitution he could not deserve why God might not justifie him by the righteousnesse of another if he pleased If it were unjust for God to justifie otherwise then legally then it were unjust for God to justifie in the way of the Dialogue viz. by atonement or acceptilation without all legall obedience it is more against legall justification to justifie without legall obedience personal or otherwise then to justifie by the legall obedience of another Sophisma à limitato ad non limitatum the Dialogue by this reason fights as much or rather more against it self then against us the fallacy lieth in asserting that in an unlimited sense which holds only in a limited sense God cannot justifie man fallen legally ergò he cannot justifie man fallen Evangelically by the righteousnesse of another is not only a meer non-consequence in reason but also a Pestilence in religion Dialogu It 's evident that God never propounded the Law of works to the fallen sons of Adam with any intent at all that ever any of the fallen sons of Adam should seek for justification and atonement in Gods sight by Legall obedience but his intent was directly contrary for when he propounded the Legal promise of life eternal to the fallen sons of Adam he did propound it upon condition of their own personal obedience to allure them thereby to search into their own natural unrighteousnesse by this perfect rule of Legal righteousnesse so by this Law of life God intended chiefly to make the soul of the fallen sons of Adam to be sensible of their own spiritual death in corruption and sin thereby to provoke our souls to seek for life some other way viz. by the mediation of the Mediator promised So it follows by good consequence that God did never intend to iustifie any corrupt son of Adam by Legal obedience done by his own person nor yet by our Saviours obedience imputed as the formall cause of a sinners iustification or righteousnesse Answ God propounded the Law of works to man before the fall with the promise of justification and life in case of Legal obedience Though Gods intent in propounding the Law of works to man fallen were that man should seek that justification which was directly contrary unto Legal righteousnesse that nothing opposeth but rather maketh for justification by the righteousnesse of Christ for justification by our own righteousnesse and justification by the righteousnesse of another are directly contrary in regard of the manner of justification the matter oâ—â—â—stification is the same in both Covenants viz. Legal obedience but the way of attaining it is contrary that by personal righteousnesse this by the righteousnesse of another The principal use of the Law by accident is that seeing our selves uncapable of righteousnesse thereby to provoke the soul to seek for life some other way viz. by the mediation of the Mediatour promised so saith the Dialogue to be our Schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith Gal. 3.24 that is that we might be partakers of the righteousnesse of another so saith Paul Though the Ceremonial and Judicial Law with their discipline are ceased yet the Moral Law still continueth as a perpetual rule of obedience whereunto beleevers are bound not in order to justification but in way of thanks-giving As a School-master until Christ so long as there remains any of the Elect to be converted according to the ordinary way
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
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
Of the former distinction there will be a further and more proper place to speak hereafter The latter the Dialogue hath taken much pains in and made much use of its grounds are Scriptures misalledged its scope is to make Christ the sole actor of his own death the inference from it that the Jews did not put Christ to death but if the distinction it self be proved to be but a figment the scope thereof unsound and if true yet impertinent the inference an untruth of all which the Reader must judge then the crutch falling all that is built thereupon must needs fall together with it SECTION II. A Discourse touching the obedience of Christ to the Morall Law Whether it were done for our Justification or no by way of Imputation CHAP. I. Of the Dialogues Reasoning against the influence of Christs obedience into Iustification by way of Imputation THe Dialogue denying the imputation of sin unto Christ thereupon necessarily denieth Christs suffering of the punishment due for sin which is usually called his passive obedience and therewithall all legall obedience performed by him in our stead whether passive or active hereupon it is necessitated to deny all Legall Mediatorly obedience and consequently the legall obedience of Christ to be the meritorious price of our redemption or to be the matter of our Justification For that which is not at all cannot be either of them so fruitfull is errour one pulling on another As the denial of Christs Legal obedience to have place in the meritorious cause forced the Authour to finde out a new Mediatorly obedience as the price of our redemption which we have already examined so the denial of his Legal obedience to be the matter of our justification forceth him to invent a new way of justifying I cannot say a new matter of Justification for he doth not present any though that was excepted of which now Christ who is our righteousnesse assisting we are to consider Dialogu Before I can speak any thing touching Christs obedience to the Morall Law it must be understood what you mean by this term morall Law By the term morall Law you mean the Decalogue or ten Commandments and call it the morall Law because every one of these ten Commandments were engraven in our nature in the time of innocency but in my apprehension in this sense the term moral Law is very ill applied because it makes most men look at no further matter in the ten Commandments but at morall duties only or it makes them look no further but at sanctified walking in relation to moral duties Answ The Dialogues objecting against the Decalogues being called the morall Law is a meer impertinency It is sufficient so farre as concerns the matter in hand unto the Justification of the use of the term moral if it be applicable unto the Law as given to Adam in innocency though it were not applicable unto it under the notion of the Decalogue Suppose it be applicable to neither the Question is not whether the term Moral be aptly applied unto the Decalogue but whether Christs obedience unto the Law were done for our justification The Law in Scripture is called the image of God because by it written in the heart man resembled God Gen. 1.27 The ten words or ten Commandements from the number of the precepts therein contained Deut. 4.13 The two great Commandments Mat. 22.40 The Law of Moses Act. 28.23 because given by Moses Joh. 1.17 The Law of works Rom. 3.27 because it required personal and perfect obedience thereunto as the condition of our Justification By Divines it is called the Decalogue because it consisteth of ten Commandements The second edition of the Law of nature being first concreated with our nature Gen. 1.27 and afterwards written upon two Tables of stones Exod. 31.18 The morall Law because it is the perpetuall rule of manners teaching how we should be ordered towards God and Man and also to distinguish it from the Ceremoniall and judiciall Law But not because every one of the ten Commandments were engraven in our nature in the time of Adams innocency as the Dialogue puts upon us to make way for its burdening of us with its vain and impertinent objection against calling the Decalogue the morall Law Though the Decalogue or moral Law were written in Adams heart yet it is not therefore called the moral Law because it was written in his heart Neither is it so proper to say it was written in our Nature mans nature remained when Adam was deprived of Gods image The image of God after which Adam was created was a Divine not a Humane Nature If the term Moral extend not to the Latitude of the Law in all considerations the Law is not therefore contracted unto the term neither in it self nor in the intention of the Authours thereof who have many more names to expresse the Law by Dialogu But the truth is they are greatly deceived for the ten Commandments do require faith in Christ as well as morall duties but faith in Christ was not engraven in Adams nature in the time of his innocency he knew nothing concerning faith in Christ till after his fall therefore the ten Commandments in the full latitude of them were not given to Adam in his innocency they were not given till after Christ was published to be the seed of the woman to break the devils head-plot therefore the ten Commandments do require faith in Christ as well as morall duties Answ If the ten Commandments doe require faith in Christ as well as morall duties then the ten Commandments require moral duties as well as faith in Christ if so then they may aptly in that respect be called the morall Law Morall duties so called from the Law that universall and perpetual rule of manners teaching how man should be ordered disposed qualified conformed and if we may so speak mannered towards God and man are co-extended with the Law it self Law and Duty are Relates as therefore faith in Christ becometh a part of mans duty and orderly or regular disposition and conformity towards God what hinders but in this larger acception thereof it may be said to be a morall duty though strictly and according to the sense of that usuall distinction of faith and manners it is not so taken Adams knowing nothing concerning faith in Christ until after the fall doth not disprove a principle in him wherby he was able to beleeve in Christ The Angels knew no more of Christs being propounded to them to be beleeved in as their head and confirmer then Adam did of Christs being propounded to him to be beleeved in as his head and Redeemer Yet the Angels in their Creation received a principle whereby they were able to beleeve in Christ as their head and confirmer being commanded so to do without the inspiring of any new principle Had Christ in like manner been propounded unto Adam yet in his innocency to have been beleeved in as his Head and Confirmer which