Persons upon the creature is answerable to the manner of their subsistence in the divine nature The Father worketh of himself the Son worketh from the-Father Joh. 5.19 30. and 8.28 The holy Ghost worketh from the Father and the Son Joh. 16.13 hence though all the works of God concerning the creature are wrought jointly by all the three persons yet is the work principally ascribed to that person whose manner of subsistence doth most eminently appear therein Beginning works as creation are ascribed principally to the first person the carrying works on to perfection as redemption to the second person the perfecting of them as the application of redemption under which last work the grace of justifying faith is contained unto the third person To make the first person an efficient and the third person an instrumentall cause in the working of reconciliation or faith were by consequence to affirm some inferiority of the third person in respect of the fiâ—st consequently an inequality between the persons which were to inferre an inequality in God because every person is God which leaving the consideration of more dangerous inferences to the intelligent Reader is inconsisting with the perfection of God so unsafe is it to speak unadvisedly in these mysteries The second person in the Trinity is to be considered as in himself so he is only God and not man or as subsisting in personall Union with the manhood so he is God-man The second Person in the Trinity considered in himself works together with the Father and the holy Ghost jointly and equally in all essentiall works consequently as concerning faith atonement c. as we have already seen The Mediatorly obedience of Christ i. e. of God-man consisting of the divine and humane nature in one person called by the Father unto that service is the procuring and only meritorious cause of the Fathers atonement and all other spirituall blessings that beleeving sinners do enjoy Dialogu To conclude If thou hast gotten any spirituall blessing by any thing that I have said in this Treatise Let God have all the glory Answ To conclude Herosis in capite Pol. Syn. l. 7. c. 22. Vide Par. 1. Cor. 1.11 and 11.19 Ames Cas Con. l. 4. c. 4 Val. tom 3. dis 1. q. 11. punct 1 2 3. Taking heresie for a fundamentall errour that is such as whosoever liveth and dieth in cannot be saved The Dialogue containeth three Heresies The first denying the imputation of the sin of the Elect unto Christ and his suffering the punishment due thereunto contrary to 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 Isa 53.5 6. and Other Arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative Thereby leaving the Elect to perish in their sinne 1 Cor. 15.17 18. This Heresie is maintained in the first part The second denying that Christ as God-man Mediatour obeyed the Law and therewith that he obeyed it for us as our surety contrary to Galat. 4.4 5. Matth. 5 17 18. Heb. 10.7 compared with Psa 48.7 8. Rom. 3.31 and Other arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative Thereby rendring Christ both an unfaithfull and an insufficient Saviour and spoiling the elect of salvation This Heresie is maintained in the former Section of the second part The third 1. Denying the Imputation of Christs obedience unto justification Contrary to Rom. 4. Rom. 5.19 Phil. 3.19 and the arguments in the answer proving the affirmative Thereby leaving all that be ungodly under an impossibility of being justified 2. Destroying the very being of a sinners righteousnesse by taking away the obedience of Christ unto the Law and imputation which are the matter and form that is the essentiall causes of justification 3. Placing a sinners righteousnesse in a fictitious Atonement or pardon of sin such as in effect manifestly doth not only deny it self to be the effect of but denieth yea and defieth the very being of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ to the Law for us This Heresie is maintained in the second Section of the second part The first holdeth us in all our sin and continueth the full wrath of God abiding upon us The second takes away our Saviour The third takes away our righteousnesse and our justification What need the Enemy of Jesus grace and souls adde more This threefold cord of Hereticall doctrine so directly and deeply destructive to the truth of the Gospel and salvation of man We desiring after Christs example to distinguish where there is cause between Peter and Satan reserving all charitable and compassionate thoughts according to rule touching the compiler thereof who we hope did it ignorantly do principally impute to him who is not only a lyar but also a murtherer from the beginning Now the good Spirit of Grace that great Defender and Teacher of the Truth as it is in Jesus who in his rich mercy causeth all then whom he loveth to beleeve the truth that they may be saved and in his righteous judgement giveth up such who receive not the truth in the love of it to beleeve a lie that they may be damned Grant that truth may look down from heaven in this hour and power of the spirit of errour so perilously prevailing to deceive if it were possible the very elect Preserve the Reader from every false way and leade him into all truth Magnifie his compassion in the pardon and recovery of the Authour a person in many respects to be very much tendred of us in so saving of him though as by fire as that his rising again may be much more advantageous to the truth comfortable to the people of God and honourable to himself then his fall hath been scandalous grieving or dishonourable And lastly Inspire us all with a discerning and conscientious spirit as concerning the mystery of piety working in the way of truth and the mystery of iniquity working in the way of lying so as that in these evil daies wherein errours and heresies must be we may manifest our selves approved and to be acted vigorously and efficaciously by the spirit of him who sealed that good confession before Pontius Pilate saying To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world that I should bear witnesse to the truth Christian Reader if as sometimes through grace it was with Augustine concerning the Heresie of Pelagius by occasion of this Dialogue and other perilous Treatises with which this hour of temptation abounds threatning it it were possible to deceive the very elect thou hast been stirred up more to search into and hate the unsound tenets contained therein and more to search into and love the sound doctrines contrary thereunto Remember to glorifie that God which brings Light out of Darknesse by his good Spirit leading all those whose Names are written in the Book of Life of the Lamb into all truth teaching them to abhorre the wine of deadly errours notwithstanding they are presented in a golden cup and to discern Satan though transformed into an Angel of Light Glory be to God in Jesus Christ.
A DISCUSSION of that Great Point in DIVINITY THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST And the QUESTIONS about his Righteousnesse Active Passive and the Imputation thereof Being an ANSWER to a DIALOGUE INTITULED The Meritorious Price of our Redemption Justification c. By JOHN NORTON Teacher of the Church at Ipswich in New-England Who was appointed to draw up this Answer by the Generall Court Rom. 3.26 To declare I say at this time his righteousness that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus London Printed by A.M. for Geo. Calvert at the Sign of the half Moon and Joseph Nevill at the Sign of the Plough in the new Buildings in Pauls Church-yard 1653. The STATIONER to the READER FOr the better understanding of the following Treatise the Reader is desired to take notice 1. That the three Fundamental Truths therein asserted confirmed and cleared are these 1. The Imputation of the disobedience of the Elect unto Christ 2. That Christ as God-man Mediator and our Surety fulfilled the Law by his Original conformity and active and passive obedience thereunto for the Elect. 3. The Imputation of that Obedience unto the Believer for Justification 2. That the three opposite Tenets of the Dialogue as they are held forth therein are proved and concluded to be Heresies Heresie being taken for a Fundamental Error that is such as he that knowingly liveth and dieth therein cannot be saved To the much Honoured GENERAL COURT OF THE MASACHUSETS Colonie Now sitting at Boston in New-England Right Worshipfull Worshipfull and much Honoured in our Lord Jesus THat this weak Treatise cometh forth under your Name cannot seem strange to him who remembers Natures Off-spring by instinct sheltring it self under those wings from whence it received life and breath Reluctances from personall unfitnesse to undertake this Service Religion forbad me to hearken after whilest I considered the call of the Court thereunto to be the call of God and how unworthy it would be for any of Aarons Sons so far as lieth in them to fail Moses leading on and calling to follow in a Cause immediately concerning the Lord Jesus especially at such a time when to be silent were not only to deny a joynt-witnessing with you to the truth but in appearance tacitely to strengthen the adversary in bearing false witnesse against the power of the Christian Magistrate concerning the Defence of the Truth Seeing Donatus now crieth aloud again Quid imperatori cum Ecclesiis What hath the Emperor to do with the Churches Notwithstanding that position concerning the Magistrates power in matters of Religion be attested to by Civill-Law Common-Law Nature Scripture Reason and Testimony both old and new The lawfull Administrations by the Kings of Judah touching the custody of the first Table they did not as Types of Christ but as Servants of Christ otherwise what was done by the Type must be fullfilled by the Anti-type but Christ never exercised any act of Civil Government Again the coming of the Anti-type is the abolishing of the Type consequently then it should be unlawfull for Civil power now to assist the Cause of Religion The reason given of such administrations was not typicall but morall viZ. to put away evil from Israel the moral reason is of like force now as then the reason of the Law and the Law live and die together 1 King 20.42 2 Chron. â—3 11 Ahab King over an Apostate Church dieth for not putting Benhadad to death for Blasphemy When Jehojada put the Crown upon Joash his head he gave the Testimony into his hand The King of Nineveh proclaimeth a Fast Jon. 3.7 Dan. 3.29 Nebuchadnezzar makes a Decree against Blasphemy Ezra 1. Cyrus giveth out a Proclamation for the Buiiding of the Temple Dan. 6.29 Darius the Mede makes a Decree for the acknowledgement of the true God Ezra 7.13 The like doth Artaxerxes for the beautifying of the House of the Lord. These being Heathen Princes could not be Types of Christ as Kings of Judah In the times of the Gospel Act. 21.28 23.29.24.5.6.25.8 19.20.26.3 Paul in a matter of Religion appealeth unto Caesar which neither Lysias Felix Festus nor Agrippa decline the audience of As Religion was the cause of the Warre purposed between the nine Tribes and a half and those on the other side of Jordan So Religion shall be the cause of the War both purposed and performed by the ten Kings against the Man of Sinne Rev. 17. â—â— which supposeth Civil Authority acting therein Isa 49.23 The Prophets speaking of the times of the Gospel assure the godly that Kings shall be their Nursing Fathers and Queens their Nursing Mothers and that false Prophets shall be thrust through with a Sword Zec. 13.3 This power then of the Magistrate expires not together with the Legall dispensation of the Covenant From the premises appears the vanity as well as ignorance of their evasion who acknowledge the power of the Magistrate in the time of the Old yet deny it in the time of the New Testament The adaequate end of the Magistrate is to procure that the people may live a peaceable life in all godlines and honesty 1 Tim. 2.2 Magistrates are called Gods strange Gods who take no care of godlinesse 'T is a carnal and unworthy position that limits the Magistrate to the Corporall and restrains him from the care of the spirituall good of the Subject thereby spoiling this Olive of its choicest fatnesse wherewith it rejoyceth both God and man That licentious and pestilent Proposition The care of the matters of Religion belongs not to the Magistrate is a Stratagem of the Old Serpent and Father of lies to make free passage for the doctrine of devils an invention not unlike Sauls Oath the trouble of Israel and escape of the Enemy a sad errour that fosters all errour a Satanicall device tending to undermine the policy of God attempting to charm that Sword with a fallacy whose dexterous and vigorous use instrumentally puts away evill from Israel and turneth every way in its manner to keep the path of the Tree of life The rusting of this Sword of divine execution in the Scabbard hath been more destructive unto truth then the drawing of the Sword of Persecution Persecution hath slain Thousands but the deadly Sea of false doctrine hath slain ten Thousands See Mr Cottons Answer to Mr W. ch 33. Might this Imposture prevail then rejoyce ye Heretiques Idolaters Seducers Ranters c. but wo be to the Sheep of the slaughter whose Possessours may slay them and pleade themselves Not-guilty at the civil Barre Both Swords make up a compleat Medium of all our good and remedy of all evil and are of speciall use each to other mutually as well as of necessary use unto the people joyntly The Magistrates need the Ministery to fix them in the Consciences of men and the Ministers need the Magistracy to preserve them from men that have no Conscience
exceeded the bounds of naturall fear Answ His confidenee that he should not be moved by his sufferings either from his hope state or the good hoped for but that it should be with him as ver 10. sheweth us his certainty of victory which doth not oppose but rather suppose the matter of his sufferings which the Scripture manifests to be the wrath of God Neither can we apprehend that Christs fear exceeded the bounds of naturall fear understanding by natural fear regular fear in which sense this distinction is used by Divines after Damascene who distinguished fear into a fear according to nature this was in Christ and a fear besides nature adverse to reason this was not in Christ Dialogu These sentences of M. Calvin may advise us how we do attribute such a kinde of fear to Christ as might disorder his pure naturall affections which doubtlesse would have fallen upon him if he had undergone the pain of losse for our sins such as the damned do feel in hell as the common Doctrine of Imputation doth teach Answ It is vain labour to write so much out of Calvin to prove against us that the fear which was in Christ was pure and not impure it being the professed and known judgement of all the inference of impure and vicious fear in Christ from his undergoing of the pain of losse for our sins is your own Institution lib. 2. c. 16. s 10. See Willet synops and an errour nor have you any greater adversary then Calvin therein who not only affirms the fear and affections in Christ to be pure according to your citations but also that in his soul he suffered the terrible torment of the damned and forsaken men Yet because the sufferings of the damned differ in some things from the sufferings of Christ later Writers choose rather upon just reason to say he suffered the punishment of the elect who deserved to be damned then that he suffered the punishment of the damned Dialogu And if he had died without manifesting fear of death it would have occasianed wofull heresie yea notwithstanding the evident proof given of his humane nature sundry hereticks have denied the truth of his humane nature it was necessary therefore that he should be pinched with the fear of death as much as his true humane nature could bear without sin as Calvin well observeth Answ There 's difference between manifest fear and excessive fear to have feared naturall death with excessive fear and that such as never man or woman manifested was to have manifested something lesse then man It was a sufficient manifestation of Christ to be man that he was touched with the feeling of our infirmities that he was in all points tempted like to us His words are these speaking on Matt. 26.39 Sed quantū ferri potuit sana integra natura hominis metu percussus anxietate constructus fuit Dialogu yet without sin So far as I can finde in Calvin for you have not pointed to the place you put in the word Therefore and so force both it and the whole sentence to confirm your own premises contrary to his minde which is directly against you See Calv. Comment on Ver. 2.28 of the chapter mentioned If the fear of death which he expressed to his Disciples in the night before his death had risen on the sense of his fathers wrath inflicted upon him for our sinne then you must also say that he suffered his fathers wrath for our sins six daies before this for six daies before this he spake those words Luk. 12.50 where our Saviour doth expresse as much distresse of minde as here yet I know no expositor that ever gathered so much from this place of Luke Answ Expositors do generally agree that as in Mathew and Mark so also Luke 12.50 Christ speaks of his passion as likewise that the wrath of God was the principal matter thereof in Luke he 's troubled at the remembrance of his future passion of his fathers wrath the sense of that wrath had at present in great degree taken hold upon him Christ doth not expresse so much distresse of minde in Luke as here he saith he was straightned but here he professeth his sorrowfullnesse unto death together with consternation and expavefaction of which straightway Dialogu Our Saviour tells the two sons of Zebedee they must drink of his cup and be baptized with his baptism by these two expressions which are Synonima's or equivalent our Saviour doth inform the two sons of Zebedee what the true nature of his sufferings should be viz. no other but such only as they should one day suffer from the hands of tyrants Answ Herein is a fallacy confounding such things as should be divided this Text saith Piscator is to be understood with an exception of that passion in which Christ felt the wrath of God for the Elect Quod tamen intelligendum est cum exceptione passionis illius quâ Dominus pro electis sensit iram Dei Pisc in loc Dialogu Christ suffered both as a Mattyr and as a satisfier the sons of Zebedee drank of the cup of Martyrdom not of the cup of satisfaction or redemption James and John the sons of Zebedee were asleep whilest Christ was drinking of that cup. His son was not touched with any sufferings from Gods wrath at all except by way of sympathy from his bodily sufferings only Answ If his soul was touched with Gods wrath by way of sympathy then his body was touched with the suffering of his wrath properly then Christ suffered the wrath of God by your concession These sufferings in the soul were not by way of sympathy his soul suffered properly and immediatly Isa 53.10 Mat. 26.37 the cause of his sufferings required that his soul should suffer as well as his body we sinned in soul properly therefore our surety must suffer in soul properly The greatest of the sufferings of Christ were spirituall and such as immediatly seized on his soul As his active obedience was as properly spirituall as bodily so his passive obedience was as properly spirituall as bodily Much rather is their judgement to be embraced who say The body suffered by way of sympathy because the soul is sensible of sufferings without the body but not the body without the soul Dialogu If the circumstances of his agony be well weighed it will appear that it did not proceed from his fathers wrath but from his naturall fear of death only because he must be stricken with the fear of death as much at his true humane nature could bear he must be touched with the fear of death in a great measure as the Prophets did foretell Adde to these pains of his minde his earnest prayers to be delivered from his naturall fear of death the fear of death doth often cause men to sweat and earnestly pray as he was man he must be touched with the fear of death as he was Mediatour he must fully and wholly overcome his naturall
your Exposition were good and full yet it is impertinent unto the argument taken from the first verse The cause of the fainting of his spirit illustrated from a comparison of melting wax was neither only nor chiefly his suffering from the wrath of men but from the wrath of God Dialogu Thou hast brought me unto the dust of death vers 15. God doth not so bring Christ unto the dust of death as he doth other men namely not so as death is laid upon man for sin Gen. 3.19 Answ The Scripture mentioneth no other death then what is inflicted justly for sinne and M. Ainsworth whom the Dialogue often cites seemeth to understand death to be laid upon Christ according to the sense of Gen. 3.19 expresly quoting that Text in his Commentary upon this Verse But do you shew the difference between the death of Christ and the death of other men whence it may appear that death was not laid upon Christ for sin Dialogu But for the better understanding of the true difference I will distinguish upon the death of Christ for God appointed him to die a double kinde of death 1. As a Malefactor and 2. As a Mediatour and all this at one and the same time 1. He died as a Malefactor by Gods determinate counsell and decree he gave the devil leave to enter into Judas to betray him and into the Scribes and Pharisees and Pontius Pilate to condemn him and to do what they could to put him to death and in that respect God may be truly said to bring him into the dust of death Gen 3.19 2. Notwithstanding all this Christ died as a Mediator and therefore his death was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor for as he was our Mediatour he separated his own soul from his body by the power of his God-head All the Tyrants in the world could not separate his soul from his body Joh. 19.11 no not by all the torments they could devise till himself pleased to actuate his own death by the joint concurrence of both his natures Joh. 10.18 Answ The plain meaning of the Authour in this distinction is Christ died as a Malefactor only though unjustly in the Jews account but not as a Mediatour As a Mediatour only in Gods account but not as a Malefactor This distinction in name but in truth a Sophism is used as a crutch to support the halting doctrine of the non-imputation of sin unto Christ Christs death as a Mediatour saith the distinction was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor the Jews are said to put Christ to death because they endeavoured to put him to death but did not separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death so is the distinction expresly interpreted pag. 100. If Christs death was a suffering then the formall cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body so often mentioned by the Dialogue otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter yea and in this case his own Executioner which last the Dialogue it self expresly rejecteth But the Dialogue resuming and insisting further upon this distinction elsewhere let the fuller speaking thereunto be referred till then Though Haman according to the true sense of that Text Est 8.7 be said to lay his hand upon the Jews yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman Abraham is said to have offered up Isaac yet Isaac is no where said to be slain by Abraham as Abraham did sacrifice Isaac so was Isaac sacrificed that is interpretatively or virtually not actually But how often do we reade in Scripture that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews Act. 2.37 4.10 1 Cor. 2.8 By this reason it may be said that the Jews only endeavoured to offer violence unto Christ and put him to smart but did not actually and really because they could do neither without the permission of the Divine nature nor did either without both his Mediatorly permission and consent The Jews accounting of Christ as of a Malefactor or Transgressor was that the Scripture might be fullfilled Mat. 15.28 and was just in respect of God though unjust in respect of them Christ in Gods account suffered not only as a Mediator but also as a malefactor or transgressor i. e. a sinner imputatively in respect of the guilt and punishment of sin he was such a Mediator to whom it was essentiall for the time to be a Malefactor that is to suffer the guilt and punishment of sin The Priesthood was essentiall to the Mediatour To be a sacrifice for sin was essentiall to the Priesthood Isa 53.10 Therefore to be a sacrifice for sinne was essentiall to the office of a Mediatour As Christ was by office so he died Christ died not only as a Mediatour Heb. 8.6 but also as a surety Heb. 7.22 He shall bear their iniquity Isa 53.11 Bajulabit as a Porter bears a burthen and that upon the Tree 1 Pet. 2.24 He was made sin 2 Cor. 5.21 Christ separated his soul from his body as a subordinate cause not as a principall efficient that is as a surety by voluntary yeelding and offering up his life Heb. 9.24 but not as an executioner We reade Joh. 10.18 that Christ laid down his life but not that he took it away by violence the same word that is here used concerning Christ Peter hath concerning himself I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13.37 and John hath concerning Christ and the Saints because he laid down his life for us we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren 1 Joh. 3.16 But it was not lawfull for Peter or the Saints to take away their own lives Though Christ by his absolute power could have preserved his life against all created adversary power none taketh it from me namely against my consent whether I will or not Joh. 10.18 yet by his limited power he could not but as our surety he was bound to permit the course of physicall causes and prevailing of the power of darknesse for the fullfilling of what was written concerning him This is your hour and the power of darknesse Luke 22.53 The Jews therefore doing that which according to the order of second causes not only might but also through his voluntary and obliged permission did take away his life did not only endeavour but also actually kill him Yet suppose the Jews were not instrumentall in the actuall taking away of his bodily life it is a meer non-consequence thence to inferre the non-imputation of sin unto Christ Briefly as this distinction is a meer sophisme and groundlesse so the discourse concerning the Jews endeavouring to put Christ to death but not really putting him to death making Christ to take away his own life and consequently to be his own Executioner is false and impertinent For which though the Jews may owe the Authour some thanks
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
for the whole and compleat cause The valour and preciousnesse of the obedience of Christ though it depends principally yet it depends not wholly upon the eminency of his person but also upon the quality of his obedience and Gods gracious acceptation thereof the absence of any of these would render Christ an insufficient Redeemer Had not he been such a person his obedience could not have been satisfactory and though there were such a person yet without such obedience unto the Law there can be no satisfaction The immutable truth of God Gen. 2 17. and his inviolable justice Rom. 1.32 require obedience in the Mediatour the Law requireth obedience both active Lev. 18.5 and passive Gal. 3.10 else there can be no life The Dialogues frequent reiteration of the same objections forceth the reiteration of the same answers The firstling of the Asse must either be redeemed or destroyed Exod. 34 20. Christ was appointed of God to be a common and more effectuall principle of Redemption then Adam was of destruction Rom. 5.14 16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 15.22 Dialogu Christ at one and the same time died both as a Mediatour actively and as a Malefactor passively as I have explained the matter Gal. 3.13 and in other places also Answ Christ both was and died such a Mediatour as was also a Malefactor imputatively in his death he was both active and passive how we shall soon see in due place The errour of this distinction in the sense of the Dialogu hath been already shown in the place mentioned Dialogu But for your better understanding of the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ consider 2. things 1. Consider what was the Priestly nature of Christ and 2. Consider what was his Priestly action 1. His Priestly nature was his Divine nature for he is said to be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck of whom it is witnessed that he liveth or that he ever liveth Heb. 7.8 Answ None that beleeveth the Scriptures doubts of Christs being in respect of his Divine nature a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck but that Christs Priestly nature was his Divine nature only that is that Christ was only a Priest according to his Divine nature which the language of the Dialogue seemeth to hold forth is a great errour the common principles of Religion tell us that the Priesthood is a part of the Mediatorly office Christ as Mediator is God man therefore as Priest he is God-man Parts are of the same nature with the whole Necessary it is say the Catechisms that the Mediatour should be both God and Man he must be man else he could not be a meet sacrifice he must be God or else his sacrifice could not have been effectuall Christ was both Priest Sacrifice and Altar The humane nature only suffered therefore most properly was the sacrifice yet so as in Personal union with the Godhead the Divine nature was that which upheld the humane The person consisting of both natures was the Priest Christ offered up himself before his humane nature was dissolved by death which consideration might have prevented that objection in this place though the union of the body with the soul was dissolved by death Dawascen de fide orthodox l. 3. cap. 7. yet the union both of soul and body with the second Person continued undissolved the separation of the soul from the body loosed not the union of both with the Divine nature Tho. par 3. qu. 5. ar 4. Gerh. suppl 104. they were locally separated the one from the other but both united hypostatically i. e. personally with the Deity Neither the soul nor the body of Christ ever had any subsistence but in the Word The word He in the Scriptures alledged signifieth not either Nature apart but the person consisting of both Natures as the Mediator was not nor is not God alone nor man alone but God-man so he merited not as God alone or man alone but as God-man and as Christ merited the application of the good of Redemption so God applieth it not for the sake of the Divine nature alone nor the humane nature alone but for the sake of God-man Mediatour The Scripture so attributes the infinite value and efficacy of the works of the Mediatour unto the Divine nature denoted by the word Spirit as it also ascribes those works unto the Person i. e. whole Christ consisting of both natures signified by the word Who How much more shall the bloud of Christ who through the eternall Spirit offered himself without spot to God Synops pur Theol. disp 26. Thes 18 19. purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God Heb. 9.14 Because the actions of the Mediatour were the actions of Christ who is God-man in them the Divine nature was the principal the humane nature the lesse principal and instrumental cause If upon a supposition this untruth were a truth yet 't is impertinent to the question being neither beneficial to the tenet of the Authour nor prejudiciall to the tenet of the Orthodox Dialogu But yet withall take notice that the term He Gen. 3.15 doth comprehend under it his humane nature as well as his divine yea it doth also comprehend under it the Personal union of both his Natures Answ Then the term He Gen. 3.15 notes the Person consisting of both natures therefore not the Divine nature onely but the person consisting of both natures was the Priest The Term He in the other Scriptures being by your own acknowledgement of the same sense with the term He Gen. 3.15 you hereby unsay what you just now said or otherwise what was said was nothing to the purpose Dialogu Consider what was his Priestly action and that was the sprinkling of his own bloud by his own Priestly nature that is to say by his divine nature Isa 53.12 namely by the active power of his own divine Priestly nature Heb. 9.14 that is to say he separated his soul from his body by the power of his Godhead when he made his soul a trespasse-offering for our sin Isa 53.10 and the manner of sprinkling of bloud by the Priests upon the Altar must be done with a large and liberall quantity and therefore it is called pouring out and this sprinkling with pouring out did typifie the death of the Mediatour a large quantity of bloudshed must needs be a true evidence of death Answ Christ considered as a Priest was obliged in the state of his humiliation to fullfill the Law in our stead and consequently the sacrifice that he offered as our Priest was the whole work of his active and passive obedience the Priests who were a type of Christ stood severally charged with the custody of the Ark wherein the Decalogue distinguished into two Tables was laid up Duties of active as well as passive obedience are ordinarily called Sacrifices Heb. 13.16 The Priest that offered this Sacrifice was not the Divine nature alone but the Person of Christ consisting
any thing to the charge of them that God justifieth but what shall it avail for the Dialogue to justifie any whose very pardons God will condemn The Popes pardons and the Dialogues how differing soever in their nature may go together in respect of their efficacy Dialogu And in this very sense all sacrifices of Atonement are called sacrifices of Righteousnesse Deut. 33.19 Psa 4.5 Psa 51.19 Answ This is the same with what was before where the contrary is proved and the interpretation of the phrase is also given Dialogu And in this sense Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10.4 Answ Christ is the perfecting end of the Law by fulfilling the duties required in the moral c. the truth signified by the Ceremonial Law Dialogu And thus I think I have explained the true nature of a sinners righteousnesse justice or justification which I have described to be nothing else but the Fathers mercifull atonement pardon and forgivenesse so that I may more fitly call a sinners righteousnesse a mercifull justice put upon poor beleeving sinners by Gods fatherly pardon and forgivenesse then a strict Legall righteousnesse imputed to us from Christs obedience as our actuall righteousnesse as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach Answ Whether you have rightly explained a sinners righteousnesse it is with the Reader to judge To exclude justice from Justification which is in effect to say God is not just but only merciful in justifying a Beleever what is it else but to contradict the Apostles saying God is just and the justifier of him that beleeveth Bucha loc 31. 4. 28. Paraeus Rom. 5. dub 7. Willet med l. 1. c. 20. Rhet. ex 2. cap. 3. Twiss de praed l. 1. dig 3. s 4. cap. 5. Dialogu The received doctrine of Imputation holdeth not forth mercy only but both justice and mercy tempered together in the justification of a sinner they receive abundance of grace there is mercy c. of the gift of righteousnesse there is justice Rom. 5.17 Justice in respect of Christ mercy in respect of the Beleever that Christ satisfied the Law is justice that this satisfaction was for us and is given to us is mercy And indeed the righteousnesse which God the Father bestowed upon poor beleeving sinners in making them sinlesse by this Atonement is an example of the highest degree of mercy Answ True yet not of mercy only but of mercy tempered with justice and in some sense with the highest degree of justice The Geneva note on Psa 130.3 is excellent Dialogu c. speaketh thus he declareth that we cannot be just before God but by forgivenesse of sins for Gods forgivenesse is a part of his merciful Atonement Answ Forgivenesse of sin is inseparable from our righteousnesse being the immediate effect thereof We saw before that Atonement is sometimes taken for the forgivenesse of sins strictly sometimes it is taken for the expiation of sin comprehending both the forgivenesse and the meritorious cause thereof The Atonement mentioned in the Geneva Bible is to be interpreted according to the doctrine of Geneva which acknowledgeth and teacheth the meritorious satisfaction of Christ to divine justice to be the cause of the pardon of sinne a truth which the Dialogue denieth Dialogu Hence it is evident that Gods Atonement pardon and forgivenesse communicated to poor beleeving sinners must needs be the formal cause of a sinners righteousnesse Answ That this is not evident yea that the contrary is evident c. shall God assisting be made yet more evident in its proper place I doubt not CHAP. V. Whether the Iustice and Righteousnesse of a sinner doth lie only in Gods merciful Atonement Dialogu THe justice and righteousnesse of a sinner doth not lie in his own righteous nature nor in his own iust actions nor yet in the righteousnesse of Christ imputed but it doth lie only in the Fathers righteous atonement pardon and forgivenesse procured by the meritorious Sacrifice of atonement and conveyed by the Father through the Mediatour to every beleeving sinner as soon as they are in the Mediator by faith This doctrine of a sinners righteousnesse hath ever been well known and witnessed among the godly in all ages from the beginning of the world 1. It is witnessed by the practices of all sacrifices of Atonement before the Law 2. It is witnessed by the practices of all sacrifices under the Law 3. It is witnessed by the doctrine of the Prophets 4. It is witnessed by the doctrine of the New Testament and it was never so much obscured as it hath been of late daies by the doctrine of imputation Answ Because in the ensuing prosecution of the heads of Arguments here propounded the Dialogue makes frequent mention of Mediatorial sacrifice and atonement in the right understanding of which expressions according to the minde of the Scripture lieth the truth and in the differing understanding thereof lieth the controversie both parties agreeing unto the being of Mediatorly sacrifice and atonement but disagreeing concerning the nature of them Let the Reader here once for all being reminded keep in minde what the Orthodox and what the Dialogue understands by Mediatorly obedience and the fathers atonement or that so often as the phrases do occurre in the next following pages he may neither be at a losse nor deceived by these dark and equivocal terms of the Dialogue but being informed beforehand of both our meanings thereby passe on with more ease and judge accordingly Mediatorial obedience according to the Dialogue are certain actions performed by Christ not in way of obedience unto the Moral Law but by him as God-man and especially after thirty years of age the master-piece whereof was his yeelding himself to suffer a bodily death Atonement or pardon of sin according to the sense of the Dialogue is such as not only denieth it self to be the effect of Supra pag. 105. but also denieth the very being of the satisfactory and meritorious obedience of Christ unto the moral Law Mediatorly obedience according to the Orthodox what see Atonement or pardon of sin according to the sense of the Orthodox both acknowledgeth the being of and it self to be the effect of the satisfactory and meritorious obedience of Christ both active and passive unto the moral Law We have seen before 1. That Atonement or pardon of sin and righteousnesse differ in their natures to take away unrighteousnesse from a sinner is not to give righteousnesse to a sinner 't is an impossibility for that which is not justice to be justice 2. That the righteousnesse of the Dialogue is such a thing as consists of a form without any essentiall matter and is indeed a Non-ens such a thing as is a nothing 3. That 't is such an Atonement as denieth it self both to be from and also denieth any being of the Legall meritorious Obedience of Christ Behold then the presumption of the Dialogue that forgetting just conscience
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
in them or no. Answ The Dialogue here takes off it self from further acting the part of an opponent against the imputation of Christs Legall obedience both active and passive unto justification and now proceeds to act the part of a Respondent unto certain Arguments of M. Forbes alledged to prove that sinners are justified by the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in his death This it doth not as adhering to us wherein M. Forbes dissents for it agreeth with him wherein he disagreeth but as opposing him wherein he consents with us in the doctrine of imputation That the answer therefore may be as full in the Vindication as the Dialogue pretends to be in the refutation of the Doctrine of the Orthodox we shall examine the Dialogues examination and impertinences omitted consider all that and only that which herein concerns the Question Dialogu Nothing saith M. Forbes is made of God to be a sinners righteousnesse but Jesus Christ alone and his righteousnesse and this he proves by 1 Cor. 1.30 Jer. 23.26 with other places The Apostle saith that Christ was made of God unto us righteousnesse but how not as the doctrine of imputation speaketh but thus God made him to be our righteousnesse in a Mediatoriall way by ordaining him to be the only meritorious procuring cause of his atonement which is a sinners onely righteousnesse Christ is not a sinners righteousnesse any otherwise but in a Mediatoriall way only as I have oft warned Christ is called Jehovah our righteousnesse but still it must be understood in a Mediatoriall way and no otherwise We have seen already that Atonement is not righteousnesse it cannot then be a sinners only righteousnesse That which the Dialogue cals a Mediatorial way is indeed no way but is destructive unto the true way and consequently an hereticall way denying of and inconsisting with the Mediatorly obedience of Christ unto the Law The Legall obedience of Christ is to be considered formally and virtually as considered formally it is an ingredient into the meritorious cause of our justification as considered virtually it is the materiall cause thereof Of which before Dialogu And thus Christ is our Righteousnesse in one respect the Father in another and the holy Ghost in another Each person is a sinners righteousnesse in severall respects The manner how Christ should justifie the many was by bearing their iniquities and how else did he bear their iniquities but by his sacrifice of Atonement and in this sense Christ is said to justifie us with his bloud Rom. 5.9 that is to say by his Sacrifice of Atonement therefore his righteousnesse cannot be the formall cause of a sinners righteousnesse it is but the procuring cause of the Fathers atonement which is the only formall cause of a sinners righteousnesse Answ That Proposition Christ bare our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement is an equivocal proposition capable of diverse construct ons in the sense of the Orthodox 't is true in the sense of the Dialogue false both which senses are sufficiently known by the foregoing discourse The Apostle Rom. 5.9 speaketh of the meritoritorious cause part thereof being put for the whole Synechdochically Upon this occasion let us observe both the intent and consent of such Scriptures as speak diversly of the cause of justification We are said to be justified by grace Rom. 3.24 i. e. as the efficient cause By his bloud Rom. 5 9. i. e. as the meritorious cause By his obedience Rom. 5.19 i. e. as the materiall cause By imputation viz. of his obedience Rom. 4.6 i. e. as the formall cause By faith Rom. 5.1 i. e. as the instrument Your inference Christ bare our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement therefore his righteousnesse cannot be the formall cause of a sinners righteousness is impertinent and argues that you understand not our doctrine We say not that the obedience of Christ is the formall but the materiall cause of a sinners righteousnesse and that imputation is the formall cause thereof Dialogu The Father is a sinners righteousnesse 1. Efficiently 2. Formally His Atonement so procured must needs be the formall cause of a sinners full and perfect righteousnesse Answ To say the Father is a sinners righteousnesse formally sounds too near Osianders errour who held that we were justified by the essentiall righteousnesse of God But the following words shew you mistake or at least inconveniently use the term formally and intend no other then your former error The efficient cause of a sinners righteousnesse is the Father Father taken not personally but essentially for God the Father Son and holy Ghost Dialogu The holy Ghost also doth make sinners righteous instrumentally by fitting preparing and qualifying sinners for the Fathers Atonement by quickening their souls with the lively grace of faith by which grace sinners are enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers Atonement Answ Faith is the instrument or instrumentall cause of justification 'T is also true that the grace of faith as the application of all other benefits of redemption unto the Elect is the effect of the holy Ghost and because a finishing work it is ascribed to the third Person yet according to that received Rule All the works of God upon the creature are wrought in common by all the three persons notwithstanding the work be principally ascribed unto that person whose manner of existence doth most eminently appear in it 'T is a great errour both in Divinity and Logick to say the holy Ghost who is God and onely God is an instrumental cause which alwaies notes inferiority Dialogu It is well that your Authour will grant remission of sins to be righteousnesse in effect if remission of sins be a sinners righteousnesse then I pray consider whose act it is to forgive sins formally I have already proved it to be the Fathers act to forgive sin formally and not Christs he doth forgive sin no otherwise but as a Mediatour by procuring his Fathers pardon and forgivensse Answ Righteousnesse is taken strictly for the matter and form of justification only or largely for justification as consisting of its causes Rom. 10.10 remission of sins is an immediate and inseparable effect of the former but a part of the latter Imputation which is the formall cause of justification is a transient act and is the effect of the Father taken essentially Our Question is not concerning the formall but the materiall cause of justification Dialogu M. Forbes is put to his shifts to declare that Christs passive Obedience is the matter of a sinners righteousnesse by a distinction between Christ as he was our Lamb for Sacrifice in his humane nature and as he was our Priest in his divine nature for else he did foresee that he should run into an exceeding grosse absurdity if he had made any action of Christs God-head or Priestly nature to have been a sinners righteousnesse by imputation Therefore to avoid that absurdity he doth place a sinners righteousnesse in his passive