having no essentiall matter witnesse the Dialogues enumeration of the causes since the righteousnesse of the morall Law fullfilled by Christ was typified by the Ceremoniall Law the righteousnesse of the Law is fullfilled in us because we by faith apprehend the obedience of Christ who fullfilled the Law for us Perkins in Gal. 3. so M. Perkins with the rest of the cloud of witnesses neither is there any other tolerable interpretation possible to be given With the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse Rom. 10.10 that is unto a judiciall righteousnesse upon beleeving we are judicially declared to be righteous with the righteousnesse of the Law though not by the Law That which was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse was that which Abraham so beleeved as that his faith for the sake of the object thereof was accounted unto him for righteousnesse Imputing and beleeving are as giving and receiving But righteousnesse without works viz. the righteousness of Christ not pardon of sin which is the effect of that righteousnesse received Act. 10.43 was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Rom. 46. because it is imputed to all that are blessed universally whereof Abraham was an eminent one therefore the righteousnesse of Christ was that which Abraham so beleeved as that his faith for the sake of the object thereof was accounted unto him for righteousnesse Dialogu And in this sense the Apostle Paul doth prove that Abrahams faith was accounted to him for righteousnesse by a Testimony taken from David Psa 32. saying even as David also describeth the blessednesse of that man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord doth not impute sinne What other reason can any man else render why the Apostle should enterlace this testimony in this place but to describe unto us the true manner how Abrahams faith did make him righteous namely because by his faith he did apprehend and receive the fathers atonement by which his sins were forgiven covered and not imputed Answ We readily acknowledge that Paul Rom. 4.3 proveth that Abrahams faith was accounted to him for righteousnesse out of Moses Gen. 15.6 the scop of the Apostle in citing Psal 32.1 2. is not to prove the personall justification of Abraham by faith but to prove justification in the generall both of the Father of the faithfull and all others to be by faith and the reason why the Apostle cites the testimony of David Rom. 4.6 7 8. is to strengthen his doctrine of justification by faith without works which he having proved by the example of Abraham proceedeth to confirm it from the testimony of David His argumentation or manner of reasoning lying thus justification is by imputation therefore by faith without works the not-imputation of sin presupposeth imputation of righteousnesse ver 6 7. Evangelicall imputation of righteousnesse supposeth the righteousnesse that is imputed to be anothers subjectively and inherently therefore to be applied as ours by faith Touching Abrahams apprehending the Fathers Atonement by faith and the imputing oâ— accounting his faith unto him for righteousnesse we saw before but that Abrahams faith was accounted unto him for righteousnesse in the sense of the Dialogue is by us still denied and disproved by you still said and not proved Dialogu And thus after this sort the Apostle doth bring in forgivenesse of sin as an effect of justifying faith for faith is the only instrument of the Spirit by which sinners come to be united to the Mediator in and through whose Mediation they apprehend and receive the Fathers Atonement pardon and forgivenesse for their full and perfect justification Answ If atonement pardon and forgivenesse be the effect of justifying faith then they cannot be our righteousnesse for that is the object of our justifying faith Righteousnesse is before justifying faith as the object is before the act Atonement is after it as the effect is after the cause to say the cause and the effect is the same is to say a thing is before and after it self Dialogu This was the only true reason why God imputed Abrahams faith to him for righteousnesse namely because he beleeved in Gods atonement through the mediation of the seed promised Answ We have seen before that Atonement was not and also what was the true cause why Abrahams faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse The Atonement of the Dialogue is not Gods Atonement but a pestilent fiction to beleeve in it is to beleeve in an abomination Dialogu And it is further evident that this doctrine of a sinners righteousnesse by faith was taught and preached by all the Prophets as Peter affirmeth for all the Prophets saith he do witnesse that through the Name of Christ whosoever beleeveth in him shall receive remission of sins Act. 10.43 that is to say they shall receive remission of their sins for their justification by the Fathers atonement procured by Christs sacrifice of atonement Answ We are to distinguish between the righteousnesse of a sinner and the remission of sins Righteousness is the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed Remission of sins is the judiciall declaration of our discharge from the guilt and punishment of sin a part of our justification strictly taken and an effect of righteousnesse The name of Christ is Jehovah our Righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 according to which whosoever beleeveth in him how can it be otherwise but that remission of sins must follow as the effect doth its cause If then righteousnesse be the cause and atonement or remission of sin the effect To say again Atonement is our righteousnesse is to say the effect is the cause that is to say a thing is before and after it self that is to say and say again an impossibility without any probability Dialogu And to this tenour the Apostle Paul doth explain the use of faith in the point of a sinners justification Phil. 3 9. and in Rom. 10.4 6 10. With the heart saith he man beleeveth unto righteousnesse He doth not say faith is a sinners righteousnesse but that by it a sinner beleeveth unto righteousnesse Answ A bare deniall especially strengthened with the reasons thereof that are readily obvious out of the foregoing discourse is a sufficient answer to your bare allegation of Phi. 3 9. The righteousness whereof Paul speaks Rom. 10.10 because it hath faith foregoing it as is evident out of the words alledged must needs be such as followeth faith and may be either understood of Gods declaration of the righteousnesse of a beleever in the Court of conscience or of the beleevers declaration of his righteousnesse unto others as works are said to justifie declaratively which latter interpretation the context seemeth to favour Paul doth not say atonement is a sinners righteousnesse which is the question but he doth say that visible confession namely externall profession worship and conversation is the effect of that faith which is accounted unto righteousnesse
are justified viz. the active and passive obedience of Christ and the matter taken passively i. e. the Subjects which are justified viz. beleeeving sinners In the last you follow them in the first you leave them Your leaving out one of the essentiall causes both renders and leaveth your justification a non-ens a nullity there being no created being but consists at least of a logicall matter and form Atonement or pardon and forgivenesse i. e. the judiciall declaration of a beleever to be discharged from the guilt and condemnation of sin is an effect of a sinners righteousnesse which also hath been shewed before so far is it from being the formall cause thereof The meritorious procuring cause not only of our atonement but also of our righteousnesse is Christs Mediatorly Sacrifice but not in the sense of the Dialogue for there is no such Mediatorly obedience as it imagines Faith apprehends the righteousnesse of Christ as the matter of our righteousness and atonement or pardon as the effect thereof You leave out part of the final cause viz. the glory of his justice But because it is not sufficient for the edification of the Reader that errour be discovered except the truth be also manifested I shall shut up this fourth and last head of controversie between the Dialogue and us with an enumeration of the causes of justification according to the doctrine of the Orthodox The efficient cause The efficient cause is the gracious good pleasure of God the Father Son and holy Ghost Tit. 3.4 Rom. 3.22 Psal 3.9 He is God Lord Law-giver and Judge his will is the Rule of Righteousness All reason in one reason and the reason of all reasons to whom it was free to justifie man in whether way he pleased either legally by our own works or evangelically by the works of another The meritorious cause The meritorious cause is the whole Legall obedience of Christ consisting of his habituall conformity together with his active and passive obedience from the instant of his incarnation unto his passion inclusively performed by him as God-man our Mediatout and Surety in way of Covenant to the fullfilling whereof the application of all the good of election consequently justification as a part thereof was due unto the Elect according to the order of justice though as concerning themselves purposed purchased and perfected altogether in way of meer grace Four things to be attended for the clearing of the meritorious cause Four things attended to will help to clear the meritorious cause 1. The Person 2. The Office 3. The Service 4. The merit whereupon debt ariseth according to order of justice 1 The Person The Person obeying is God-man the eminency of the person is requisite to the value of the Service 2 Office By Office he was Mediatour which he took not upon him but was called thereunto an essentiall part whereof was to stand as our surety and pay our debt even unto the death during which space only Christs Mediatorship is to be looked at as having influence into the meritorious cause of our justification Notwithstanding Christ still continueth a Mediatour and Surety yet no more to pay our debt that being already discharged death had no more dominion over him Heb. 7.27.9.28 1 Pet. 3.18 He was offered once he suffered once 3 Service His service or his perfect obedience consists of his originall conformity and his active and passive obedience unto the Law His originall righteousnesse is that gracious inherent disposition in Christ from the first instant of his conception whereby he was habitually conformable to the Law Luk. 1.35 there was more habituall grace in Christ then there is duty in the Law or then there is or shall be habituall grace in the Elect both Angels and men because Christ was God-man and received the Spirit out of measure as much as was possible to be in a creature This originall righteousnesse of Christ answered for our originall unrighteousnesse Concerning his active and passive obedience to the Law observe these three propositions Prop. 1 All his obedience to the Law proceeded from him as God-man Mediatour See this proved Cha. part 2. Prop. 2 Both active and passive obedience were requisite unto the work of the Mediatour That passive obedience was requisite is unquestionable That active obedience was requisite is thus proved There was no part of Christs obedience which was not active As there was no part of Christs active obedience that was so active as that it was no way passive so there was no part of his passive obedience which was so passive as that it was not also active The Law requireth not only death in case of sin Gen. 2.17 but also doing of the Legall obedience unto the command Deut. 27.26 Gal. 3.10 otherwise there is no life The command then must be obeyed in our selves or in our Surety It cannot be obeyed in our selves Obedience of the Saints whether in grace or glory is not Legall viz. such as is 1. Performed in our own persons 2. From a concreated principle of grace received in the first Covenant 3. In way of merit 4. Perfect Therefore in our Surety Because this double satisfaction answereth to our double misery viz. the guilt of punishment or condemnation and defect of righteousnesse Because righteousnesse properly and truly so called consisteth in actuall obedience Prop. 3 All his active and passive obedience concurres to compleat the work or service of the Mediator He was born for us Luk. 2.10 11. he was made subject to the Law for us Gal. 4.4 for our sakes he sanctified himself Joh. 17.19 and that from the womb unto his last oblation of himself upon the crosse He obeyed the Law for our sakes I come to do thy will O God Heb. 10.7 by the which will we are sanctified cap. 10. that is that will whereby he was appointed to this office and by doing his will in that office according as he was appointed What Christ did in way of discharging his office he did for us Christ fulfilled the Law Mat. 5.17 in way of discharging his office Therefore he fullfilled the Law for us He came to fullfill all the Law As he came so he was sent and his sending or mission was nothing else but his actuall entring upon his Office according to the pleasure and command of the Father Briefly He came as he was sent He was sent as Mediatour Ergo. Either all Christs active obedience was for us Obedientia Christi est una copulativa Alste Theo. Sect. 3. loc 22. Med. l. 1. c. 21. 23 24. Wolleb l. 1. c. 18. or some of it only for himself but there can no reason be given why any of it should be only for himself If it should be granted which the Protestant Writers do generally deny that Christ merited for himself yet the Proposition stands if that Christ merited not only for himself but for us also Every action of Christs obedience was an integrall part of
his satisfaction that is though some part of this obedience be more eminent then others yet the whole is not compleat without the least All the obedience of Christ makes but one obedience All his obedience is one copulative Merit Merit justly indebteth it is that whereunto the thing merited is due according to the order of justice Debt then according to the order of justice is so a debt as that in case God should not perform it he should not be just The application of the good of election to the redeemed becometh a just debt for the obedience sake of Christ by vertue of the Covenant between God and Christ wherein God hath in this sense freely made himself a debtor Isa 53.10 He is faithfull and just to forgive us our sin 1 Joh. 1.9 As Adams disobedience justly deserved condemnation so Christs obedience justly deserveth salvation for his seed His merit exceedeth Adams demerit Obj. Works and Grace are opposite Rom. 11.6 Buchan iust Theol. loc 31. qu. 16. How can merit consist with the Covenant of grace Ans The Covenant of grace denieth merit in the proper debtor but not in the surety It denieth merit in us but not in Christ In the Covenant of works man was capable of merit Rom. 3.23 in the Covenant of grace man is uncapable of merit so we are to understand Rom. 11.6 But to him that workerh not but beleeveth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is accounted for righteousnesse Our salvation cost Christ the full price though it cost us nothing at all The materiall cause The material cause of our justification is the whole course of the active and passive obedience of Christ together with his habituall conformity unto the Law As the matter of Adams justification in innocency had not consisted in one act of obedience but of a whole course of obedience the finishing of which was requisite to have made him just So it is with the obedience of Christ If the justification of a sinner consisteth not only in the not-imputation of sin but also in the imputation of righteousnesse then both the active and passive obedience of Christ are requisite to the matter of our justification But the justification of a sinner consisteth not only of the not-imputation of sin but also of the imputation of righteousnesse 'T is not enough for us not to be unjust but we must also be just Therefore Perfect obedience to the Law is the matter of our justification Gal. 3.10 But the whole obedience of Christ was requisite to the performance of perfect Obedience to the Law Therefore The whole obedience of Christ is requisite to the matter of our justification That righteousnesse of the Law which Christ fullfilled in our stead is the matter of our Justification But the righteousnesse of the Law which Christ fulfilled in our stead is compleated of his whole active and passive obedience together with his originall righteousnesse Therefore The difference between the obedience of Christ considered as an ingredient into the meritorious cause The difference between the obedience of Christ considered as an ingredient into the meritorious cause and considered as the matter of our justification and considered as the matter of our justification appeareth thus In the meritorious cause it is to be considered together with the person office and merit In the materiall cause it is considered as distinct from all these They are distinguished as cause and effect Obedience in the materiall cause is the effect of obedience considered in the meritorious cause They are distinguished as the whole and the part Christs obedience is but a part only of the meritorious but the whole of the materiall cause In the meritorious cause it is both a Legall and an Evangelicall act Christs obeying the Law is Legall but his obeying for us is Evangelicall in the materiall cause it is only an Evangelicall act it is given to us freely There it is considered as wrought by him for us here as applied to us There is as a garment made here as a garment put on There it may be compared to the payment of the money by the Surety here to the money as paid and accounted unto the use of the debtor As it is not the commission of our disobedience but the guilt and punishment that is imputed to Christ so it is not the formall working of obedience or doing of the command but the good vertue and efficacy thereof that is imputed unto the Beleever Obedience righteousnesse and life disobedience guilt which is a right unto punishment and punishment that is death answer one the other The formall cause of justification is imputation The formal cause Imputation is the actuall and effectuall application of the Righteousnesse of Christ unto a Beleever To impute reckon or account in this place intend the same thing the same word in Greek being indifferently translated by any of these Rom. 4. To impute is to reckon that unto another which in way of righteousnesse whether of debt or grace belongs unto him Imputation is either Legall imputing to us that which we have done so the word is used Rom. 4. or Evangelicall imputing to us that which another hath done Thus to impute is for God in his act of justifying a sinner to account the righteousnesse of Christ which is not ours formally nor by just debt to be ours by grace and that as verily and really ours as if it were wrought by us And in this sense the word is used ten times Rom. 4.3 5 6 8 9 10 11.22 23 24. The justification of a Beleever is either by righteousnesse inherent or imputed But not by righteousnesse inherent Therefore by righteousnesse imputed The righteousnesse whereby man is justified before God is perfect It were destructive to the merit of Christ and to turn the Covenant of grace into a Covenant of works to say we are justified by righteousnesse inherent in us The instrumentall cause of justification is faith We are justified by faith correlatively that is we are justified by that which is the correlate of faith namely the obedience of Christ The meaning is 't is the obedience of Christ not faith it self that justifieth i. e. that which is apprehended not that which doth apprehend Synop. par Theol. disp 33. n. 32. Twist l. 1. p. 1. de prae D. 3. f. 4. Med. l. 1. c. 20. The finall cause is the manifestation of the glory of mercy tempered with justice Of mercy in that he justifieth the ungodly Rom. 4 5. And that freely Rom. 3.24 Of justice in that he justifieth not without Christs full satisfaction unto the Law Rom. 3.26 CHAP. VIII Of the Dialogues examination of certain Arguments propounded by M. Forbes for the proving of justification by the Imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in his death and satisfaction Dialogu I Pray you produce some of his Arguments that they may be tried and examined whether there be any weight of truth
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
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
righteousnesse for sinners as shall last to all Eternity by no other way or means but by his Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement therefore his Fathers Atonement is a sinners Righteousnesse Answ Christ by his Legal Obedience that is his obedience active and passive unto the Law purchased our Redemption by his passive obedience he purchased our freedome from sin by his active our right unto eternal life no part of Christs Obedience was so active wherein he was not also passive nor any so passive wherein he was not also active To speak plainly and properly atonement is the effect and the legal obedience or righteousnesse of Christ the Mediatorly sacrifice and cause of this effect therefore Atonement is not righteousnesse But to speak after the stile of the Dialogue If Righteousnesse for sinners be purchased and procured by the sacrifice of Atonement neither then can atonement be a sinners Righteousnesse That which procures or purchaseth is the cause that which is procured is the effect the cause cannot be the effect Dialogu The New Testament doth also bear witnesse to this doctrine S. Paul the Apostle doth tell us Rom. 8.4 that the Righteousnesse of the Law namely the righteousnesse which was taught and typified by the sacrifices of the Law might be fullfilled in us that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit as I have explained this Text a little before Answ The fulfilling of the Righteousnesse of the morall Law which the Dialogue thinks to evade by saying Christ fulfilled the righteousnesse typified by the Sacrifices of the Law is hereby proved because the fulfilling of the Righteousnesse of the moral Law by Christ was that which the Sacrifices of the Ceremonial Law typified so unhappy is the Authour in his arguing Christ fulfilled both the Righteousnesse required in the moral and signified in the Ceremoniall Law Atonement acquits from unrighteousness but doth not formally fulfill any righteousnesse Your explaining a little before is there disallowed and disproved we cannot look at your reference thereunto as a reason Dialogu Secondly The Apostle Paul doth in another place confirm this doctrine saying God made him to be sin for us that is to say God ordained him to be a Sacrifice of Atonement for our sins that we might be made the Righteousnesse of God in him that is to say that we might be made righteous or sinlesse by Gods Atonement Answ Here being nothing said but what was often said and answered before I shall spare reciting again the same things You should not only have said but have proved that we are made righteous by Atonement you should have proved according to your speech that a sinners righteousnesse or justification lieth in Atonement and that according to the sense of the Dialogue namely such a pardon of sin as neither is the effect of nor doth acknowledge nay doth deny the very being of the satisfactory meritorious Legall Obedience of Christ And that this your doctrine of a sinners righteousnesse hath ever been well known and witnessed amongst the godly in all ages from the beginning of the world that it hath been witnessed by the practice of all sacrifices before the Law and under the Law by the doctrine of the Prophets and by the doctrine of the New Testament for the making good of which false testimony of yours concerning the witnesse of the forementioned you produce no not so much as one reason but after so slanderous and blasphemous an assertion pardon my true testimony of your false testimony you abuse the ignorant and weary the intelligent Reader with a continual missing or begging the question That the doctrine of Imputation is not a doctrine of late daies only the Reader that pleaseth may be fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius who at the end of his defence of the Catholike faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ against Socinus hath gathered together the testimonies of many of the Ancients still extant to this purpose from Ireneus Anno Christi 180. until after Bernhard who lived Anno 1120. or thereabout CHAP. VI. How Abrahams Faith was imputed to him for Righteousnesse Dialogu ABrahams Faith was imputed to him for Righteousnesse because by it he did receive the Fathers Atonement for his full and perfect Righteousnesse because he beleeved all this both in Gen. 11.31 and again Gen. 12. therefore God imputed that faith to him for righteousnesse for by that faith he apprehended and received the Fathers Atonement and applied it to his own soul as an effectual remedy to acquit him from the guilt of all his sins and so by that means he became sinlesse that is to say iustified and righteous in Gods sight Answ We deny that Abraham apprehended at all any such Atonement as the Dialogue teacheth and it remaineth still to be proved I take it for granted with us that faith doth not justifie us as a work but objectively or relatively that is for the sake of that which is beleeved Though Abraham apprehended the Fathers Atonement by faith it doth not therefore follow that the Atonement apprehended was his righteousnesse Abraham by faith apprehended Atonement or pardon of sin not as the matter but as the effect of Righteousnesse Atonement is frequently taken for expiation noting both the cause and the effect namely both the Legal meritorious obedience of Christ and the acquitting of us from the guilt of sin But so the Dialogue takes it not because it acknowledgeth no essential influence of the obedience of Christ no not of its own Mediatorial obedience into the being of our righteousnesse Atonement according to the Dialogue is the pardon of sin to apply therefore Atonement as an effectual remedy to acquit us from the guilt of sin is to make atonement it s own cause and its own effect that is to make it before and after it self The imputation of Abrahams faith for righteousnesse doth plainly argue that Abraham was made partaker of the righteousnesse of the morall Law or Law of works by faith without works 1. Because no man can attain eternall life without fullfilling the Law either in himself or in his surety Without the righteousnesse of the Law there is no life Lev. 18.5 Deut. 27 26 Ezek. 18.11 Gal. 3.10 2. Because the nature of righteousnesse consists in conformity and obedience to the Law you may as well say that a man may be learned without learning or that he may be a man without a reasonable soul as to say there is a created righteousnesse without conformity to the Law 3. Because the Scripture saith the righteousnesse of the Law that is the righteousnesse which the Law requireth is fullfilled in us that beleeve Rom. 10.4 Most vain is the shift of the Dialogue endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place by interpreting against text context and Scripture those words Righteousnesse of the Law onely of the righteousnesse typified by the Ceremoniall Law which it wrests to its own imaginary righteousnesse that is indeed no righteousnesse but a non-ens as
Orthodox writer say faith justifieth in stead of the Law their meaning is we are made partakers of the righteousnesse of the Law Evangelically that is to say by faith which we cannot be partakers of legally that is to say by works The righteousnesse of Christ in respect of which faith is said to justifie consisting both of originall righteousnesse and actuall obedience justifieth us as well from originall as from actuall unrighteousnesse We receive by faith the righteousnesse of the Law namely that righteousnesse which the Law requireth Rom. 8.3 4. And so Evangelicall righteousnesse or the righteousnesse which is by faith is given to us in stead of Legall righteousnesse We are through sin uncapable of the righteousnesse of the Law legally Haec propositio side justificamur legaliter intollecta cum papistis non est vera sed blasphema-correlative autem accepta est vera Ursin exp Cat. in the stead whereof we are made partakers of the righteousnesse of the Law Evangelically without which we cannot attain eternall life Faith justifieth not properly as a work or quality but relatively for the objects sake namely the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended thereby This Proposition We are justified by faith saith Vrsinus understood legally with the Papists is not true but blasphemous but taken correlatively that is evangelically it is true The true manner how the Law taught sinners to get righteousnesse by faith When a poor humbled sinner brought his sacrifice of atonement to the Priest to be offered for him upon the Altar he must lay both his hands with all his might upon the head of the sacrifice of atonement This kinde of imposition was ordained by God to teach and typifie unto sinners how they must by faith rest and depend upon the sacrifice of Christ as the onely meritorious procuring cause of the Fathers atonement for their full and perfect righteousnesse Answ That he laid on his hands with all his might cannot be proved nor doth the proving thereof prove any thing of the Question Of it hath been already spoken in its proper place The atonement of the Dialogue being disproved it is therewithall disproved That the laying on of hands typified their relying upon the sacrifice of Christ for such atonement Dialogu Vers 25. Whom God hath fore-ordained to be a propitiation or a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his bloud The Apostle explains the matter by another sentence Rom. 5.11 by whom we have received the atonement The Apostle doth imply three things in this sentence 1. That Christ is the Mediatour by whom sinners do receive 2. The main thing which they do receive by him is the Fathers atonement 3. That the means or manner by which they receive the Fathers atonement is the grace of faith Answ The Apostle Rom. 3 25. alludeth unto the Mercy-seat Exo. 25.22 as appeareth by Heb. 9 5. where speaking of the Mercy-seat in Exodus he calleth it by the same word in Greek which is used here teaching us thereby that the Mercy-seat was a Figure of Christ by whom our transgressions of the Law are forgiven and covered the Mercy-seat covered the Ark of the Testimony that is the Ark wherein was the Law which was the testimony of Gods will concerning the duty of man The Atonement of which Rom. 5.11 is to be understood of reconciliation applied according to the sense of the latter reconciliation mentioned vers 10. and notes a change in respect of dispensation on Gods part and a change in respect of state relation and disposition on our part See more Sect. 2. Chap. The Greek words are not the same and may in respect of their signification if we seclude the meritorious cause of atonement from atonement be distinguished as the whole and the part his bloud signifieth his passive obedience the meritorious cause of the forgivenesse of sin faith is the instrument by which we receive it Atonement or remission of sins is a principall good received by faith yet it is not righteousnesse But the Dialogues atonement is neither principall nor lesse principall but a meer fiction Dialogu Vers 25. To declare his righteousnesse by the passing over sins that are past through the forbearance of God 1. God declares his righteousnesse toward sinners by ordaining Jesus Christ to be a propitiation 2. By ordaining the grace of faith as the instrument of the spirit whereby poor sinners might be enabled to beleeve in the Mediators propitiatory sacrifice and receive through him the Fathers atonement for their righteousnesse Answ Then God declared justice as well as mercy in the forgivenesse of or passing over sin A truth much opposed throughout a great part of the Dialogue which contradiction had it been attended to doubtlesse the Authour would have provided against it by some Socinian evasion or mis-applied distinction The Fathers Atonement is received by faith but not for our righteousnesse This errour of the Authours especially in his sense is oft annexed unto some foregoing truth or words that are capable of a construction according to truth by a formall repetition of the question without so much as a threed of reason to hold them together But I hope saying the same thing frequently and boldly though sometimes with the word Therefore inserted without any tolerable inference of reason is not enough to deceive the Reader Dialogu And therefore justified persons have need of new justice to their consciences every day Answ Very true if understood of the sense of their justification but not true if understood in regard of a new Justification Justification is an individuall act which receiveth not more or lesse in respect of it self though in respect of the sense of it it receiveth more or lesse Paul was as much justified the first instant of his beleeving as he is now in glory Because the righteousnesse of Christ which is the matter of justification is the same CHAP. VII Of the Enumeration of the causes of Justification according to the Dialogue and according to the Orthodox Dialogu ANd now for a conclusion I will summe up the Doctrine of Justification into six heads 1. The subject matter of Justification is beleeving sinners of all sorts both Jews and Gentiles all the world over 2. The formall cause of Justification or of a sinners righteousnesse is the Fathers atonement pardon and forgivenesse 3. The meritorious procuring cause of the Fathers atonement for a sinners Justification is Christs Mediatoriall Sacrifice of atonement 4. The next instrumentall means by which a sinner doth receive and apprehend the Fathers atonement for his Iustification is faith in Christ 5. The only efficient cause of all the former causes and effects is Gods free grace and mercy in himself 6. The end of all is the glory of Gods free grace and mercy in the beleeving sinners justification and salvation Answ Divers Orthodox Divines handling the doctrine of justification distribute the matter of justification into the matter taken actively that is one of the essentiall causes by which we
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
followeth upon Adams sin Originall sin proceeding thence as an effect from the cause and actuall sin as an act from the habit As all evil is inflicted for sin so all evil in Scripture-language is called Death The evil of affliction Exo. 10.17 Of bodily Death Gen. 3.15 Rom. 8.10 Gen. 26.10 Exo. 21.16 Of spirituall death i.e. the death of the soul in sin 1 Tim. 5.6 1 Joh. 3.14 Of eternall death Joh. 8.51 Ezek. 33.8 Concerning the Distribution of Death Punishment is taken in a large or strict sense If taken largely the castigations of the elect are punishments but not so if taken strictly Poena est castigatio aeterna vel vindicta poena correctionis vel maledictionis Oecolampad in Ezek. 22. Castigatio electorum est poena latè sumptâ voce poenae eadem non est poena strictè sumptā voce poenae Polan l. 6. c. 4. The sufferings of the Elect are not vindicatively-paenall in a strict sense i.e. they are not inflicted by God upon them in a way of satisfaction to justice Death is either Death In sin Separation of the Image of God from the soul and the Castigatory or correctively-poenall and temporary in the Elect Properly poenall viz. Vindicatively or strictly-poenal i.e. in way of satisfaction to divine justice Presence of sin For sin Separation of the soul from the body Temporal and castigatory in the Elect. Temporal and properly-poenal in Christ Temporal and properly poenal in the Reprobate Separation from the sense of the good things in the promise Partiall temporary and castigatory in the Elect. Total temporal and properly-poenall in Christ Total perpetual and properly-poenall in the Reprobate Presence of the evil things in the Commination Separation of the whole person soul and body from God Totall eternall and properly poenal in the Reprobate The castigatory or correctively poenall part of death only was executed upon the elect the essentiall properly poenall part upon Christ both the essentiall and circumstantiall properly-poenall parts of death upon the Reprobate The castigatory but not poenall i. e. strictly-poenall part was and is executed upon the elect Post remissam culpam adhuc tam multa patimur tandem etiam morimur ad demonstrationem debitae miseriae vel ad emendationem labilis vitae vel ad exercitationem necessariae patieutiae August tractat 124. in Joannem for though Christ freed his from the punishment of sin yet not from the castigation or correction for sin thereby leaving a testimony against sin a remedy for sin a place for conformity unto their head The whole essentiall properly-poenall death of the curse that is the whole essentiall punishment thereof was executed upon Christ The whole properly-poenal death of the curse is executed upon the reprobate both in respect of the essential and accidental parts thereof Adam then standing as a publike person containing all mankinde and which is more so standing as that the first Adam a publike person contaiing all mankinde disobeying was a figure of Christ the second Adam a publike person containing all the Elect obeying so Paul expresly who is the figure of him that was to come Rom. 5.14 the meaning of these words In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die is this If man sin man shall die either in his own person as the Reprobate or in the person of the man Christ Jesus their surery as the elect according to the distribution above so is the Text a full and universal truth Man sins and man dies Touching the Reprobate there is no controversie Concerning the Elect thus Either Christ suffereth the poenall Death of the curse due to the Elect for sin or the Elect suffer it themselves or the curse is not executed but the Elect suffer it not themselves neither is the curse not executed for then the truth of the Commination and Divine justice should fail Therefore Christ suffered the poenall Death of the curse due to the Elect for sinne Briefly this Text Gen. 2.17 is Gods judiciall denunciation of the punishment of sinne with a reservation of his purpose concerning the execution of the execution of it The punishment is denounced to shew divine detestation of sin to deterre man from sin to leave man the more inexcusable in sin his purpose concerning the execution is reserved that the mystery of the Gospel might not be opened before its time This for the clearing of the Text. Since you dislike the last member of the disjunction you do ill to approve the former for thence it followeth Either that God is not true or else that Adam with his Elect posterity must perish for they sinned yet by your exposition neither die in themselves nor in their surety notwithstanding the Divine Commination and so either you take truth from God or salvation from the elect which also denieth the truth of God in the promise in your very entrance But why cannot the curse here threatned be extended unto the Redeemer Dialogu This Text doth not comprehend Jesus Christ within the compasse of it for this Text is a part of the Covenant only that God made with Adam and his posterity respecting the happinesse they had by Creation Answ Though Christ do not fall within the compasse of the Covenant of works it doth not thence follow that he is excluded the compasse of the Text. Damnation is no part of the Gospel yet it is a part of the verse wherein the Gospel is revealed He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved but he that beleeveth not shall be damned Adam in his eating intended and prohibited in this verse was a figure of Christ to come Rom. 5.14 Vel potiu◠ex ipso eventu Evangelij patefactione hunc typum Apostolu◠nos vult intelligere Pareus in loc Sequitur illam comminationem quo die comederis morieris ex intentione divinā non fuisse purè legalem c. Vide Rhetorf exercit pro div gratia ex 2. c. 2. 'T is certain then though Adam during the first Covenant perceived it not yet that Christ was couched and comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant 'T is very probable that the Tree of Life Gen. 2.9 was a Figure of Christ who is called and indeed is the Tree of life Rev. 22.2 If Christ be not within the compasse of the Text the Text is not true Dialogu Death here threatned concerns Adam and his fallen posterity only therefore Christ cannot be included within this Death Answ This is nakedly affirmed your reason annexed being impertinent and the contrary to your assertion is already proved Dialogu God laid down this rule of Justice to Adam in the time of innocency Why should the Mediatour be comprehended under the term Thou Answ Because God so pleased Because elect sinners not dying in their own persons must die in their surety else the Text should not be a truth Unde admirabilis Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cognoscitur qui in
and his instruments were all instruments herein In those effects wherein Satan and men are instruments God is the first and universall efficient not a meer counseller fore-speaker and permitter The efficiency of the second cause is the effect of the first cause Satan the Sabeans and Chaldeans were subordinate causes and instruments of Jobs sufferings yet he saith God hath taken away Job 1.21 So Joseph Gen. 45.8 David Psa 39 9. in cases much alike Satan and men were Instrumens in inflicting such a stroak therefore it is no stroak of divine vindicative justice is no good consequence All evils inflicted upon the reprobate whether corporall or spirituall are stroaks or acts of vindicative justice So often then as Satan or men are instrumentall in inflicting such evils so often Satan and men are instrumentall in stroaks of vindicative justice judicial punishment of sin with sin is an act of vindicative wrath but of this parents are instrumental in the propagation of original sin to their Reprobate children The spiritual distres of an excommunicate person that is a Reprobate is an effect of vindicative wrath But in such distresses Satan is instrumental 1 Cor. 5.5 That delusion of which 2 Thes 2.9 10 11 12. is an act of vindicative justice But in working it Satan and men are instrumentall Casting the wicked men into hell is also an act of vindicative justice in which Gods Angels are instruments Matth. 13.42 Creatures then both good and bad may be instruments of Gods vindicative wrath inflicted both on body and soul Yet we must distinguish between the wounds bruises and stripes inflicted upon Christ and the sin in inflicting of them Satan and his agents were the sole authours and actors of sin yet as concerning the wounds bruises stripes themselves though Satan and men were the subordinate instruments yet God himself was the Authour and principall efficient of them The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all Isa 53.6 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him vers 10. The sufferings of Christ included in this Text are not only such wherein Satan and men were Instruments but some of them were inflicted immediatly of God without any second means as instruments thereof Not only the body but the soul also is capable of bearing wounds bruises and stripes hence we reade of a wounded spirit Pro. 18.14 A wounded conscience 1 Cor. 8.12 The broken and bruised in heart Luke 4.18 The plague of the heart 1 King 8.38 The words proceeding from the very same Hebrew roots with the very words used in this Text are in the Scripture applied to the soul My soul is wounded within me Psa 119.22 A broken and a contrite spirit Psa 51.17 Receive instruction or castigation and not silver Pro. 8.10 which words proceed not only concerning corporeal but also concerning spiritual chastening Should the soul be supposed to be uncapable of wounds bruises chastenings properly yet experience shews it is capable of them metaphorically Satan being a spirit may have accesse unto and consequently both may and doth afflict the spirit 1 Cor. 5.5 Eph. 6.12 16. If Satan could not God can Christ suffered not only in body but in soul Isa 53.10 when thou shalt make his soul a sacrifice for sin My soul is exceeding sorrowfull even unto death Mat. 26.38 Mar. 14.13 His great heavinesse sore amazement agony sweat as it were drops of bloud Mar. 14.33 34. Luk. 2◠44 cannot be looked at in a person that was God-man as lesse then the effects of soul-sorrows hell-sorrows Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell The soul is by judicious and learned Authors understood properly Rivet Hell metaphorically that is for pains aequivalent to the pains of hell it self Parker de Desc l. 3. n. 62. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vir dolorū His sufferings are in the plurall number called passions not a single passion 1 Pet. 4.13 Death 's not a single death Isa 53 9. to shew as some conceive his sufferings both of soul and body He was a man of sorrows Isa 53.3 The word All Act. 13.29 is to be taken in a limited sense as you were told before for all that he was to suffer by them there mentioned not for all that he was to suffer He bare our sins in his body 1 Pet. 2.24 therefore our sins were imputed to him he bare them in his body but not only in his body he hung upon the tree being made a curse Gal. 3.13 The curse is not only bodily but spirituall As we were delivered from our sin so he bare our sin But we were delivered not only from the bodily but also from the spiritual punishment of sin Therefore Most aptly from the example of Christs suffering patiently the punishment of our sins he committed not are we exhorted to suffer patiently our chastisement for the sinnes which we have committed With good reason did he appeal in his sufferings unto the righteous Judge because though he suffered justly in respect of God yet he suffered most unjustly in respect of men The demonstration of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ is truly acknowledged as a subordinate end of his sufferings but the supream end you leave out namely the manifestation of the glory of Gods mercy tempered with justice Mercy to the elect justice unto Christ To declare I say at this time his righteousnesse or justice that he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Whilest you so often affirm the obedience of Christ to be meritorious and yet all along deny it to be performed in a way of justice you so oft affirm a contradiction The very nature of merit including justice for merit is a just desert or a desert in way of justice as Chap. 1. Dialogu I hold it necessary often to remember this distinction namely that Christ suffered both as a malefactor and as a Mediator at one and the same time Answ Though the notions of a Mediatour and a Malefactour are clearly distinct in themselves yet your distinguishing between Christ dying as a Mediatour and as a malefactor is unsound because it implieth that in dying as a Mediatour he died not as a Malefactor no not imputatively whereas to be a malefactor imputatively was for the times a part of his Mediatorly office and essentiall to the death of the Mediator The Dialogue makes him a malefactor in respect of mens false imputations only but denies any imputation of sin unto him by God Dialogu He bare our sins in his body upon the tree 1 Pet. 2.24 Peter means he bare the punishment of sin inflicted according to the sentence of Pilate in his body on the tree sin is often put for the punishment of sin Answ True sin is here taken for the punishment of sin though not only so but for the guilt of sin also 'T is true also that Christ in enduring the sufferings inflicted upon him by the Jews bare as you say our punishments and our sins i. e. the
Hence in your saying he bare sin ergo not by imputation you may see your self intangled in a contradiction and the argument turning head directly against you In but saying so and not proving it you beg but do not prove what you say Synonima's are divers words signifying the same thing but death bearing sinne intercession are doubtlesse divers things though they concurre as ingredients into the same whole of Mediatorship Those other words OF ATONEMENT are here only superadded unto your reason immediatly before-going and were also necessarily implied there this then being the same reason with the former the former Answer may satisfie both The force of this reason is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sursum tulit Piscat in 1 Pe. 2.24 Christs sacrifice was effectuall to procure Atonement therefore sin was not imputed to him a meer non-sequitur nay the contrary consequence is true Christ appeared that is was manifested in the flesh to put away sin Heb. 9.26 28. was once offered to bear the sins of many ver 28. The greek word used here by Paul and elsewhere by Peter 1 Pet. 2.24 signifieth to take carry or bear up op high and that so as to bear away and is an allusion unto the whole burnt-offering that we may then have the clear and full sense of the Apostles phrase we must inform our selves as concerning the type or manner how the burnt-offering was laid upon the Altar whereunto the crosse is in some respect tacitly compared which was thus The Person that brought the sacrifice was to put his hand lay his hand saith Ainsworth upon the head thereof yet living Lev. 1.4 as confessing his guilt and putting or imputing it upon the Beast to be sacrificed Compare Exo. 29.10 Lev. 4.24 29. 5.5 6. 16.21 By the like ceremony of Imposition of hands sin was charged both for the testifying of the accusation and the stoning of the offender Deut. 17.7 Guilt thus typically imputed to the Beast it was slain and laid upon the Altar The Apostle then whilest he is speaking of the Antitype choosing out such a word to expresse Christs bearing of sin teacheth us thereby that Christ did both carry up and bear the load of our sins imputed to him upon the crosse and also bear them clear away and thus Isaiah Paul and Peter sweetly agree together and interpret one another as concerning Christs bearing the imputation of guilt and punishment of sin Dialogu If you will build the common doctrine of imputation upon this phrase The Lord laid all our iniquities upon Christ then by the same phrase you must affirm that the father laid all our sins upon himself by imputing the guilt of our sins to himself for the father is said to bear our sins as well as Christ Psal 25.18 32.1 and elsewhere Answ This place is but one of very many whereupon the doctrine of Imputation is builded The Hebrew word NASA signifieth sometimes to take up a burden simply as is to be seen in the places mentioned by you sometimes to sustain or bear a burthen as a Porter beareth it Levit. 5.1 Numb 18.1 Deut. 1.31 Isa 49.12 the word therefore is to be interpreted according to the nature of the agent spoken of Christ beareth away our sins as the surety by satisfying the debt God taketh away sin as the creditor by acquitting the debtor upon satisfaction given Your reasoning is as if one should say Upon the paiment of the debt to the Creditor by the Surety the Creditor dischargeth the debt Therefore the Creditor payeth the debt Sure you mistake your self in arguing out of this Text from the word NASA against concluding the doctrine of Imputation therefrom because the word NASA is not in the Text. Dialogu Those three terms Blessed is the man whose transgression is born whose sin is covered whose iniquity is not imputed are Synonima's and they do sweetly expound each other and they do also set out the true manner how sinners are made just and blessed namely when their sins are born away covered and not imputed by the fathers mercifull atonement pardon and forgivenesse Answ Paul alledging these words of David Rom. 4. sheweth us that the Psalmists scope therein was to teach us justification by faith Paul findes imputation of righteousnesse Rom. 4.6 in Davids not imputation of sin Psal 32.1.2 Imputation of righteousnesse the effect whereof is our justification consisting of the not-imputing of unrighteousnesse and the accepting of us as righteous Paul teacheth expresly David by consequence The justification of a sinner held out by the Dialogue which not only denies it self to be the effect of but also denies and well nigh defies the very being of Christs mediatorly obedience to the Law is a pestilent fiction You here preproperate your conceit concerning the formall cause of justification but of it in its proper place Dialogu The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is translated in ver 6. hath laid upon is translated in the 12. ver of this 35. ch hath made intercession and therefore the Verb signifying both incurrere fecit and intercessit is too weak a foundation for the doctrine of imputation and of Christs suffering Gods wrath Answ If this reason holds then your own translating the word in Hebrew Psa 22.1 Why hast thou left me will not hold because the same word elsewhere signifieth to help up or fortifie Neh. 3.8 and 4.2 Piaculum significat sacrificium flagitium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat sanctum profanum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat benè precari male precari Who indifferently acquainted with the Languages is ignorant that one Hebrew root hath not only various but sometimes contrary significations the like whereof is observed in other and may be in our English tongue in such cases which signification is here or there intended the learned know how they know it is not here the place to speak The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by vertue of the conjugation signifieth to cause to meet together upon a heap the root signifieth properly to meet one or fall upon metaphorically to intercede because the intercessor doth as it were meet the offended by his prayers and interposes between him and the offender We look at this text not as a foundation but as a solid argument of imputation CHAP. VI. The Vindication of Exod. 20.10 Lev. 1.4 4.29 Lev. 8.14 16.20 21. Dialogu EVery owner must impose both his hands upon the head of the sin-offering this imposition of hands did as the assertors of the doctrine of imputation say typifie the Lords laying our sin upon Christ by imputation and so godly expositors do understand it See Exo. 20.10 Lev. 1.4 and 4.29 and 8.14 and 16.20 21. Answ Aaron and his sons imposed their hands on the head of the sin-offering Exod. 29.10 the owner thereof laid on his hands Lev. 1.4 and 4.29 the Elders of the Congregation lay on their hands Lev. 4.15 the Priests Lev. 4.4 8.14 Aaron
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
pain of losse essentially and principally Thirdly It is impertinent holding only as we saw before concerning the pain of losse accidentally but not essentially though this last be the only and very question between us This description of the Dialogue laid as a foundation of the following Discourse being overthrown what we shall finde built thereupon must needs fall with it which before we proceed unto it may be seasonable here to present the Reader with a true description of the pain of loss in stead of this erroneous description of the Authour The pain of losse taken essentially is an universall privation of the fruition of the good of the promise The pain of losse taken essentially and circumstantially is the universall privation of the fruition of the good of the promise together with the totall and finall absence of those good things which flow not from the curse as such but are effects of justice upon the damned in respect of the condition of the Patient viz. dis-union with God privation of his image in the soul and desperation Dialogu For as the favour of God through Christ is the fountain of life because it is the beginning of eternal life Psa 36.9 so on the contrary to be totally separated from Gods favour by an eternall separation must needs be the beginning of hell-torments or of death eternall Answ If the Dialogue intends the favour of God to be the beginning of eternall life only causally then this comparison is instituted between the formall beginning of eternall death and the causall beginning of eternall life so it is vain as to the purpose intended if it intends the favour of God in Christ taken properly to be the beginning of eternall life formally then it is false for the favour of God in Christ which is the fountain of life is increated and without beginning and is nothing else but Election the first cause of our good Eternall life whose beginning and continuance is of the same nature is created and hath a beginning though it be without an end and is the effect of this first cause the Dialogue therefore confounding the favour of God with the beginning of eternall life formally doth as much as say the cause is the effect and that which is increated is created If the comparison were in it self good yet it is impertinent concluding only concerning the pain of losse taken accidentally not as taken essentially which last must alwaies be remembred to be the sense of the Question Dialogu God doth not forsake the Reprobates so long as they live in this life with such a totall forsaking as he doth after this life yea the very Devils themselves as long as they live in this world being Spirits in the air are not so forsaken of God as they shall be at the day of judgement for as yet they are not in hell but in this air and therefore they have not their full torments as yet Answ Then the pain of losse consists not in the meer want of the favour or love of God for the Reprobates whether men or devils in this life or in the air are alwaies hated of God Gods love and hatred are eternall and immutable Vide Pisc in 2 Pet. 2.4 The devils being deprived of the image of God after which they were created and being under a degree of eternal death in respect of their malice final despair and present sufferings in part their condition doubtlesse is rather a condition of death then of life The Dialogue needlesly here ventureth to tell us that the devils are not in hell though Peter saith God cast them down to hell and John telleth us Rev. 20.3 that the devil was bound a thousand years and cast into the bottomlesse pit the same word with that which is used by the Legion of devils concerning the place they feared when they besought Christ that he would not command them thither Luke 8.31 Dialogu And yet this pain of losse may a little further be explained by opening the term Second death which may be in part described by comparing it with the first death which I have at large described to be our spirituall death or a losse of the life of our first pure nature I may call it a death in corrupt and sinfull qualities as I have opened Gen. 2.17 yea all other miseries which fall upon us in this life till our bodies be rotten in the grave I call them altogether the first death because they do all befall us in this world therefore on the contrary the second death must needs imply a deeper degree of sinful qualities then did befal us under the first death Answ Whether eternall death be called the second death to contra-distinguish it from the death of the body or death in sin or both as the first death As it is not materiall to the point in hand so neither need we labour about it though the Text Mat. 10.28 seemeth rather to oppose it to the death of the body by its separation from the soul as also the coherence Rev. 2.13 20.6 14. And if the first death is taken for death in sin and the full measure of sin as the Dialogue speaketh be included in the second death the opposition lieth rather between a bodily death and eternall death then between the first and second death for so far the first and second death are as two degrees of the same death not two kindes of death whereas bodily death and eternall death are two kindes of death Yea forasmuch as eternall death followeth bodily death and bodily death followeth death in sin there would then be three deaths viz. death in sin death of the body and death of the body and soul in hell and so it should be called the third not the second death Dialogu And thus this very term Second death doth plainly tell us that it is such a degree of death as surpasseth all the degrees of death in this life and that the full measure of it cannot be inflicted upon any man till this life is ended and then their end shal be without mercy Jam. 2.13 Answ The term Second being a word of order teacheth that eternal death in that it is called the second death is in Gods ordinary dispensation inflicted after the first death but it shews not the nature of eternal death The reason why eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body is partly because of the inability of the nature of man in this present state of mortality to endure the wrath of God without separation of the soul from the body but chiefly because this bodily death puts a period to our capacity of having any part in the first resurrection i.e. of regeneration whereby the second death is only prevented Though for these and other reasons the paenall wrath of God viz. eternall death be inflicted after bodily death yet it thence followeth not that the paenall wrath of God cannot be inflicted but according
to this order which is the scope of the Dialogue in this discourse for order of succession is not of the essence of punishment Again the reasons that require this order in the Reprobates in inflicting paenall wrath upon the damned have no place concerning Christ Adde hereunto that according to extraordinary dispensation some of the Reprobates namely those that shall be found alive immediatly before the Judgement 1 Cor. 15.51 shall suffer eternall death without any separation of the soul from the body so as eternall death which is a finall separation of the soul and body from God being opposed to naturall death which is a separation of the soul from the body is not necessarily a second death no not in the Reprobates Dialogu The second part of the tormentt of hell is the pain of sense or the sense of all torturing torments Answ As we did formerly in the pain of losse so now in the pain of sense we are to distinguish between what is essentiall and what is accidentall thereunto Fallacia compositionis div sionis otherwise the Question intending that which is essentiall only but the description including both that which is essentiall and accidentall is apt to deceive the Reader by a fallacy for the better preventing whereof as before the Reader had a description of the pain of losse so let him here if he please take along with him this description of the pain of sense The pain of sense taken essentially is the inflâ—cting of all the substantiall positive evill of the curse flowing from it as such without any respect to the condition of the patient The pain of sense taken essentially and accidentally superaddeth unto the essential punishment fore-mentioned the suffering of such positive punishments as were concomitant effects of justice in respect of the disposition of the patient viz. the evil of sin desperation duration of the pains for ever c. Dialogu As Gods rejection is the principall efficient cause of their damnation so Jesus Christ the Mediatour is the principall instrumentall cause thereof because they beleeved not in him that was promised to be the seed of the woman Answ Gods rejection that is Reprobation as it is the Antecedent not the cause of sin so it is also the Antecedent not the cause of condemnation Reprobation is an act of absolute Lordship and Soveraignty not of Justice Condemnation that is the judiciall senâ—encing unto punishment for sin is an act of Justice not of Lordship no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger because a Reprobate but because a sinner Dialogu Now come we to examine the particulars and whether Christ did suffer these torments of hell for our Redemption 1. Did Christ suffer these torments of hell for our Redemption Did Christ suffer the second death Was he spiritually dead in corrupt and sinfull qualities without any restraining grace and did God leave him to the liberty of these corrupt and sinfull qualities to hate and blaspheme God for his justice and holinesse as inseparable companions of Gods totall separation for these sinful qualities are inseparably joyned to them that suffer hell-torments as the effect is to the cause Did Christ suffer this pain of losse when he said My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Answ Except the Dialogue had laid a better foundation for the disproving of Christs suffering the paenal wrath of God flowing from the curse as such without any consideration of the condition of the Patient that is the essentiall punishment then such a description as disproveth only his suffering of the circumstantiall part of the punishment these vain and reasonlesse interrogatories as so many triumphs before the victory might well have been spared There are that deny that the damned sinne whom though I see not why to consent unto therein yet it concerned such a Questionist though that being done his work had still been to do to have satisfied their objections by the way The sinfull qualities of the damned proceed not from hell-torments as an effect from the cause Parker de descensu lib 3. the torments of hell are an effect and execution of justice whereof God is the Authour sinfull qualities are a defect not an effect therefore have a deficient not an efficient cause therefore of them God cannot be the Authour to to say the contrary were to say God is the Authour of sin which is high blasphemy Sinfull qualities are of the circumstantiall not of the substantiall part of punishment which is manifest 1. Because God is the Authour of punishment essentially but he is not the authour of sin 2. Christ suffered the essentiall punishment but was without sin 3. The Elect sin yet suffer not the punishment due to sinne otherwise they should be both elected and not elected and in the conclusion both saved and damned In that Proposition God punisheth sin with sin the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin it self the infallible and paenall futurition of sin is an effect of justice Sin as sin is not an effect of justice but a defect in man Though the separation of the damned from God is totall and finall yet the separation or rather desertion of Christ was partiall and temporall in respect of the sense of the favour of God and only for a time Separatio quoad substantiam quoad sensum Wilict cen 5. err 3. par 9. q. 3. 1141. There are two kindes of paenall desertion or forsaking one is only in part and for a time so Christ was forsaken the other is totall and finall so the Reprobates in hell are forsaken Totall separation from God is not of the essence of the curse Gen. 2.17 Otherwise the Elect whilst elect could not be ministerially obnoxious to the Curse In a word we must carefully keep in minde the distinction between the essentiall part and the circumstantiall part of the punishment of sin Christ suffered the former not the latter Defects saith Damasoone are either simply miserable or detestable and vitious Christ suffered the former not the latter When our Lord Jesus Christ that man of sorrows cried out upon the Crosse My God My God Austin Damascen Jun. cont 2. l. 4. c. 5. why hast thou forsaken me he suffered the pain of losse understanding alwaies thereby the substantial not the circumstantial pain of losse Dialogu Did Christ at any time feel the gnawing worm of an accusing conscience Was he at any time under the torment of desperation truly if he had at any time suffered the tormets of hell he must of necessity have suffered these things Tho. par 3. q. 46. art 6. Perk. de desc l. 3. n. 53. Willet cen 5. err 3. par 6. q. 3. 1129. Neque enim in eo questionis hujus cardo vertitur an inhaesivè verum an imputativè tantum peccatis nostris pollu us Christus dicendus sit Dialogu for they are as nearly joyned to those that suffer the torment of hell as the effect is
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
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
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
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
and brings salvation though it self be invisible and in the heart For with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Dialogu And in this sense all Sacrifices of Atonement are called Sacrifices of Righteousnesse not only as they are the procuring cause of the Fathers Atonement for a sinners righteousnesse but also because they must be offered in righteousnesse Mal. 3.3 that is to say in faith because poor beleeving sinners do by faith receive the Fathers atonement for their full and perfect righteousnesse Answ This is in effect but what was objected and answered before Dialogu And it is further evident that faith doth no otherwise justifie a sinner but as it is that grace or instrument of the Spirit whereby a sinner is enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers atonement by the Apostles discourse in Rom. 3.21 22 23 24 25. all which Verses I will br efly expound unto you First The Apostle in these words doth teach us the true nature of a sinners justification he cals it the righteousnesse of God He doth not call it the righteousnesse of Christ but the righteousnesse of God the Father because the formall cause and finishing act of a sinners righteousnesse or justification doth come down from God the Father upon all beleeving sinners A sinner cannot be made righteous by the works of the Law as the former verse doth conclude For by the Law men come to know themselves to be sinners and they that are sinners are ever sinners in themselves therefore if ever sinners can be made righteous they must be made righteous by such a kinde of righteousnesse as it pleaseth God the Father to bestow upon them and that can be no other righteousnesse then a passive righteousnesse proceeding from Gods mercifull atonement pardon and forgivenesse Answ The righteousnesse whereby a sinner is justified is called the righteousnesse of God because he is the authour of it it is as much as called the righteousnesse of Christ Rom. 5.18 where it is called the rigteousnesse of one which one is Christ The imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ is the formall cause of our justification and is the act of God the Father The word Father not being taken personally for the first person in the Trinity but essentially for all the three persons God the Father Son and holy Ghost Because all works wrought upon the creature are the works of the three persons equally A sinner is not justified by the works of the Law namely by works that we have done Tit. 3.5 For to such a work four things are requisite viz. that it be wrought 1. By vertue of the grace of the first Covenant 2. By our own persons 3 With exact obedience to the Law 4. Under the promise of justification unto continuance therein But yet a sinner is justified by the works that Christ hath wrought though not by the works that we have wrought If that Proposition be absolutely true that they that are once sinners are ever sinners then either the Saints in glory were never sinners or they are and ever shall be sinners and consequently neither are nor ever shall be perfectly blessed See Ephes 5.27 Neither the justified persons continuance to be a sinner which is the condition of all in this life nor the dependance of justification upon Gods free pleasure nor the passivenesse of the soul in receiving justification do at all inferre atonement much lesse the atonement of the Dialogue to be our righteousnesse The good pleasure of God is the cause why the righteousnesse of Christ imputed and not atonement is our righteousnesse Dialogu But yet the Apostle doth further describe this righteousnesse of God ver 21. by two other circumstances 1. Negatively 2. Affirmatively 1. Negatively he saith that this righteousnesse is without the works of the Law He doth plainly affirm that the works of the Law have no influence at all in the point of a sinners justice or justification Answ We are justified without the works of the Law that is without the works of the Law done by us but not without the works of the Law done by Christ We are justified freely it costeth us nothing Buchan loc 31. q. 16. yet we are justified justly it cost Christ the laying down of a full price Dialogu He doth affirm that this righteousnesse of God whereby sinners are made righteous is such a reghteousnesse as is witnessed by the Law and by the Prophett It is witnessed by the Law namely by that part of the Law which did teach and typifie unto sinners how they might be sinlesse by Gods atonement through their sacrifice of atonement as the procuring cause thereof as I have opened the matter more at large already Answ Willet in loc q. 27. The Apostle in those words by the Law Rom. 3.21 doth not intend the Law of works nor the Ceremoniall Law only but the Law of Moses Moses wrote of me Joh. 5.46 The ceremoniall Law did not typifie our being made righteous by atonement much lesse by the atonement of the Dialogue as it is to be seen in the answer of the places you referre unto Dialogu Faith it self is not a sinners righteousnesse and therefore it cannot be accounted as a sinners righteousnesse in stead of the righteousnesse of the Law as some would have it For if faith were a sinners righteousnesse no otherwise but in the place or stead of the righteousnesse of the Law then faith could not justifie a sinner any further then the Law would do if it could be supposed that a sinner could by any means attain to the righteousnesse of the Law and then truly faith would be but a poor righteousnesse to cover a sinners nakednesse For if a sinner could keep the whole Law in every circumstance of it from his birth unto his death yet it would not be sufficient to justifie him from his originall sin Answ It doth not follow though faith is not therefore atonement is a sinners righteousnesse None of us say that faith is a sinners righteousnesse otherwise then relatively for the sake of the object apprehended by faith and so the Apostle saith expresly Abrahams faith was accounted to him for righteousnesse Yea the Dialogue if atonement might passe for righteousnesse acknowledgeth that faith for the atonements sake received by it is accounted for righteousnesse No marvell though the Dialogue denieth faith to be accounted a sinners righteousnesse in stead of the righteousnesse of the Law the righteousnesse of the Law being righteousnesse properly and truly so called which the Dialogue simply denieth to have any influence into the matter of justification There is no need unto meer justification that faith should justifie a sinner further then the Law requireth yet faith doth not onely justifie a sinner which the Law could not Rom. 8.3 4. but also justifieth him in some respects in a more excellent manner then the Law could have justified an innocent person Dialogu If any
his posterity which otherwise had continued righteous and sinlesse In like sort Christs Mediatoriall obedience had this effect that it procured Gods fatherly atonement and acceptance of all his posterity and seed that should be born of the same promise Gen. 3.15 Answ If the sinfull nature of Adams posterity was the effect of Adams disobedience in like sort as Atonement i. e. remission of sin is the effect of Christs obedience then it was the effect thereof according to justice as indeed it was for original sin is the penal effect of Adams sin he is just to forgive us our sin 1 Joh. 1.9 Dialogu By one man namely Adams sin in eating the forbidden fruit death entred into the world and death by sin namely spirituall death in sin fell upon Adam and his posterity for his sin and so death passed upon all men for that all men had sinned That is to say in whose loins all men have sinned by receiving from his loins his corrupt nature which is sin and also is the punishment of Adams sinfull eating not whose act of disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit all men have sinned in eating the forbidden fruit for then we must have been united to Adam as one person with him Answ What is to be understood by death see in the vindication of Gen. 2.17 The Dialogue not enduring the imputation either of our disobedience unto Christ or of Christs obedience unto us to avoid the Apostles argument taken from the imputation of Adams disobedience to mankinde Rom. 5. denieth that we are guilty of Adams sin acknowledging only that we receive from Adam a corrupt nature or a spirituall death in sin viz. that which we call originall sin Whilest you acknowledge corruption of nature to be the punishment of Adams sinfull eating and yet deny that we sinned in eating the forbidden fruit you make a contradiction for there can be no punishment without sin and by consequence also you put injustice upon God who notwithstanding by his absolute will he might yet having limited himself he doth not afflict without sin That all descended of Adam by ordinary generation are guilty of Adams sin is evident 1. From the expresse Text for that all have sinned Rom. 5.12 or in whom i. e. in Adam all have sinned as it is upon the margent and according as the Learned Interpreters generally turn it Both come to the same sense In this Chapter the Apostle insists upon Adams sin as in the 7th upon originall sinne 2. From the effect all sinned in Adam because all died in Adam even those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression viz. Infants who sinned not actually in their proper persons but only in their publike person Rom. 5.14 Gen. 2.17 1 Cor. 15.22 3. There can be no other reason given according to the revealed will of God of the propagation of of originall sin This doctrine of yours too much favours Pelagius who denied Infants to be guilty of Adams sin and of original sin 4. Adam in his first transgression stood as a publike person by the free constitution of God whose will is the rule of righteousnesse who is the figure of him that was to come Rom. 5.14 Adams being a publike person was a great aggravation of Adams sin hence a world of sin was in Adams sin 1. Because Adam was the whole world the world sinned in Adams sin 2. Because Adam by that sinne slew the whole world 3. Because all sin by consequence was contained in this sin Thence is Originall sin as an effect from the cause hence actuall sinne as an act from the habit 4. It was a universall sin because in it was in sum the violation of the whole Decalogue Dialogu But it passeth my understanding to conceive how God in justice can impute the act of Christs Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement to us as our act unlesse he do first make us one with Christ in the personal unity of both natures noither can I see how any of the actions of Christ can be imputed to Beleevers as their actions Answ Though there needs no other ground for the justice thereof then the good pleasure of God and the free consent of Christ yet herein the pleasure of God and consent of Christ and the mysticall not personall union of Christ and Beleevers concurre The Legal acceptance of the offended or creditor Justitia Christi non imputatur nobis ut causis sed ut subjectis tantura Bellarm. encr Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. and the consent of the surety are sufficient for the Legall charging the offence or debt of a third person who is the offender or debtor upon the surety Christs obedience is imputed to us not formally as if we were the performers thereof but in respect of its efficacy because we have the benefit of it as effectually as if we had performed it our selves The obedience of Christ is imputed to us as the Subjects meerly not as the causes of it Christs actions are ours not properly but virtually in respect of their vigour good benefit and efficacy Dialogu In like sort our blessed Mediatour as he is the mysticall head of all beleevers in the Covenant of grace did take care to do all and every act of Mediatoriall obedience that might procure his Fathers Atonement for the good and benefit of every member of his mysticall body as fully and effectually as if every member could have performed those acts of Mediatoriall obedience themselves And in this sense God doth imput◠the efficacy of all Christs Mediatoriall obedience to all beleevers as the only meritorious price of his Fathers atonement for them Answ The Reader may at the first sight hereof haply think that as it was sometimes with Bellarmine who having spent whole Books in a laborious disputation for mans merit against grace Bellarm. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 7. Tutissimum c. at length saith It is most safe to place our confidence in the alone mercy of God So it is here fallen out with the Authour who after his labour hitherto against the doctrine of Imputation now at length may seem to acknowledge it But though his words be equivocall yet his meaning is the same that it was before and so much the more dangerous because the same evil sense is insinuated in a better language To suppose a sinner to have performed those acts of Mediatorly obedience which Christ performed is to suppose an impossibility Christ was and is God-man and without sin neither of which can be found in him who is a sinner The voice of this whole clause this supposition excepted or somewhat qualified is not unlike the voice of Jacob but the sense is the sense of Esau i. e. the minde of the Dialogue uttered by the tongue of the Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is with the minde of the Orthodox as hath been said of old concerning the Scripture it lieth not in the sound but in the sense
Nec putemus in verbis scripturarum esse Evangelium sed in sensu Hieron in Ep. ad Gal. ca. 1. If most pestilent doctrines have oftentimes been communicated in the language of the Scripture marvell not then that they are communicated in a language which doth not unbecome the Orthodox Neither let us saith Hierome speaking against the heresies of Ebion Photinus Marcion and Bafilides think the Gospel to be in the words of the Scripture but in the sense Who is ignorant that the Arrians speak heresie by that Text The Father is greater then I Joh. 14.28 or that the Papists idolatry by that Proposition This is my Body Mat. 26.26 And they who please may reade Pelagius by those words For that all have sinned or In whom all have sinned Rom. 5. August contra Julian l. 6. c. 12. 12. breathing forth no small seeds of Pelagianism so interpreting or rather corrupting of them as that he acknowledgeth not the meaning of them to be that all sinned in Adam wherein the Dialogue followeth him thereby laying a ground for the deducing the corruption of nature not to be by propagation as a penal effect of Adams sin but by way of imitation An error or heresie expressed by the words of the Scripture or the words of the Orthodox is never the lesse erroneous though so much the more dangerous This admonition here may suffice to preserve the Reader against the infection of the unchanged doctrine of the Dialogue notwithstanding the change of its voice Mediatorly obedience and atonement following thereupon being both according to the sense of the Dialogue and the sense of the Orthodox sufficiently understood out of what hath been said before CHAP. IX Of Atonement or Reconciliation Dialogu THe Fathers Atonement comprehendeth under it justification and adoption These two parts of the Fathers atonement or reconciliation are evident by the effects which all the Sacrifices of atonement under the Law did procure to poor beleeving sinners for all sacrifices of atonement under the Law did typifie Christs Sacrifice of atonement and they procured the Fathers atonement which hath a threefold effect towards poor beleeving sinners 1. All Sacrifices of Atonement in generall were ordained to procure a savour of rest unto Jehovah namely to procure a savour of rest to God the Father 2. The sin-offerings which were Sacrifices of atonement were ordained by God to procure Gods merciful atonement pardon and forgivenesse to poor beleeving sinners by which means only sinners are made sinlesse that is to say just and righteous in Gods sight 3. The burnt-offerings which also were Sacrifices of Atonement were ordained of God to procure his favourable acceptance towards poor beleeving sinners by receiving them into speciall favour as Adopted sinners Answ The Dialogue throughout all its Discourse concerning Atonement Par. 2. seemeth to understand pardon of sinne by atonement See pag. 151. and 162. here it seemeth by Atonement to understand reconciliation and so indeed it is to be understood The Reader is here desired to keep in minde that our Question is not Whether justification and Adoption are parts of Atonement The affirmative whereof the Authour therein following M. Wotton asserts in this place But whether the obedience of Christ be the matter of a sinners righteousnesse Although therefore that the Dialogue here said the truth yet it is impertinent according to the sense of the Orthodox neither making for nor against as concerning the matter of the controversie Atonement or Reconciliation as also Justification and Adoption are joint effects of the same cause viz. the Mediatorly obedience of Christ which was the Sacrifice of Atonement but it doth not therefore follow that Justification and Adoption are parts of atonement one joint or fellow-effect because a fellow-effect is not therefore a part of its fellow-effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though the Hebrew word that signifieth to cover sin and to expiate sin be translated atonement which Translation the Dialogue hath formerly followed and the Greek word signifying propitiation which is the same in effect with reconciliation be generally ascribed unto Chrsst Rom. 3.25 1 Joh. 2.2 and 4.10 the cause put for the effect because Christ is our propitiation causally Heb. 2.17 yet neither covering of sin nor the expiation of sin nor Christ himself is our reconciliation properly and formally pardon of sin is a necessary and inseparable antecedent Christ is the procurer and expiation holds forth the manner of procuring reconciliation but none of them are reconciliation it self Reconciliation in generall Reconciliation what Ex hoc colligimus duplicem reconciliationem in Scripturis confiderari unam generalem applicabilem in cruce peractam alteram particularem applicatam Dav. in Col. 1.23 is the restoring of friends after offence given and taken or taken though not given into the same condition of friendship wherein they were before the offence was given or conceived to be given The Scripture mentions reconciliation under a double notion either as procured Rom. 5.10 2 Cor. 5.19 Col. 1.20 or as applied Rom. 4.11 Colos 1.22 we speak of it in the last notion only Because man by reconciliation though he be restored into a better yet is not rrstored into the same estate formally wherein he was before the fall for then though he was a son Luke 3.38 and in a state of favour with God yet he was not just nor was his condition immutable but now being reconciled he is not only just but also in a state of speciall favour a son and his condition immutable hence it may be described thus Evangelicall reconciliation is a transient act of Gods special grace whereby a beleever for the sake of Christ who is the propitiation for our sin received by faith is restored into an estate of everlasting favour son-ship and one-ness of spirit Reconciliation notes a change of the parties reconciled August in Joan. tract 110. and consequently a change both in respect of God and man on Gods part it infers no change in respect of affection but in respect of the manifestation of his love and dispensation God alwaies loveth the persons of the elect Lomba l. 3. dist 19. dist 32. Thom. p. 3. q. 49. art 4. ad 2. Calv. instit l. 2. c. 16. sect 2 3 4. Dav. Col. 1.20 the love of God is an immanent act and is nothing else but God himself loving To affirm any change in God in respect of his affection were to affirm that God is unconstant and mutable to deny his immutability and by consequence to deny him to be God By reconciliation Gods affection is not changed but Gods dispensation and our condition and disposition That is taken away by the Mediatorly obedience of Christ in respect of which God might justly have been angry with us for ever and proceeded against us unto just condemnation In respect of man it notes a change in regard of state relation and disposition A state of favour and adoption are essentiall unto therefore
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
to the cause Answ Guilt is either taken for the personal commission of sin or for a personall obligation unto punishment upon our voluntary taking thereof for the sin committed by another in the last sense only Christ was guilty of sin that is he was guilty imputatively not inherently as Christ was guilty of sin so also he was sensible of an accusing Conscience If Christ saith D Willet truly bare our sins he sustained also the grief of conscience for them which is the inseparable companion of our sin The question is not Whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently but only whether he may be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively Desperation is not of the essence but accidental in paenal wrath The rest is but a repetition of what was said and also answered a little before Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in the proper place of hell seeing none can suffer the torments of hell as long as they live in this world none can suffer the second death till after this life is ended Answ The place of punishment is not of the essence of punishment as the place of the third heaven is not of the essence of blessednesse so neither is the place of the damned of the essence of misery As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joys of heaven out of the place of heaven if not at other times as Luk 9.28 yet after the Resurrection so might it suffer the pains of hell out of the place of hell The prison is no part of the essentiall debt The most Popish enemies of Christs soul-sufferings of the wrath of God whilest though in their erroneous asserting the locall descent they affirm an actuality concerning Christs being in the place of hell without the pains of hell cannot with any reason deny a possibility of being in the pains of hell without the place of hell Vide Rivet â—athol orth â—o 1. tract â— q. 60. Christ was in a paenall hell not in a locall hell the distinction between a paenall hell and a locall hell is nor only acknowledged unto this day by the Orthodox but was long ago taught by sundry of the Learned and sounder Schoolmen The dispensation of God is either extraordinary or ordinary according to the ordinary dispensation of God the full pains of hell are not suffered in this life but according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not only could but did suffer the pains of hell in this life Many Reprobate suffer the pains of hell here in a degree The Reprobate as was said before that shall be found alive 1 Cor. 15.51 shall passe into the pains of hell without any separation of the soul from the body Dialogu Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his body as well as in his soul to redeem our bodies as well as our souls from the torments of hell Answ We have already seen that Christ suffered the torments of hell in his body as well as in his soul as it is evident that Christ suffered the torments of hell for kinde in his soul so who can deny but he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of hell though not inflicted after the same manner August de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 10. All the flames of hell are not corporeall and materiall witnesse that fire wherein the rich man was tormented such as his eyes and tongue were such was the flame Luk. 16.23 24. Willet syn 20. gen cont qu. 3. par 4. Those flames of hell which torment the bodies of the damned though justly acknowledged to be materiall are materiall after a spirituall manner They therefore are not to be heard who object against Christs suffering hell-pains in his body because there was no visible instrument of such bodily pain If any say his bodily pains were not equall to the bodily pains of them that are in hell that being granted to them therein which they are unable to prove it is sufficient to integrate and make up the execution of the full measure of wrath upon Christ that if his bodily torments were not equall to the bodily torments of the damned yet what was not executed upon his body was executed upon his soul The measure of hell-pains is made up without bodily pains in the Angels that fell and if haply some mindes labour concerning the capacity of the soul of a meer man to hold such a measure of torment they may remember that the soul of Christ who is both God and Man is above that objection exceeding the capacity of all Men and Angels by reason of his personall union Dialogu How long did he suffer the torments of hell was it for ever or how long did he suffer them and when did the torments of hell first seize on him and when was be found freed from them or did he suffer the torments of hell at severall times or in severall places or but at one time or place only Answ His sufferings though temporall in respect of duration were eternall in efficacy in respect of the eminency of the Person it was more for an infinite person to suffer for a time then for all finite persons to suffer for ever Christ suffered the torments of hell upon the Crosse where he bare the moral curse Gal. 3.13 and in the garden Mat. 26. though his sufferings in the garden and upon the Crosse are the principal and therefore called the Passion emphatically yet the rest of his sufferings from his conception unto his passion are integral parts thereof that is such without which his passive obedience is not compleated He was freed from them at his death Job 19.30 he was freed from the sensible part of his sufferings at his death from sufferings simply at his Resurrection That Christ suffered the torments of hell is revealed which is the question though many circumstances of time and place are not revealed These are impertinent and captious quere's Dialogu Was he tormented without any forgivenesse or did Abraham deny him the least drop of water to cool his tongue Answ Christ was tormented without any forgivenesse God spared him nothing of the due debt Rom. 8.32 Mat. 26.39 but God gave him a discharge when the debt was paid Isa 53.10 Col. 2.14 He had not then so much as the least drop of water to ease him of the least particle of suffering due unto him according to justice but was wholly forsaken in respect of any participation of the sense of the good of the promise for the time Mat. 27.46 Dialogu Did Christ inflict the torments of hell upon his own humane nature was his Divine nature angry with his humane nature or did his Divine nature forsake his humane nature in anger as it must have done if it had suffered the torments of hell if so then he destroyed the personall union of his two natures and then he made himself no Mediatour but a cursed damned sinner Answ The second Person of the
of justice The person who suffered being God is so far from opposing his sufferings to have been in a way of satisfaction unto justice as that it was absolutely requisite thereunto Let not the Reader be moved with the multitude of Scriptures misalledged but know the private and erring interpretation of them all to be but a very fallacy of putting that which is not a Cause for a Cause namely that which is not a Divine Testimony for a Divine Testimony the letter of the Scripture alledged not according to its sense is not the Scripture That saying of Christ The Father is greater then I Nulli haeretici aut heterodoxi unquam citarunt aut citant verbum Dei Keck theo lib. 1. c. 9. in Joh. 14.28 cited according to the sense of an Arian is not Scripture These words This is my body Mat. 26. cited according to the sense of the Papist is not the word of God neither is that Text 1 Cor. 6.20 nor any of the rest cited for the confirmation of Mediatorly obedience in the sense of the Dialogue the word of God So true is that Proposition No hereticks or heterodox as such ever cited the Word of God Dialogu It is evident by another typical ceremony of Redemption that Christ hath redeemed us by a price only and not by bearing the Curse of the Law for us Lev. 25.25 39. Answ A Type is a person or thing having or not having some Physical aptnesse thereunto instituted of God to signifie a spiritual truth Of types some do signifie but not exemplifie as Hosea's three children whose name signified but did not exemplifie the truth to be fullfilled in the Antitype of such as both signifie and exemplifie some exemplifie without any sense or feeling of the thing exemplified Figura non habet quodcunque habet veritas ut nec imago regia quae Rex Vid. Park lib. 3. de Descen as Jeremies Girdle Chap. 13. some exemplifie with suffering yet so as holding lesse proportion with the truth signified so the wounding of the Prophet prefigured the death of Ahab 1 King 20.37 some hold more proportion as the present Lamb slain and rosted typified Christs sufferings of the wrath of God yet still so as the Antitype hath more then the type The Paschall Lamb typically sacrificed not only for the good but also in stead of the severall families and the Lamb of the daily offering typically sacrificed not only for the good but also in stead of the people the killed Goat upon which sin was laid typically slain not only for the good but in the stead of the sinfull owner Lev. 16. The ram slain in stead of Isaac the Lamb in stead of and for the Redemption of the firstling of the Asse or for the firstling of any other beasts synechdochically all these signified our Redemption by Christ not to be a redemption by laying down a price only or acceptilation but by way of suretiship where that which doth Redeem is put in the place of the Redeemed Though in many typicall redemptions for it was not so in all no price could exempt the Paschall Lamb or the Lamb for the daily sacrifice or the killed goat God acepted of a price and spared life yet not so in the Antitype Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers but with the precious blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot 1 Pet. 1.18 19. If this Argument be of force as it is here propounded without any limitation then Christ need not have redeemed us by his death but by money or money-worth and so it holds against the Dialogue it self and not only against us Though all types of Christ put together hold forth all the essentials of Mediatorly obedience yet such an universall significancy is not requisite to the nature of a single type single types signifie the truth or truths intended thereby concerning the Antitype some one or more some another according to the intention of the Authour Dialogu It is a dangerous errour in the tenet of the Lutherans to say that one drop of the bloud of Christ is sufficient to redeem the whole world Answ As some Papists and Calvinists so it is no wonder if there be found some Lutherans who speak unsoundly concerning concerning the satisfaction of Christ they that see cause to peruse Chemnitius Gerhard Cramerus and the generality of the Lutherans shall finde their judgement contrary to what here is imputed to them CHAP. III. Of that wherein the true meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ lieth Dialogu THe true meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ lies not in this that it was a part of the corporeall substance of the Lamb of God without spot nor in this that he suffered his bloud to be shed by the Roman souldiers in a passive manner of obedience but it lieth in this that it was shed by his own active priestly power by which means only it became a Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement Answ What the Dialogue in the beginning of the second part called Mediatorly obedience annexing this note withall upon the Margent the thing of price which Christ paid for our Redemption was his Mediatorly obedience is here expressed by the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ The Reader therefore is here to be desired to keep in minde that the matter intended by these terms is the obedience of the Mediatour that so the alteration of the words may not insensibly steal away his attention to the question nor abuse him into a better opinion then there is cause of this part of the discourse which vilifieth the sufferings of Christ under a specious pretence to magnifie the bloud of Christ nor occasion him to drink in the minde of the Dialogue concerning our Redemption by the death of Christ only according to its interpretation it being more aptly if not subtlely insinuated under these words the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ then under the phrase of Mediatorly obedience whereof the shedding of his bloud only was a small part They that desire to speak properly distinguish thus between Value Equality Merit and Efficacy in the point of Mediatorly obedience Value respects the sufficient worth of it Equality respects the full and adaequate satisfaction thereof unto Divine justice Merit is that whereby the good of Redemption is due for the sake thereof unto the Elect according to the order of justice Efficacy intends the actual application of the benefit thereof unto the Elect. But understanding in this place with the Dialogue the Value and Worth of the Obedience of the Mediator by the meritorious efficacy of his bloud the fallacy of this assertion lieth in putting that which is not the Cause namely Causae partiales in toto concursu stant pro unâ a partial and insufficient cause to produce the effect of it self alone
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