Orthodox writer say faith justifieth in stead of the Law their meaning is we are made partakers of the righteousnesse of the Law Evangelically that is to say by faith which we cannot be partakers of legally that is to say by works The righteousnesse of Christ in respect of which faith is said to justifie consisting both of originall righteousnesse and actuall obedience justifieth us as well from originall as from actuall unrighteousnesse We receive by faith the righteousnesse of the Law namely that righteousnesse which the Law requireth Rom. 8.3 4. And so Evangelicall righteousnesse or the righteousnesse which is by faith is given to us in stead of Legall righteousnesse We are through sin uncapable of the righteousnesse of the Law legally Haec propositio side justificamur legaliter intollecta cum papistis non est vera sed blasphema-correlative autem accepta est vera Ursin exp Cat. in the stead whereof we are made partakers of the righteousnesse of the Law Evangelically without which we cannot attain eternall life Faith justifieth not properly as a work or quality but relatively for the objects sake namely the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended thereby This Proposition We are justified by faith saith Vrsinus understood legally with the Papists is not true but blasphemous but taken correlatively that is evangelically it is true The true manner how the Law taught sinners to get righteousnesse by faith When a poor humbled sinner brought his sacrifice of atonement to the Priest to be offered for him upon the Altar he must lay both his hands with all his might upon the head of the sacrifice of atonement This kinde of imposition was ordained by God to teach and typifie unto sinners how they must by faith rest and depend upon the sacrifice of Christ as the onely meritorious procuring cause of the Fathers atonement for their full and perfect righteousnesse Answ That he laid on his hands with all his might cannot be proved nor doth the proving thereof prove any thing of the Question Of it hath been already spoken in its proper place The atonement of the Dialogue being disproved it is therewithall disproved That the laying on of hands typified their relying upon the sacrifice of Christ for such atonement Dialogu Vers 25. Whom God hath fore-ordained to be a propitiation or a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his bloud The Apostle explains the matter by another sentence Rom. 5.11 by whom we have received the atonement The Apostle doth imply three things in this sentence 1. That Christ is the Mediatour by whom sinners do receive 2. The main thing which they do receive by him is the Fathers atonement 3. That the means or manner by which they receive the Fathers atonement is the grace of faith Answ The Apostle Rom. 3 25. alludeth unto the Mercy-seat Exo. 25.22 as appeareth by Heb. 9 5. where speaking of the Mercy-seat in Exodus he calleth it by the same word in Greek which is used here teaching us thereby that the Mercy-seat was a Figure of Christ by whom our transgressions of the Law are forgiven and covered the Mercy-seat covered the Ark of the Testimony that is the Ark wherein was the Law which was the testimony of Gods will concerning the duty of man The Atonement of which Rom. 5.11 is to be understood of reconciliation applied according to the sense of the latter reconciliation mentioned vers 10. and notes a change in respect of dispensation on Gods part and a change in respect of state relation and disposition on our part See more Sect. 2. Chap. The Greek words are not the same and may in respect of their signification if we seclude the meritorious cause of atonement from atonement be distinguished as the whole and the part his bloud signifieth his passive obedience the meritorious cause of the forgivenesse of sin faith is the instrument by which we receive it Atonement or remission of sins is a principall good received by faith yet it is not righteousnesse But the Dialogues atonement is neither principall nor lesse principall but a meer fiction Dialogu Vers 25. To declare his righteousnesse by the passing over sins that are past through the forbearance of God 1. God declares his righteousnesse toward sinners by ordaining Jesus Christ to be a propitiation 2. By ordaining the grace of faith as the instrument of the spirit whereby poor sinners might be enabled to beleeve in the Mediators propitiatory sacrifice and receive through him the Fathers atonement for their righteousnesse Answ Then God declared justice as well as mercy in the forgivenesse of or passing over sin A truth much opposed throughout a great part of the Dialogue which contradiction had it been attended to doubtlesse the Authour would have provided against it by some Socinian evasion or mis-applied distinction The Fathers Atonement is received by faith but not for our righteousnesse This errour of the Authours especially in his sense is oft annexed unto some foregoing truth or words that are capable of a construction according to truth by a formall repetition of the question without so much as a threed of reason to hold them together But I hope saying the same thing frequently and boldly though sometimes with the word Therefore inserted without any tolerable inference of reason is not enough to deceive the Reader Dialogu And therefore justified persons have need of new justice to their consciences every day Answ Very true if understood of the sense of their justification but not true if understood in regard of a new Justification Justification is an individuall act which receiveth not more or lesse in respect of it self though in respect of the sense of it it receiveth more or lesse Paul was as much justified the first instant of his beleeving as he is now in glory Because the righteousnesse of Christ which is the matter of justification is the same CHAP. VII Of the Enumeration of the causes of Justification according to the Dialogue and according to the Orthodox Dialogu ANd now for a conclusion I will summe up the Doctrine of Justification into six heads 1. The subject matter of Justification is beleeving sinners of all sorts both Jews and Gentiles all the world over 2. The formall cause of Justification or of a sinners righteousnesse is the Fathers atonement pardon and forgivenesse 3. The meritorious procuring cause of the Fathers atonement for a sinners Justification is Christs Mediatoriall Sacrifice of atonement 4. The next instrumentall means by which a sinner doth receive and apprehend the Fathers atonement for his Iustification is faith in Christ 5. The only efficient cause of all the former causes and effects is Gods free grace and mercy in himself 6. The end of all is the glory of Gods free grace and mercy in the beleeving sinners justification and salvation Answ Divers Orthodox Divines handling the doctrine of justification distribute the matter of justification into the matter taken actively that is one of the essentiall causes by which we
are justified viz. the active and passive obedience of Christ and the matter taken passively i. e. the Subjects which are justified viz. beleeeving sinners In the last you follow them in the first you leave them Your leaving out one of the essentiall causes both renders and leaveth your justification a non-ens a nullity there being no created being but consists at least of a logicall matter and form Atonement or pardon and forgivenesse i. e. the judiciall declaration of a beleever to be discharged from the guilt and condemnation of sin is an effect of a sinners righteousnesse which also hath been shewed before so far is it from being the formall cause thereof The meritorious procuring cause not only of our atonement but also of our righteousnesse is Christs Mediatorly Sacrifice but not in the sense of the Dialogue for there is no such Mediatorly obedience as it imagines Faith apprehends the righteousnesse of Christ as the matter of our righteousness and atonement or pardon as the effect thereof You leave out part of the final cause viz. the glory of his justice But because it is not sufficient for the edification of the Reader that errour be discovered except the truth be also manifested I shall shut up this fourth and last head of controversie between the Dialogue and us with an enumeration of the causes of justification according to the doctrine of the Orthodox The efficient cause The efficient cause is the gracious good pleasure of God the Father Son and holy Ghost Tit. 3.4 Rom. 3.22 Psal 3.9 He is God Lord Law-giver and Judge his will is the Rule of Righteousness All reason in one reason and the reason of all reasons to whom it was free to justifie man in whether way he pleased either legally by our own works or evangelically by the works of another The meritorious cause The meritorious cause is the whole Legall obedience of Christ consisting of his habituall conformity together with his active and passive obedience from the instant of his incarnation unto his passion inclusively performed by him as God-man our Mediatout and Surety in way of Covenant to the fullfilling whereof the application of all the good of election consequently justification as a part thereof was due unto the Elect according to the order of justice though as concerning themselves purposed purchased and perfected altogether in way of meer grace Four things to be attended for the clearing of the meritorious cause Four things attended to will help to clear the meritorious cause 1. The Person 2. The Office 3. The Service 4. The merit whereupon debt ariseth according to order of justice 1 The Person The Person obeying is God-man the eminency of the person is requisite to the value of the Service 2 Office By Office he was Mediatour which he took not upon him but was called thereunto an essentiall part whereof was to stand as our surety and pay our debt even unto the death during which space only Christs Mediatorship is to be looked at as having influence into the meritorious cause of our justification Notwithstanding Christ still continueth a Mediatour and Surety yet no more to pay our debt that being already discharged death had no more dominion over him Heb. 7.27.9.28 1 Pet. 3.18 He was offered once he suffered once 3 Service His service or his perfect obedience consists of his originall conformity and his active and passive obedience unto the Law His originall righteousnesse is that gracious inherent disposition in Christ from the first instant of his conception whereby he was habitually conformable to the Law Luk. 1.35 there was more habituall grace in Christ then there is duty in the Law or then there is or shall be habituall grace in the Elect both Angels and men because Christ was God-man and received the Spirit out of measure as much as was possible to be in a creature This originall righteousnesse of Christ answered for our originall unrighteousnesse Concerning his active and passive obedience to the Law observe these three propositions Prop. 1 All his obedience to the Law proceeded from him as God-man Mediatour See this proved Cha. part 2. Prop. 2 Both active and passive obedience were requisite unto the work of the Mediatour That passive obedience was requisite is unquestionable That active obedience was requisite is thus proved There was no part of Christs obedience which was not active As there was no part of Christs active obedience that was so active as that it was no way passive so there was no part of his passive obedience which was so passive as that it was not also active The Law requireth not only death in case of sin Gen. 2.17 but also doing of the Legall obedience unto the command Deut. 27.26 Gal. 3.10 otherwise there is no life The command then must be obeyed in our selves or in our Surety It cannot be obeyed in our selves Obedience of the Saints whether in grace or glory is not Legall viz. such as is 1. Performed in our own persons 2. From a concreated principle of grace received in the first Covenant 3. In way of merit 4. Perfect Therefore in our Surety Because this double satisfaction answereth to our double misery viz. the guilt of punishment or condemnation and defect of righteousnesse Because righteousnesse properly and truly so called consisteth in actuall obedience Prop. 3 All his active and passive obedience concurres to compleat the work or service of the Mediator He was born for us Luk. 2.10 11. he was made subject to the Law for us Gal. 4.4 for our sakes he sanctified himself Joh. 17.19 and that from the womb unto his last oblation of himself upon the crosse He obeyed the Law for our sakes I come to do thy will O God Heb. 10.7 by the which will we are sanctified cap. 10. that is that will whereby he was appointed to this office and by doing his will in that office according as he was appointed What Christ did in way of discharging his office he did for us Christ fulfilled the Law Mat. 5.17 in way of discharging his office Therefore he fullfilled the Law for us He came to fullfill all the Law As he came so he was sent and his sending or mission was nothing else but his actuall entring upon his Office according to the pleasure and command of the Father Briefly He came as he was sent He was sent as Mediatour Ergo. Either all Christs active obedience was for us Obedientia Christi est una copulativa Alste Theo. Sect. 3. loc 22. Med. l. 1. c. 21. 23 24. Wolleb l. 1. c. 18. or some of it only for himself but there can no reason be given why any of it should be only for himself If it should be granted which the Protestant Writers do generally deny that Christ merited for himself yet the Proposition stands if that Christ merited not only for himself but for us also Every action of Christs obedience was an integrall part of
his satisfaction that is though some part of this obedience be more eminent then others yet the whole is not compleat without the least All the obedience of Christ makes but one obedience All his obedience is one copulative Merit Merit justly indebteth it is that whereunto the thing merited is due according to the order of justice Debt then according to the order of justice is so a debt as that in case God should not perform it he should not be just The application of the good of election to the redeemed becometh a just debt for the obedience sake of Christ by vertue of the Covenant between God and Christ wherein God hath in this sense freely made himself a debtor Isa 53.10 He is faithfull and just to forgive us our sin 1 Joh. 1.9 As Adams disobedience justly deserved condemnation so Christs obedience justly deserveth salvation for his seed His merit exceedeth Adams demerit Obj. Works and Grace are opposite Rom. 11.6 Buchan iust Theol. loc 31. qu. 16. How can merit consist with the Covenant of grace Ans The Covenant of grace denieth merit in the proper debtor but not in the surety It denieth merit in us but not in Christ In the Covenant of works man was capable of merit Rom. 3.23 in the Covenant of grace man is uncapable of merit so we are to understand Rom. 11.6 But to him that workerh not but beleeveth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is accounted for righteousnesse Our salvation cost Christ the full price though it cost us nothing at all The materiall cause The material cause of our justification is the whole course of the active and passive obedience of Christ together with his habituall conformity unto the Law As the matter of Adams justification in innocency had not consisted in one act of obedience but of a whole course of obedience the finishing of which was requisite to have made him just So it is with the obedience of Christ If the justification of a sinner consisteth not only in the not-imputation of sin but also in the imputation of righteousnesse then both the active and passive obedience of Christ are requisite to the matter of our justification But the justification of a sinner consisteth not only of the not-imputation of sin but also of the imputation of righteousnesse 'T is not enough for us not to be unjust but we must also be just Therefore Perfect obedience to the Law is the matter of our justification Gal. 3.10 But the whole obedience of Christ was requisite to the performance of perfect Obedience to the Law Therefore The whole obedience of Christ is requisite to the matter of our justification That righteousnesse of the Law which Christ fullfilled in our stead is the matter of our Justification But the righteousnesse of the Law which Christ fulfilled in our stead is compleated of his whole active and passive obedience together with his originall righteousnesse Therefore The difference between the obedience of Christ considered as an ingredient into the meritorious cause The difference between the obedience of Christ considered as an ingredient into the meritorious cause and considered as the matter of our justification and considered as the matter of our justification appeareth thus In the meritorious cause it is to be considered together with the person office and merit In the materiall cause it is considered as distinct from all these They are distinguished as cause and effect Obedience in the materiall cause is the effect of obedience considered in the meritorious cause They are distinguished as the whole and the part Christs obedience is but a part only of the meritorious but the whole of the materiall cause In the meritorious cause it is both a Legall and an Evangelicall act Christs obeying the Law is Legall but his obeying for us is Evangelicall in the materiall cause it is only an Evangelicall act it is given to us freely There it is considered as wrought by him for us here as applied to us There is as a garment made here as a garment put on There it may be compared to the payment of the money by the Surety here to the money as paid and accounted unto the use of the debtor As it is not the commission of our disobedience but the guilt and punishment that is imputed to Christ so it is not the formall working of obedience or doing of the command but the good vertue and efficacy thereof that is imputed unto the Beleever Obedience righteousnesse and life disobedience guilt which is a right unto punishment and punishment that is death answer one the other The formall cause of justification is imputation The formal cause Imputation is the actuall and effectuall application of the Righteousnesse of Christ unto a Beleever To impute reckon or account in this place intend the same thing the same word in Greek being indifferently translated by any of these Rom. 4. To impute is to reckon that unto another which in way of righteousnesse whether of debt or grace belongs unto him Imputation is either Legall imputing to us that which we have done so the word is used Rom. 4. or Evangelicall imputing to us that which another hath done Thus to impute is for God in his act of justifying a sinner to account the righteousnesse of Christ which is not ours formally nor by just debt to be ours by grace and that as verily and really ours as if it were wrought by us And in this sense the word is used ten times Rom. 4.3 5 6 8 9 10 11.22 23 24. The justification of a Beleever is either by righteousnesse inherent or imputed But not by righteousnesse inherent Therefore by righteousnesse imputed The righteousnesse whereby man is justified before God is perfect It were destructive to the merit of Christ and to turn the Covenant of grace into a Covenant of works to say we are justified by righteousnesse inherent in us The instrumentall cause of justification is faith We are justified by faith correlatively that is we are justified by that which is the correlate of faith namely the obedience of Christ The meaning is 't is the obedience of Christ not faith it self that justifieth i. e. that which is apprehended not that which doth apprehend Synop. par Theol. disp 33. n. 32. Twist l. 1. p. 1. de prae D. 3. f. 4. Med. l. 1. c. 20. The finall cause is the manifestation of the glory of mercy tempered with justice Of mercy in that he justifieth the ungodly Rom. 4 5. And that freely Rom. 3.24 Of justice in that he justifieth not without Christs full satisfaction unto the Law Rom. 3.26 CHAP. VIII Of the Dialogues examination of certain Arguments propounded by M. Forbes for the proving of justification by the Imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in his death and satisfaction Dialogu I Pray you produce some of his Arguments that they may be tried and examined whether there be any weight of truth
in them or no. Answ The Dialogue here takes off it self from further acting the part of an opponent against the imputation of Christs Legall obedience both active and passive unto justification and now proceeds to act the part of a Respondent unto certain Arguments of M. Forbes alledged to prove that sinners are justified by the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in his death This it doth not as adhering to us wherein M. Forbes dissents for it agreeth with him wherein he disagreeth but as opposing him wherein he consents with us in the doctrine of imputation That the answer therefore may be as full in the Vindication as the Dialogue pretends to be in the refutation of the Doctrine of the Orthodox we shall examine the Dialogues examination and impertinences omitted consider all that and only that which herein concerns the Question Dialogu Nothing saith M. Forbes is made of God to be a sinners righteousnesse but Jesus Christ alone and his righteousnesse and this he proves by 1 Cor. 1.30 Jer. 23.26 with other places The Apostle saith that Christ was made of God unto us righteousnesse but how not as the doctrine of imputation speaketh but thus God made him to be our righteousnesse in a Mediatoriall way by ordaining him to be the only meritorious procuring cause of his atonement which is a sinners onely righteousnesse Christ is not a sinners righteousnesse any otherwise but in a Mediatoriall way only as I have oft warned Christ is called Jehovah our righteousnesse but still it must be understood in a Mediatoriall way and no otherwise We have seen already that Atonement is not righteousnesse it cannot then be a sinners only righteousnesse That which the Dialogue cals a Mediatorial way is indeed no way but is destructive unto the true way and consequently an hereticall way denying of and inconsisting with the Mediatorly obedience of Christ unto the Law The Legall obedience of Christ is to be considered formally and virtually as considered formally it is an ingredient into the meritorious cause of our justification as considered virtually it is the materiall cause thereof Of which before Dialogu And thus Christ is our Righteousnesse in one respect the Father in another and the holy Ghost in another Each person is a sinners righteousnesse in severall respects The manner how Christ should justifie the many was by bearing their iniquities and how else did he bear their iniquities but by his sacrifice of Atonement and in this sense Christ is said to justifie us with his bloud Rom. 5.9 that is to say by his Sacrifice of Atonement therefore his righteousnesse cannot be the formall cause of a sinners righteousnesse it is but the procuring cause of the Fathers atonement which is the only formall cause of a sinners righteousnesse Answ That Proposition Christ bare our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement is an equivocal proposition capable of diverse construct ons in the sense of the Orthodox 't is true in the sense of the Dialogue false both which senses are sufficiently known by the foregoing discourse The Apostle Rom. 5.9 speaketh of the meritoritorious cause part thereof being put for the whole Synechdochically Upon this occasion let us observe both the intent and consent of such Scriptures as speak diversly of the cause of justification We are said to be justified by grace Rom. 3.24 i. e. as the efficient cause By his bloud Rom. 5 9. i. e. as the meritorious cause By his obedience Rom. 5.19 i. e. as the materiall cause By imputation viz. of his obedience Rom. 4.6 i. e. as the formall cause By faith Rom. 5.1 i. e. as the instrument Your inference Christ bare our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement therefore his righteousnesse cannot be the formall cause of a sinners righteousness is impertinent and argues that you understand not our doctrine We say not that the obedience of Christ is the formall but the materiall cause of a sinners righteousnesse and that imputation is the formall cause thereof Dialogu The Father is a sinners righteousnesse 1. Efficiently 2. Formally His Atonement so procured must needs be the formall cause of a sinners full and perfect righteousnesse Answ To say the Father is a sinners righteousnesse formally sounds too near Osianders errour who held that we were justified by the essentiall righteousnesse of God But the following words shew you mistake or at least inconveniently use the term formally and intend no other then your former error The efficient cause of a sinners righteousnesse is the Father Father taken not personally but essentially for God the Father Son and holy Ghost Dialogu The holy Ghost also doth make sinners righteous instrumentally by fitting preparing and qualifying sinners for the Fathers Atonement by quickening their souls with the lively grace of faith by which grace sinners are enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers Atonement Answ Faith is the instrument or instrumentall cause of justification 'T is also true that the grace of faith as the application of all other benefits of redemption unto the Elect is the effect of the holy Ghost and because a finishing work it is ascribed to the third Person yet according to that received Rule All the works of God upon the creature are wrought in common by all the three persons notwithstanding the work be principally ascribed unto that person whose manner of existence doth most eminently appear in it 'T is a great errour both in Divinity and Logick to say the holy Ghost who is God and onely God is an instrumental cause which alwaies notes inferiority Dialogu It is well that your Authour will grant remission of sins to be righteousnesse in effect if remission of sins be a sinners righteousnesse then I pray consider whose act it is to forgive sins formally I have already proved it to be the Fathers act to forgive sin formally and not Christs he doth forgive sin no otherwise but as a Mediatour by procuring his Fathers pardon and forgivensse Answ Righteousnesse is taken strictly for the matter and form of justification only or largely for justification as consisting of its causes Rom. 10.10 remission of sins is an immediate and inseparable effect of the former but a part of the latter Imputation which is the formall cause of justification is a transient act and is the effect of the Father taken essentially Our Question is not concerning the formall but the materiall cause of justification Dialogu M. Forbes is put to his shifts to declare that Christs passive Obedience is the matter of a sinners righteousnesse by a distinction between Christ as he was our Lamb for Sacrifice in his humane nature and as he was our Priest in his divine nature for else he did foresee that he should run into an exceeding grosse absurdity if he had made any action of Christs God-head or Priestly nature to have been a sinners righteousnesse by imputation Therefore to avoid that absurdity he doth place a sinners righteousnesse in his passive
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
and actual obedience the particle by Gal. 2.21 notes the manner not the matter obedience unto the Law neither ceaseth nor can cease to be the matter of justification only it is the obedience performed thereunto by Christ not by us that is not our own but the obedience of another imputed to us by grace and received by faith the effect of grace We have the righteousnesse of the Law but we have it not by the Law The argumentation of the Apostle proceeds thus if we be justified by works Christ died in vain but Christ is not dead in vain therefore we are not justified by works hereby expresly concluding against justification by our own obedience and implicitly for justification by Christs obedience to the Law Dialogu Christs Legal obedience was but the work of his flesh or of his humane nature therefore it could not be the procuring cause of Gods atonement for iustification for no obedience is meritorious but that obedience which is mediatorial I never heard that the Father required the Mediator to perform Legal obedience at a proper condition of his Mediators office nay our Saviour himself doth testifie that his flesh alone considered doth not profit us to life and salvation Joh. 6.63 therefore not his Legal obedience for that was but the work of his flesh or humane nature Answ To say Christs Legal obedience was the work of his humane nature only besides the absonousnesse of it in Divinity will hardly escape an implicat I mean a contradiction in reason as the humane nature of Christ did not subsist alone so neither doth it perform any humane operations alone dependance in respect of subsistance inferreth a dependance in respect of operations action includes being as essential to it we may as well affirm nothing to be something as to affirm that to act of it self that doth not subsist of it self From the personall union it comes to passe saith Ames that all the actions and passions of Christ are referred partly unto his person as unto the proper term of them Med. lib. 1. cap. 18. although some of them are to be referred to one nature and some unto another as unto the next principles To be incarnate was an act of Legal obedience God sent forth his son made of a woman made under the Law Gal. 4.4 a body hast thou prepared me In the Volume of thy Book it is written of me that I should do thy will and then said I Lo I come Heb. 10.5 But the Father required of the Mediatour to be incarnate as a proper condition of his Mediatorly office Gal. 4.5 to redeem such as be under the Law to fullfill the Law is Legal obedience but the Father required of the Mediatour to fulfil the Law Mat. 5.17 I came to fulfil it and that as a proper condition of his Mediators office as he came so he was sent but he was sent as Mediator for the Mediator to suffer death as our surety in a way of justice is an act of Legal obedience but the Father required of the Mediator as a proper condition of the Mediators office to suffer death for us in a way of justice if his soul shall set it self a sacrifice for sin he shall see his seed c. Isa 53. therefore the Father required of the Mediatour Legal obedience as a condition of his Mediators office to suffer death for us in a way of justice Dialogu There is great iarring among Divines about the right stating of the doctrine of imputation 1. Some affirm that God the Father doth impute Christs Legal obedience to sinners as their obedience for their full and perfect iustification 2. Others do affirm that Christs Legal obedience imputed is not sufficient to make sinners righteous and so they do affirm that God doth impute another kinde of Christs righteousnesse to sinners for their full iustification viz. the purity of his nature to iustifie us from original sin 3. Others go further in the point of imputation for they affirm that God imputes another kinde of righteousnesse to sinners for their full justification viz. the passive obedience and so by necessary consequence they do make sinners to be their own Mediators because they do make Christs Mediatorial obedience to be a sinners obedience by Gods imputation Answ The whole course of the active and passive obedience of Christ together with his habitual conformity to the Law is the matter of our justification the purity of Christs nature and his active and passive righteousnesse are not two but one and the same kinde of Legal obedience expressed by both its parts viz. habitual and actual The asserters of the last expresly are to be understood as asserting the former implicitly the act presupposing the habit then spake not heretofore exclusively the reason why later Writers speak more expresly is because opposers have acted more subtilly The inference of sinners being their own Mediators from the imputation of passive obedience ariseth from your misunderstanding our doctrine which imputeth the obedience of Christ in respect of its efficacy not in respect of its formality M. Forbes acknowledgeth no such great jarring with our imputation which he testifieth to be without impiety and any matter of strife in it self were this jarring not only great but greater then it is the Gospel remains the Gospel notwithstanding through mans corruption it becometh an occasion of contention Dialogu The actions of Christs obedience neither active nor passive can be made ours by Gods imputation no more then our sinful actions can be made his by Gods imputation but our sinful actions cannot be made his by Gods imputation as I have at large expressed in the opening Gen. 2.17 Answ Your supposed large proof is sufficiently disproved as I hope in the place and the contrary proved both there and in the vindication of 1 Cor. 5.21 Dialogu If God do make sinners righteous by the active obedience of Christ imputed then Christ must perform all manner of obedience for us that God doth require of us or else God cannot in iustice make us perfectly righteous by the active obedience of Christ imputed but Christ did not perform all manner of acts of obedience for us that God requireth of us because he was never married c. and yet we have as much need to be made righteous in such like actions as in any therefore God cannot in iustice make us perfectly righteous by the actions of Christs active obedience imputed Answ The matter of our justification is not an actual and formal performance of all duties commanded in the Decalogue but an obedience to that which is commanded as it is commanded viz. actually unto such duties as it calleth to the exercise of and habitually unto the rest otherwise it was impossible for man to be justified by the Law neither Adam himself nor any man sustaining all relations Christ being an infinite person and our surety in performing all that was required of him he performed more then not only
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
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
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
FINIS Isa 45.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And there is none else beside me a just God and a Saviour there is none beside me Rom. 3.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To declare I say at this time his righteousnesse that he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Discant hi igitur quid peccatum Mereatur quaeque ad illud expiandum satisfactio necessaria sit Ne fortè de ijs dicendum sit quod Irenaeus Iren. adv haer l. 3. c. 21. Debitum Christi dum negant satisfactionem illius integram dum credere renuunt debitores ipsi manent antidotum vitae non accipientes Parker De Descensu l. 3. n. 52. The Copy of a Letter written from New England in Answer to a Letter which they had received from some Brethren in Old England in the behalf of Mr Pinchin Reverend and Beloved Brethren in our Lord Jesus VVE see by your Letters you have thought it meet to address your selves to us the Elders of these Churches in behalf of Mr Pinchin and his Book to incline us to a favourable construction of the Tenets held forth in it as Disputable and and to some of note probable and for himself to move us to intercede with our Magistrates to deal favourably with him as a Gentleman pious and well deserving In both which we shall give you a just account of our Proceedings When Mr Pinchin's Book came over to us it was the time of the â—itting of our Generall Court wherein both the Magistrates and Deputies of every Town in the Country do assemble together to consider and determine of the chiefest affairs which concern this Colony At the same time a Ship in the Harbour was ready to set sayl for England Now the Court both parts of them the Magistrates and Deputies perceiving by the Title Page that the Contents of the Book were unsound and Derogatory both to the Justice of God and the Grace of Christ which being published in England might adde to the heap of many Errours and Heresies already too much abounding and this Book being published under the name of a New English Gentleman might occasion many to think that New England also concurred in the allowance of such Exorbitant Aberrations They therefore judged it meet not to stay till the Elders could be gathered together but whilst the Ship yet stayed to declare their own Judgement against the Book and to send a Copy of their Declaration to England by the Ship then ready to depart Had the Tenets therein seemed to them to be matters either of doubtfull disputation or of small moment we doubt not they would either not at all have declared themselves against the Book or if they had they would have stayed for some opportunity of previous consultation with the Elders but some of the Tenets seemed to them so directly to shake the Fundamentals of Religion and to wound the vitals of Christianity that they being many of them well versed both in the Dogmaticall and Controversall points of Divinity thought it their duty to profess their Orthodox faith against all destructive Paradoxes and dangerous Innovations vented from amongst our selves for according as they beleeve they do also profess as our selves likewise do That the Obedience of Christ to the whole Law which is the Law of Righteousness is the matter of our Justification and the Imputation of our sins to Christ and thereupon his suffering the sense of the wrath of God upon him for our sin and the Imputation of his obedience and sufferings are the formall cause of our Justification and that they that do deny this do now take away both these both the matter and the form of our Justification as this Book doth and take away also our Justification which is the Life of our souls and of our Religion and therefore called the Justification of life Rom 5.18 As for the Notion which you conceive he declineth of Infinite wrath we readily conceive with you that though Gods wrath be as himself is infinite yet no creature can hear infinite wrath but he swallowed up of it and therefore the wicked are put to suffer finite wrath in an infinite time yet this suffering in an infinite time is accidentall in regard of the finitenesse of the creature but Christ being infinite God as well as finite man his manhood suffering though in a finite measure the sense of Gods wrath both in soul and body the infinitenesse of his Godhead whereto his manhood was united in one person made his finite suffering in a finite time to become of infinite value and efficacy for the satisfaction of Gods Justice and transaction of our Redemption Thus much for the Book Now for the Author of the Book before your Letter came to our hands the Court dealt favourably with him according to your desire Before they knew your desire they appointed three of our fellow Elders and Brethren all of them his friends and acquaintance such as himself chose to conferre with him and finding him yielding in some main point which he expressed willingly under his own hand the Court readily accepted the same as a fruit of his ingenuity and a pledge of more full satisfaction withall they gave him a Book penned at their appointment by our Reverend Brother Mr Norton in way of Answer to all his grounds which he thankfully accepted and promised upon a due perusal consideration thereof to return further Answer All which though it pleased God to have done before your Letter came to our hands yet we acquainted our Magistrates with the contents of your Letter whereto they returned this Answer They doubted either you had not read the Book throughout or that having seriously weighed it as the matter required you would find some Fundamentall Errours in it meet to be duly witnessed against For our selves we thankfully accept of this your labour of love in advertising us of what you think behooffull wherein though we differ and as we beleeve justly differ from you yet if we did not lovingly accept advertisements from our Reverend Brethren sometimes when there is less need we might discourage our selves and other Brethren from sending us due advertisements when there is more need Now the Lord Jesus Christ the God of Truth and Peace lead you by his Spirit of Truth into all Truth and support you with a Spirit of faithfulness and holy zeal to stand in the gap against the Inundation of all the Errors and Heresies of this present Age and by his Spirit of Peace guide and blesse your Studies and holy Labours to the advancement and establishment of Peace with Truth throughout the Nation So desiring the Fellowship of your Prayers we take leave and rest Your loving Brethren in the Lord Jesus and in the Fellowship of his Gospel John Cotton Rich. Mather Zech. Symmes John Wilson Will. Thompson
your Exposition were good and full yet it is impertinent unto the argument taken from the first verse The cause of the fainting of his spirit illustrated from a comparison of melting wax was neither only nor chiefly his suffering from the wrath of men but from the wrath of God Dialogu Thou hast brought me unto the dust of death vers 15. God doth not so bring Christ unto the dust of death as he doth other men namely not so as death is laid upon man for sin Gen. 3.19 Answ The Scripture mentioneth no other death then what is inflicted justly for sinne and M. Ainsworth whom the Dialogue often cites seemeth to understand death to be laid upon Christ according to the sense of Gen. 3.19 expresly quoting that Text in his Commentary upon this Verse But do you shew the difference between the death of Christ and the death of other men whence it may appear that death was not laid upon Christ for sin Dialogu But for the better understanding of the true difference I will distinguish upon the death of Christ for God appointed him to die a double kinde of death 1. As a Malefactor and 2. As a Mediatour and all this at one and the same time 1. He died as a Malefactor by Gods determinate counsell and decree he gave the devil leave to enter into Judas to betray him and into the Scribes and Pharisees and Pontius Pilate to condemn him and to do what they could to put him to death and in that respect God may be truly said to bring him into the dust of death Gen 3.19 2. Notwithstanding all this Christ died as a Mediator and therefore his death was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor for as he was our Mediatour he separated his own soul from his body by the power of his God-head All the Tyrants in the world could not separate his soul from his body Joh. 19.11 no not by all the torments they could devise till himself pleased to actuate his own death by the joint concurrence of both his natures Joh. 10.18 Answ The plain meaning of the Authour in this distinction is Christ died as a Malefactor only though unjustly in the Jews account but not as a Mediatour As a Mediatour only in Gods account but not as a Malefactor This distinction in name but in truth a Sophism is used as a crutch to support the halting doctrine of the non-imputation of sin unto Christ Christs death as a Mediatour saith the distinction was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor the Jews are said to put Christ to death because they endeavoured to put him to death but did not separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death so is the distinction expresly interpreted pag. 100. If Christs death was a suffering then the formall cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body so often mentioned by the Dialogue otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter yea and in this case his own Executioner which last the Dialogue it self expresly rejecteth But the Dialogue resuming and insisting further upon this distinction elsewhere let the fuller speaking thereunto be referred till then Though Haman according to the true sense of that Text Est 8.7 be said to lay his hand upon the Jews yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman Abraham is said to have offered up Isaac yet Isaac is no where said to be slain by Abraham as Abraham did sacrifice Isaac so was Isaac sacrificed that is interpretatively or virtually not actually But how often do we reade in Scripture that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews Act. 2.37 4.10 1 Cor. 2.8 By this reason it may be said that the Jews only endeavoured to offer violence unto Christ and put him to smart but did not actually and really because they could do neither without the permission of the Divine nature nor did either without both his Mediatorly permission and consent The Jews accounting of Christ as of a Malefactor or Transgressor was that the Scripture might be fullfilled Mat. 15.28 and was just in respect of God though unjust in respect of them Christ in Gods account suffered not only as a Mediator but also as a malefactor or transgressor i. e. a sinner imputatively in respect of the guilt and punishment of sin he was such a Mediator to whom it was essentiall for the time to be a Malefactor that is to suffer the guilt and punishment of sin The Priesthood was essentiall to the Mediatour To be a sacrifice for sin was essentiall to the Priesthood Isa 53.10 Therefore to be a sacrifice for sinne was essentiall to the office of a Mediatour As Christ was by office so he died Christ died not only as a Mediatour Heb. 8.6 but also as a surety Heb. 7.22 He shall bear their iniquity Isa 53.11 Bajulabit as a Porter bears a burthen and that upon the Tree 1 Pet. 2.24 He was made sin 2 Cor. 5.21 Christ separated his soul from his body as a subordinate cause not as a principall efficient that is as a surety by voluntary yeelding and offering up his life Heb. 9.24 but not as an executioner We reade Joh. 10.18 that Christ laid down his life but not that he took it away by violence the same word that is here used concerning Christ Peter hath concerning himself I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13.37 and John hath concerning Christ and the Saints because he laid down his life for us we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren 1 Joh. 3.16 But it was not lawfull for Peter or the Saints to take away their own lives Though Christ by his absolute power could have preserved his life against all created adversary power none taketh it from me namely against my consent whether I will or not Joh. 10.18 yet by his limited power he could not but as our surety he was bound to permit the course of physicall causes and prevailing of the power of darknesse for the fullfilling of what was written concerning him This is your hour and the power of darknesse Luke 22.53 The Jews therefore doing that which according to the order of second causes not only might but also through his voluntary and obliged permission did take away his life did not only endeavour but also actually kill him Yet suppose the Jews were not instrumentall in the actuall taking away of his bodily life it is a meer non-consequence thence to inferre the non-imputation of sin unto Christ Briefly as this distinction is a meer sophisme and groundlesse so the discourse concerning the Jews endeavouring to put Christ to death but not really putting him to death making Christ to take away his own life and consequently to be his own Executioner is false and impertinent For which though the Jews may owe the Authour some thanks
lesse attentive Reader before we proceed to examine the arguments for this new Mediatorly obedience what the rules of disputation required of the Authour namely that he should first have given us some such definition or description thereof whence we might have understood what it is that he so much contends for for to be willing to dispute say the Logicians before we undrstand certainly what is the Question is to be willing to lose our time and that serious and affectionate counsell of Keckerman is here seasonable Kec Log. Sact. Post cap. 1. Let us not saith he dispute of any thing in Divinity before the various signification of that whereof we dispute is diligently distinguished that I shall endeavour to supply namely to acquaint the Reader with what the Dialogue intends by its new Mediatorly obedience according to what is to be collected out of it self comparing one place with another whereto I shall also subjoyn a description of Mediatorly obedience according to the received doctrine of the Orthodox that so the Reader conferring both together may the better judge both of the question and disputation Truth loves the light and errour lurks in ambiguities The minde of the Dialogue concerning Mediatorly obedience is to be gathered 1. By its dictinction 2. By putting together what in severall places it speaks concerning it It is necessary saith the Dialogue to distinguish between Legall and Mediatoriall obedience Legall or naturall obedience is no more but humane obedience performed by Christ as a godly Jew unto the Law of works all the actions of Christ from his birth until he was thirty years of age must be considered but as natural or but as legall acts of obedience I cannot see saith the Dialogue how any of these actions which yet it somewhat corrects as we shall finde in due place can properly be called Mediatoriall obedience Pag. 111. 112. The Mediatorial obedience of Christ Mediatorial obedience of the Dialogue what Largely according to the Dialogue consists of those acts of his obedience which he did actuate by the joynt concurrence of both his natures some whereof viz. many mediatoriall praiers of his intercession though they were acted by him before 30 years of age yet the far greater part of the acts thereof and all the publike actions were performed after he was thirty years of age viz. after his publique installing into the office of Mediatorship Mat. 3. See pag. 112. 113. amongst the which mediatorial acts of his obedience is his giving up his Manhood by the power of his Divine nature to suffer a natural death such and no other as the sons of Zebedee suffered Mar. 10.39 Pag. 46. without suffering any degree of Gods wrath at all either in soul or body pag. 2. yet so as the Divine nature separated his soul from his body which was the master-piece and was accepted of God the Father as the price and meritorious procuring cause of our Redemption pag. 86. for that was the most precious thing that either God the Father could require or that the Mediatour could perform for our atonement or redemption pag. 87. The sum whereof take thus Briefly Christs Mediatorly obedience according to the Dialogue are certain actions performed by him not in way of obedience to the moral Law for all such actions he performed as a godly Jew and as man only but as God-man Mediatour unto the Law of Mediatorship especially after 30 years of age the Master-piece whereof was his yielding himself to suffer a bodily death Mediatorly obedience according to the Orthodox what Mediatorly obedience according to the received doctrine of the Orthodox is the inherent conformity and whole course of the active and passive obedience of Christ from his conception to his passion inclusively performed by him as God-man Mediatour unto the Law in way of Covenant whereunto the whole good of Redemption was due unto the Elect for Christs sake according to order of justice though conferred upon them in a way of meer grace Touching the Dialogues Mediatorly obedience here are divers things which the Reader is desired to take distinct and seasonable notice of 1. Concerning the distinction Mediatorly and Legal obedience are not two kindes of obedience in Christ but one and the same obedience called Mediatorly from the office of the person obeying Legall from the Rule which was obeyed 2. Concerning the nature of Mediatorly obedience we have First a new Law given which is called the Law of the Mediatour excluding from it wholly the Law of works Secondly we have a new Mediatorly obedience conformable to that new Law and excluding expresly the essential obedience of the Mediatour which consists in obedience to the Law of works That obedience which the Creditor according to the Law demands and the Debtor owes that the Surety is to pay but the obedience unto the Command i.e. the Law of works Lev. 18.5 Gal. 3.10 and suffering of the punishment due to sin Gen. 2.17 is that which God according to Law demands and the Debtor namely the sinner oweth therefore obedience unto the Law of works is that which the Surety ought to pay It is a fiction not only unwarrantable and from beginning of time as I beleeve unheard from any Classical authour but above measure presumptuous expresly to deny about or neer 30 years of the obedience of Christ to be Mediatorly obedience and upon point to acknowledge only an uncertain little part of his life to be spent in that service it is also an ignorant and snaring contradiction to affirm that to be meritorious which is not done in a way of justice Justice is of the form of merit Merit is a debt according to order of justice it is a just debt Christs mediatorly obedience was an act of a far higher nature then is the fictitious obedience of the Dialogue It is an untruth of perillous consequence to corrupt the Faith of the Reader by asserting Gods high acceptance of such a Mediatorly obedience which is not Mediatorly obedience nor will be so owned of God That Christ in giving up his life in respect of the Divine nature as considered in Personall union with the humane nature acted in way of consent but not as his own executioner hath been oft seen CHAP. II. Of the divers waies of Redemption Dialogu IF so then there is no need that our blessed Mediator should pay both the price of his Mediatoriall obedience and also bear the Curse of the Law really for our Redemption Answ Even so it was viz. that the obedience of the second countervailed yea far transcended the disobedience of the first Adam because our blessed Mediatour paid the price of his Mediatorly obedience by beating the curse of the Law really for our Redemption the Meritorious obedience of Christ not the fictitious obedience of the Dialogue was the cause of Gods actual acceptation thereof not of his volition to accept and not Gods actual acceptation the cause of his meritorious obedience
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
of both natures with the needlesse repetition of which it is full time to cease troubling the Reader any further So to attribute the Mediatorly obedience of his death unto the divine nature as to exclude the humane nature from its influence thereunto is not only to derogate from the humane nature but indeed not to attribute such mediatorly obedience unto Christ for Christ is a person consisting of both Natures Christs shedding of his bloud in such a large manner as we reade in the Scripture is a truth worthy of all attention and acknowledgement but understood in the sense of the Dialogue for the shedding of his materiall bloud only it is comparatively but a small part of his obedience for Christ suffered not only a naturall death Job 19.30 but also a spiritual death Mat. 26.46 Heb. 2.9 not only a bodily but also a spiritual death he shed his blood together with the sense of the wrath of God here his death is not called a death simply but a suffering wherein the iniquities of us all gathered together as in an heap were laid upon him Isa 53.6 and a curse but this is already largely spoken to The death or shedding of the bloud of Christ in Scripture is often put for the whole satisfactory obedience which he performed in the state of his humiliation Rom. 3.25 Eph. 1.7 Col. 1.20 because it was the compleating and consummation of all or synechdochically taking a part for the whole namely the visible part of his sufferings for both visible and invisible Med. lib. 1. c. 22. th 5. Polan Pis 2 Pet. 2.4 like as in the relating the moral acts of his obedience the external part is oftentimes only mentioned the internal understood and in setting down the works of the Creation the visible creatures are named the invisible included Dialogu And secondly In this respect the bloud of Christ is called the bloud of God Act. 20 28. not only because his humane nature was united to his Divine nature for by the communication of properties that may be attributed to the Person which is proper to one nature only but secondly 't is called the bloud of God in another respect namely because he shed his bloud by his own Priestly nature that is to say by the actuall power of his divine nature for he offered himself by his eternall Spirit Heb. 9.14 Answ As it was the bloud of him that was God-man so it was shed by him that was God-man Christs offering up of himself unto God was a free and a willing act otherwise his offering had not been effectual it could not have been obedience if it had not been done freely In respect of God He had done none any wrong if the second Person had continued only in that subsistence wherein he was equal unto God without admitting any subsistence in personal union with the Manhood in which respect he is inferiour unto God by voluntary dispensation He laid down his life of his own accord otherwise there was no one could have taken it away Ioh. 10.18 Christ had power of right authority and Majesty and might dispose of his own life yet having received commandment of the Father to lay down his life he put not forth his Divine power to rescue the manhood from deadly sufferings but cooperating with subordinate instruments according to the concourse of the first cause with the second gave way to the course of nature and patiently suffered a violent death That which the Dialogue is to prove is that the Mediatorly obedience of Christ whereby we are redeemed is by way of price only not by way of Suretiship and just satisfaction unto the Law but that which it here saith is that the bloud of Christ was shed with a large and liberal quantity that his bloud was shed for the atonement of mens souls that the bloud that was shed was the bloud of him that was God all which are true but conclude not the question he shed his bloud most true but he did not only shed his bloud but so as the sense of the wrath of God was mixed with it he suffered both a naturall and a supernatural death Separation of the soul from the body is either by the first and universal efficient so the Divine nature considered in it self separated one from the other or by an universal subordinate efficient acting by way of consent so the Divine nature subsisting in Personal union acted together with the humane in the separation of his soul from his body or else by the next formal cause so the executioners separated his soul from his body Dialogu In like sort he is called Jehovah our Righteousnesse Jer. 20.3 because his Mediatorial obedience whereof his oblation was the masterpiece was actuated by Iehovah that is to say by his divine nature as well as by his humane Answ He is called Iehovah our righteousnesse because he merited our justification by obeying and because he obedience imputed is the matter of our righteousnesse You now plainly acknowledging that his Mediatorly obedience was actuated by Iehovah that is to say by his divine nature as well as by his humane acknowledge therewithall that it was performed by the joint concurrence of both natures as elsewhere you say And so shew that your Reader is troubled in vain to finde out the meaning of those novell propositions viz. He poured out his soul to death by the active power of his own Divine Priestly nature He separated his soul from his body by the power of his God-head without mentioning the humane nature We must needs look at that as a piece of the mystery of darknesse which hath no other strength but in imagination and that only whilest it is not understood but when understood becomes just nothing The Father of Popery proveth a known Impostor if men once speak in the mother tongue Popery liveth no longer then it speaks Latine to plain people Dialogu So then I may well conclude that the death of Christ was a Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement because it was the act of the Mediatour in both his natures in his humane nature he was the Lamb of God without spot and in his Divine nature he was the Priest to offer up his humane nature to God as a Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement for the full Redemption of all the Elect. Answ It is an inviolable rule in disputation that the conclusion should run in the formall terms of the question The question therefore being whether the natural death of Christ without his suffering the wrath of God was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement other inferiour acts done by him as God-man included the Conclusion should have proceeded thus The natural death of Christ without his suffering of the wrath of God was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement The weaknesse and fallaciousnesse of which conclusion deduced from the annexed reason viz. because it was the act of the Mediatour in both natures immediatly discovereth it self unto him who
in Rom. 8.13 and in Gal. 3.13 which Scriptures I have opened at large in the first part Luke 22.19 compared with 1 Cor. 11.24 Luke 22.20 so Isa 12. with Rom. 4.25 The Scripture doth sometime speak of his Mediatorial death only as Isa 53.10 he gave his soul to be a trespasse-offering for our sins and he offered himself by his eternall spirit Heb. 9.14 and he laid down his own life Joh. 10.17 18 and he sanctified himself Joh. 17.19 therefore seeing the holy Scriptures do teach us to observe this distinction upon the death of Christ it is necessary that all Gods people should take notice of it and engrave it in their mindes and memories Answ In the examination of this distinction which the Authour labours much in and makes much use of consider we 1. The sense of it 2. The Scriptures alledged for the ground of it 3. The scope of it 4. The deductions from it By it the Dialogue means that the naturall death of Christ for the spirituall death it denieth is either Active actuated by the Divine nature yea the joint concurrence of both natures so he died as a Mediatour and this was reall or Passive wherein the Jews and Romans inflicted upon him the sores of death but did not put him to death though they thought they did so he died as a Malefactor This was not real but only in the Jews account Such is the minde of the distinction Those Texts wherein Christ is said to be put to death Luke 18.33 1 Pet. 3.18 killed Gal. 3.13 teach us that Christ was passive in his death but make no mention of the Dialogues twofold naturall death nor do they deny Christ to be active in that death wherein he was passive They shew plainly his bloud was shed and that by Jews but not one of them affirmeth that Christ shed it himself Isa 53.10 Heb. 9.14 Ioh. 10.17 18. and 17.19 teach expresly that Christ was active and imply him to be be passive as concerning the same oblation of himself by his death Luke 22.19 20. 1 Cor. 11.24 shew us that the body of Christ was given for us primarily by the Father who gave his Son and subordinately by Christ who by voluntary consent gave himself according to his Fathers will for us as also that the breaking of the bread in the administration of the Sacrament is to be used as significative of his sufferings What is this to the distinction Rom. 4.25 clearly intimates Christ to be passive but denieth him not be active in one and the same natural death Rom. 8.13 Isa 12. speak not of the death of Christ at all Some of these Texts alledged say that Christ was active others that he was Passive in his death that is in one and the same death whether it be naturall or supernaturall but not one saith his death was passive Divers of the Scriptures alledged hold forth manifestly both his naturall and supernaturall death the most include his supernatural death none deny it The scope of the distinction is to make Christ the formal taker away of his own life The deduction from it therefore neither Jews nor Romans put Christ to death of both which before and in the answer immediatly following This distinctions twofold death is but one for he died not a passive death as a Malefactor according to the Dialogue p. 97. and 100. It denyeth the death of Christ as Mediatour to be Passive which can hardly escape a contradiction It denieth Christ as he was Mediatour to be a Malefactor though to be imputatively a Malefactor was essential for the time unto his being a Mediatour As in your distinction of Legall and Mediatoriall obedience you understand the terms Legal and Mediatorial to signifie two kindes of obedience which are but two appellations of the same obedience so in this distinction of the active and passive death of Christ according also as you expresse your self clearer upon the margent you make these terms to signifie two kindes of death which only signifie diverse affections in the Person dying The terms Mediator and Malefactor are to be distinguished as the whole and the part of the same office To be a Malefactor imputatively was an essentiall part for the time of the office of the Mediatour The terms Active and Passive do not denote or distinguish two deaths but are to be distinguished as adjuncts or affections of the same Person and Officer as concerning one and the same death Dialogu When I speak of the death of Christ as a Malefactor then the Scribes and Pharisees must be considered as the wicked instruments thereof yet this must be remembred also that I do not mean that they by their torments did separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death himself only did separate his own soul from his body by the power of his Godhead but they put him to death because they inflicted the sores of death upon his body they did that to him which they thought sufficient to put him to death and men are often said to do that which they indeavour to do as in the example of Abraham Heb. 11.7 Haman Esth 8.7 Amalek Exod. 17.16 Saul Psal 143 3. The Magicians Exo. 8.18 The Israelites Numb 14.30 as the matter is explained in Deut. 1.41 and in this sense it is said that the Iews did kill and slay the Lord of life because they endeavoured to do it Answ In respect of the natural death of Christ God was the universal efficient The second cause cannot act without the concurse of the first Act. 17.28 The formall efficiency of the second cause consists with and is subordinate to the universal efficiency of the first cause so as the efficiency of the second cause is both ordered by and is also the effect of the first cause but the deficiency of the second cause though it be ordered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad efficientem causam indirectè refertur voluntas ipsius Christi Synops pur theol disput 27. thes 19. yet it is not the effect of the first cause Christ as Mediatour was the voluntary cause freely and readily consenting to the Fathers will Heb. 10.7 and 9.14 Gal. 2.20 Christ was Lord of his own life he had power of right concerning it Ioh 10.18 It was his own and he had done no wrong in case he had not taken upon him the form of a servant Phil. 2.6.7 He had power of might to have preserved his life no man could take it from him against his will Ioh. 10.18 All which notwithstanding he voluntarily humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Crosse Phil. 2.8 Thus Christ was active concerning his death but not as his own executioner and formall shedder of his own bloud The Executioners were the immediate external and blameable cause so are these Texts to be understood 1 Pet. 3.18 Act. 2.32 and 3.15 1 Thes 3.15 Jam. 5.6 Two of your instances hold
not viz. Exo. 8.18 which the diligent Reader may easily perceive and Numb 14.40 where the words are better read by Learned Translators And they rose up early in the morning that they might ascend c. A third viz. Exo. 17.16 is expounded with as good reason against you That also Esth. 8.7 might be troubled if not taken from you the true meaning of places is to be attended Your number of instances if need were I doubt not may be made up elsewhere 'T is true the will is in diverse places put for the deed but not therefore in every place nor consequently in this So to argue were a non-consequence proceeding from particulars to an universal Where in Scripture the will is put for the deed there it is also manifest that though there was the will yet there was not the deed as in your instances of Abraham Saul and Haman if yet the last will hold as here alledged But you cannot produce any Scripture where the will is put for the deed when there was a sufficient physical cause exerted to produce that effect and also the effect followed it were indeed an implicate i.e. a contradiction yet such is the case here 'T is true no torments though in themselves killing could kill Christ until he pleased and 't is also true that torments killing in themselvs could kill him when he pleased If because the life of Christ could not be taken away until the time appointed nor without his consent it therefore followeth that the Jews and Romans did not take away his life by the same reason it may be said of the bloud that was shed at the scourging crucifying the piercing of his side with the Lance that they did not take away that bloud from him only endeavoured to take away his bloud for that bloud was not shed until the time appointed not until Christ pleased it being in the power of the Divine nature to have retained it Nay why may it not be said by the same reason of all the sufferings inflicted upon him by men that they did but endeavour to afflict him but they did not afflict him since all the evils that men inflicted upon him were inflicted according to his consent and in the time and manner as was written Luk. 22.37 Act. 3.18 This reasoning too much favoureth Socinians and other hereticks who deny the sufferings of Christ to be real affirming them only to be Metaphoricall It is a daring assertion when there is not one text nor I beleeve one Classicall Authour who affirmeth that Christ as the next and formall cause shed his bloud but on the contrary plentifull Texts and Testimonies that he was put to death kil'd and slain and that by the Jews Luke 18.33 1 Pet. 3.18 Mar. 12.8 Act. 3.15 1 Thes 3.15 Jam. 5.6 Act. 2.23 Rev. 5.6 9 12. 6.9 to contradict not only the godly whether learned or unlearned both of the present and all past generations since the Passion of our Lord Jesus but also the Scriptures themselves in saying the Jews did not actually put Christ to death Nor let the Jews Romans or Pilate rejoyce at this in vain doth the Dialogue discharge whom God hath charged After all this give me leave again to minde the Reader that though this untruth were true yet it is impertinent to the question for what though the Jews did not put Christ to a natural death what though Christ shed his own bloud what though he were his own Executioner yea killed himself which last though the Dialogue in words somewhere rejects yet in consequence asserts at the writing of which my pen trembleth doth it therefore follow that God did not inflict upon him his paenall wrath Dialogu He laid down his life by the same power by which he raised it up again Joh. 10.17 18. Answ The power was the same but the manner of putting it forth was not the same In laying down his life Christ acted as a voluntary and solitary cause that is by way of consent and alone but in taking up his life again he acted as an efficient sociall cause the Father and the holy Ghost cooperating with him Dialogu Yea his Mediatoriall death may well be called a miraculous death Answ His death was miraculous many waies the Personall union of soul and body with the Divine nature during the space of their physicall disunion one from another was miraculous such strength of nature remaining under the extreme pangs and at the instant of death was miraculous as was the strength of Moses Deut. 34.7 and of Caleb Josh 14.11 in the time of old age that Christ as man should die whilest the Manhood was in personal union with the Godhead is miraculous but that the Divine nature suspending its assistance a man should die under deadly pains was not miraculous Christs death was in some respect miraculous and supernatural and in some respect not miraculous but natural as Christs natural so his supernatural death was miracalous but it doth not follow it was miraculous therefore it was not the contrary followeth his supernatural death was miraculous therefore it was Dialogu Christ died not by degrees saith M. Nichols in his Day-Starre as his Saints do his senses do not decay c. Answ Others say the same who notwithstanding teach the doctrine of imputation and Christs suffering of the wrath of God the one opposeth not the other Whether Christs pains were so ended when he said It was finished as that his death was without pain which yet I beleeve not is not the question but whether Christ suffered the wrath of God Dialogu Austin saith thus Who can sleep saith he when he will as Christ died when he would who can lay aside his garment so as Christ laid aside his flesh Who can leave his place as Christ left his life his life was not forced from him by any imposed punishment but he did voluntarily render it up to God as a Mediatorial sacrifice in his life time he was often touched with the fear of death but by his strong crying unto God with daily praiers and tears he obtained power against his natural fear of death before he came to make his oblation as I have expounded Heb. 5.7 Answ Augustine in his 119 Tractate upon Iohn speaks as you recite until those words who can leave his place so as Christ left his life so far are his words but no further in that place nor I beleeve any where else The rest seem to be your own and if so ought to have been accordingly distinguished by the character Your Exposition of Heb. 5.7 Sed Pelagiani quo modo dicunt solum mortem nos transisse c. August contra duas Epistolas Pelag. l. 4. cap. 4. hath received its answer If Augustines judgement in this Controversie be of weight with you you may learn it out of these his ensuing words But saith he after what manner do the Pelagians say that death passed unto us by Adam For we
therefore die because he is dead and he died because he sinned they say saith he the punishment passed without the fault and that innocent babes are punished with an unjust punishment by contracting death without the desert of death See more testimonies both of August and other Ancients to this purpose out of Grotius de satisf Christ which the Catholike faith acknowledgeth of the one alone Mediatour of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus who vouchsafed to undergo death for us that is the punishment of sin without sin for as he alone was made the Son of man that we by him might be made the sons of God so he alone undertook for us the punishment of sin without evil deserts that we by him might obtain grace without good deserts for as unto us there was no good due so unto him there was no evil due Dialogu Again it is evident that his death was miraculous because at that instant when he breathed out his soul into the hands of God the veil of the Temple which typified his humane nature rent it self in twain from the top to the bottome and at that time also the graves of the Saints did open themselves and many of the dead Saints did arise Mat. 27.51 Answ The miracles that accompanied the death of Christ were divine testimonies of the Divinity and innocency of him that died but no arguments that his death was miraculous The position that his death was miraculous is true but this probation holds not It is rather thought that the Miracle of the Resurrection of the Saints was not till after the Resurrection Many bodies of the Saints that slept arose and came out of their graves after his Resurrection Mat. 27.51 but in matters of this nature we contend not The miracles that fell out about the death of Christ whether before or at or after it were the Eclipse of the Sun causing darknesse from the sixth hour unto the ninth whilst Christ was hanging upon the Cross The rending of the vail of the Temple an Earthquake the rending or the Rocks the opening of the graves and rising of many of the Saints The conversion of the Centurion and others the coming forth of bloud and water out of Christs side all which are summed together in that memorial Distich Eclipsis velum terrae trepedatio Rupes Busta cruci astantum conversio sanguis unda The death of Christ saith D. Ames was true not feigned Mors ista Christi fuit vera non ficta c. Med. l. 1. c. 22. th 27 it was natural from causes naturally efficacious to procure it not supernatural it was voluntary not plainly constrained yet it was violent It was also in some respect supernatural and miraculous because Christ conserved his strength and life so long as he would and laid them down when he would Dialogu Hence we learn that the doctrine of the Papists and Lutherans in their transubstantiation and consubstantiation is very erroneous for they place the meritorious price of their Redemption in the grosse substance of Christs flesh and bloud and in the passive shedding of it upon the Crosse by the Romans Answ Neither the Papists nor Lutherans look at the bloud of Christ as the bloud of a meer man but as the bloud of God-man Dialogu The cleansing vertue of his bloud lies in his own Mediatorial shedding of it for though he did not break his own body and powr out his own bloud with nails and spears as the Roman souldiers did yet he brake his own body in peeces by separating his own soul from his body by the power of the Divine nature and then he did actually shed his own bloud when he did pour out his own soul to death Isa 53.12 as a Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement for the procuring of his Fathers Atonement for our full Redemption Iustification and Adoption and in this sense only the bloud of Christ doth purge us Tit. 2.14 and cleanse us 1 Joh. 1.7 and wash us from our sins Rev. 1. Answ Christ shed his blood voluntarily that is he consented obediently thereunto but he shed it not formally as the next and formal cause thereof so to say is in effect to affirm that he killed himself and that he was his own executioner Unto the cleansing vertue of his bloud there is required not only the dignity of his person but also that besides the shedding of his bloud there is required that he should suffer a supernatural death i. e. the paenal death of the curse due to the Elect for their sin which is synechdochically signified by his bloud this putting of a partial and insufficient cause for the whole cause Logicians call a fallacy of putting a not-cause for a cause and is a fundamental and perpetual errour in the Dialogue the value of the Mediatorly obedience which is figuratively signified by Bloud proceeds from the eminency of the person obeying the quality of the obedience and the acceptance of God jointly and not from any of them alone The bloud of Christ whereof 1 Joh. 1.7 and Rev. 1. was bloud shed in a way of satisfaction to divine justice Rom. 3.24 25. not by way of a price improperly so called whose acceptance is by Divines called Acceptilation That Redeeming of which Tit. 2.14 signifieth a Redemption not by way of an improper or imperfect but by way of a full and satisfactory price such as was necessarily given for sin that remission might proceed without any violation of justice These objections have been urged before and answered before That which the Authour in this former Section of the second part affirmeth is that the active bodily death of Christ only i. e. his death actuated by the divine nature separating his soul from his body which the Dialogue calleth the master-piece of his Mediatorial obedience together with certain foregoing actions performed by him as God-man was the meritorious price of our Redemption denying that Christ suffered the curse of the Law in our stead which it endeavoureth to prove by comparing the merit of Christs obedience with the demerit of Adams disobedience Rom. 5.19 by allegation of certain Scriptures both misinterpred and corrupted viz. 1 Cor. 6.20 c. By the type of the Redemption-Mony by the typicall Redemption Lev. 25.25 39 47. by placing the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ in that it was shed by his own active priestly power not by the Roman Souldiers this last Proposition it labours to clear by the consideration of his priestly power and in his Priestly action namely the sprinkling of his own bloud The efficacy of his death performed by the joint concurrence of both natures is again ascribed wholly unto the divine nature which gave the quickning power to the oblation of the humane nature for the illustration and confirmation whereof it propounds two distinctions First of Legall and Mediatoriall obedience The second of an active and passive death Or that Christ died as a Mediator and as a Malefactor
of which Exo. 24.6 8. be called the first Covenant implying that the Covenant as dispensed under the Gospel is a second we are not to understand by the first and second two distinct Covenants but two distinct dispensations of one and the same Covenant By the Law in the first consideration faith is not required in the second Man stands obliged to faith in Christ conditionally viz. when God shall call for it in the third Faith is not only required but is a part of our obedience Unto whom also as to God the Father Son and holy Spirit our obedience is due not only according to the four first Commandments as the Dialogue speaks but also according to all the ten Commandments fullfill the Law of Christ Gal. 6.2 ye serve the Lord Christ Col. 3.23 24 The old Testament or Covenant saith Paraeus in its first and proper signification was the doctrine of spiritual grace Palam quidem sub conditione perfectae obedientiae rectè verò sub conditione paenitentiae fide Par. in Heb. 8. quest 1. promising eternal Salvation to the Fathers and dull people of the Jews openly indeed under the condition of perfect obedience unto the moral Law and threatning of eternall malediction except they fullfill it together with the unsupportable burthen of rites and yoke of the most strict Mosaical polity but secretly under the condition of faith in the Messiah to come prefigured with the shadows and the types of the Ceremonies that by this manner of doctrine-worship and polity a people of a stiffer neck might partly be tamed and be led by the hand as it were by a kinde of paedagogy unto Christ lying hid in those shadows thus Paraeus As the Gospel is called the Law of faith because it giveth salvation by faith without personall works so the first Covenant is called the Law of works because it requires works i. e. personall keeping of the Law unto salvation The observation of the Leviticall worship cannot be especially called the Law of works because it is a part of the Ceremoniall Law long before which was the Law of works besides its ceremonial leading us unto Christ takes us off from the Law of works and carieth us to the Law of faith CHAP. II. Of the Dialogues Arguments against the Imputation of Christs Obedience Dialogu I Cannot see how the common doctrine of Imputation can stand with Gods justice God cannot in justice impute our Saviours Legall obedience to us for our just righteousnesse or justification because it is point blank against the condition of the Legall Covenant so to do for the Legall promise of eternall life is not made over to us upon condition of Christs personal performance but upon condition of our personal performance Answ Mans desert by sin is such whence that God in justice cannot justifie him by the Law but mans desert is not such whence God in iustice cannot justifie him in another way Nothing is due to man according to justice but what God hath appointed the Law is not against the promises Gal. 3.21 God is just and the justifier of him that beleeveth Such was the demerit of sin Longè itaque ista differunt c. Rhetorf de oration exer 2. c. 3. why man according to justice could not be justified legally but not such why it should be unjust for God to justifie him Evangelically according to Gods righteous constitution Such was mans desert why he should not be justified by his own righteousnesse yet mans demerit not being absolute but having dependance upon Gods free constitution he could not deserve why God might not justifie him by the righteousnesse of another if he pleased If it were unjust for God to justifie otherwise then legally then it were unjust for God to justifie in the way of the Dialogue viz. by atonement or acceptilation without all legall obedience it is more against legall justification to justifie without legall obedience personal or otherwise then to justifie by the legall obedience of another Sophisma à limitato ad non limitatum the Dialogue by this reason fights as much or rather more against it self then against us the fallacy lieth in asserting that in an unlimited sense which holds only in a limited sense God cannot justifie man fallen legally ergò he cannot justifie man fallen Evangelically by the righteousnesse of another is not only a meer non-consequence in reason but also a Pestilence in religion Dialogu It 's evident that God never propounded the Law of works to the fallen sons of Adam with any intent at all that ever any of the fallen sons of Adam should seek for justification and atonement in Gods sight by Legall obedience but his intent was directly contrary for when he propounded the Legal promise of life eternal to the fallen sons of Adam he did propound it upon condition of their own personal obedience to allure them thereby to search into their own natural unrighteousnesse by this perfect rule of Legal righteousnesse so by this Law of life God intended chiefly to make the soul of the fallen sons of Adam to be sensible of their own spiritual death in corruption and sin thereby to provoke our souls to seek for life some other way viz. by the mediation of the Mediator promised So it follows by good consequence that God did never intend to iustifie any corrupt son of Adam by Legal obedience done by his own person nor yet by our Saviours obedience imputed as the formall cause of a sinners iustification or righteousnesse Answ God propounded the Law of works to man before the fall with the promise of justification and life in case of Legal obedience Though Gods intent in propounding the Law of works to man fallen were that man should seek that justification which was directly contrary unto Legal righteousnesse that nothing opposeth but rather maketh for justification by the righteousnesse of Christ for justification by our own righteousnesse and justification by the righteousnesse of another are directly contrary in regard of the manner of justification the matter oâ—â—â—stification is the same in both Covenants viz. Legal obedience but the way of attaining it is contrary that by personal righteousnesse this by the righteousnesse of another The principal use of the Law by accident is that seeing our selves uncapable of righteousnesse thereby to provoke the soul to seek for life some other way viz. by the mediation of the Mediatour promised so saith the Dialogue to be our Schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith Gal. 3.24 that is that we might be partakers of the righteousnesse of another so saith Paul Though the Ceremonial and Judicial Law with their discipline are ceased yet the Moral Law still continueth as a perpetual rule of obedience whereunto beleevers are bound not in order to justification but in way of thanks-giving As a School-master until Christ so long as there remains any of the Elect to be converted according to the ordinary way
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
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