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
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
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
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
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
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
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
unto God the reverence of the truth dread of so pestilent an untruth to the perill of the Reader that distinguisheth not between ostentation and reason and to the vexing and just indignation of him that doth engageth the godly in all ages from the beginning of the world the practice of all sacrifices before the Law and under the Law the doctrine of the Prophets and of the New Testament to witnesse that fiction of the Authour to be a truth which includes an impossibility in nature a contradiction in reason and an abomination in Divinity Dialogu It is evident that our first Parents were well acquainted with the doctrine of a sinners iustification by Gods Atonement for as soon as ever God had told them that the seed of the woman should break the devils head-plot he explained unto them the manner how the seed of the woman should do it namely by his Mediatoriall sacrifice of Atonement Answ It is out of doubt with us that our first Parents were acquainted with the doctrine of justification and that it was taught unto them by that first and famous publication of the doctrine of the Gospel Gen. 3.15 wherein the person office and victorious efficacy of Christ together with the victory of all Beleevers in him over Satan and all other both his and their enemies was fully held forth but we deny the doctrine of the Dialogue to be the doctrine of justification made known to Adam which was here undertaken to be proved but is onely said and not proved Dialogu After the floud when Noah offered a sacrifice of Atonement Jehovah smelled a smell of Rest Gen. 8.21 and to that resting of God in the promise the sweet smell of rest which God smelt in Noahs sacrifice did look The word Rest implieth that now Gods Spirit was quieted and that he did rest satisfied and well pleased in the sacrifice of Christ which was thereby typified confer to this Eph. 5. the fathers by faith saw Christs sacrifice Answ It is also out of doubt with us that Noahs sacrifice typified the sacrifice of Christ and that God did and doth rest satisfied and well pleased in the Antitype Your task undertaken is to prove that Noahs sacrifice witnessed Christ to be a sacrifice in the sense of the Dialogue and that Noah so understood it Dialogu By this means Noah knew and beleeved that he was made righteous or sinlesse by Gods mercifull Atonement procured by Christs Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement Answ Here indeed you implicitly say again that Atonement is our righteousnesse and confound being righteous and sinlesse but you do but say the one or the other yet you begge but prove not the Question Dialogu For the God of glory Iesus Christ appeared to him that is to Abraham whilest he dwelt at Ur of the Caldees Act. 7.2 no doubt but Iesus Christ did then tell him in what a miserable lost condition he was and how he should be that seed of the woman that should break tht devils head-plot by his sacrifice of Atonement and how he should thereby procure his Fathers Atonement to all poor broken-hearted sinners All which Abraham beleeved and so his sinnes were done away by Gods Atonement which he received by his faith and so he was made perfectly iust and righteous in Gods sight Answ Your often repeating the same thing forceth us to tell you again that your Atonement is but a fiction 2. That Scripture Atonement is an effect of our righteousnesse not a part much lesse the whole thereof That which Abraham was made perfectly just and righteous by was that which was accounted unto him for righteousnesse That which was accounted unto him for righteousnesse was that which he beleeved namely the righteousnesse of Christ his head The rest that is here said if rightly understood is true if in the sense of the Dialogue 't is false But whether true or false hitherto all is but said nothing is proved as concerning the doctrine of sinners righteousnesse in the sense of the Dialogue Dialogu The doctrine of a sinners iustification or righteousnesse was abundantly taught under the Law by their sacrifices of atonement namely by their burnt-offerings sin-offerings and trespasse-offerings in Lev. 1. Lev. 4. Lev. 5. c. as I have explained their use above Answ No doubt it was But whether as you have explained is the Question nor may we yet take your word for a reason they were called sacrifices of Atonement or sin offerings to make atonement because they typically did expiate sinne pacific wrath and procure reconciliation to the sinner which was really done by the bloud of Christ Heb. 2.17 in such manner as hath been formerly both said and proved Dialogu The doctrine of a sinners justification or righteousnesse by the Fathers Atonement was taught and explained by the Prophets The Prophet David saith in the Person of Christ I have preached thy Righteousnesse to the great Congregation Ps 40.9 what righteousnesse was it that he by himself and by his Officers preached to the Church of the first born Was it his Legal Righteousnesse made theirs by his Fathers Imputation no the Text denieth that and saith that it was such a righteousnesse as he obtaineth by his sacrifice of Atonement saying Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire and then said I Lo I come I delight to do thy will O my God Ps 40.8 By the doing of which will saith Paul we are sanctified from sin or made perfectly righteous Answ If Righteousnesse be obtained by his Sacrifice of Atonement then Atonement is not Righteousnesse Righteousnesse as formally performed is an ingredient into the meritorious cause of justification Righteousnesse as it is imputed not formally as it is an ingredient in the meritorius cause but virtually in respect of its efficacy is the matter of the justification of a sinner It were better said Atonement is obtained by the sacrifice of Righteousnesse then that Righteousnesse is obtained by the sacrifice of Atonement The obedience of Christ both active and passive is the cause and sacrifice of atonement atonement or pardon of sin is an effect thereof Those words by which will Heb. 10.10 signifie the will of the Father who appointed his son to take our nature upon him to make satisfaction for our sins or we are to understand will with its correlate viz. the fullfilling thereof by the obedience of his Son we are sanctified that is we are made perfect Sanctification here is taken largely for all the benefits of Christ Dialogu Or thus Christ purchased or procured such a righteousnesse of his Father for sinners as shall last to all Eternity by the same way and means by which he purchased their eternal redemption but he did not purchase their redemption and freedom from sin by his active Legall Obedience but by his active Meditoriall Obedience when he made his soul a Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement for poor sinners Compare Heb. 9.12.14 with Dan. 9.24 therefore Christ purchased and procured such a
obedience only His distinction between Christ as he was a Lamb for sacrifice in his humane nature and as he is our Priest in his Divine nature is very ill applied because he makes Christs passive obedience to be meritorious and satisfactory excluding him as he is our Priest Answ The scope of M. Forbes is to prove that not the active but the passive obedience of Christ is the only matter of our justification and therein his bloud and death alone To that end he distinguisheth between the matter of our righteousnesse and the requisites in Christ to the end that he may be righteousnesse unto us like as the bloud of the Lamb is to be distinguished from those things in the Lamb which made the Lambs bloud to serve for a propitiation for sin placing the active obedience of Christ amongst the requisites and excluding it from the matter of our righteousnes in both which we leave him The distinction you mention and call it a shift I finde not in the Chapter cited Though M. Forbes do distinguish between the Sacrifice of obedience and the natures office and person of Christ considered apart yet you do him great and open wrong to speak of him as if he excluded the influence of the person office or concurrence of both natures from Christs passive obedience Of the impropriety of the use of those words Christs God-head or Priestly nature hath been spoken before To make the actions i. e. the active obedience of Christ God-man Mediatour part of the matter of a sinners righteousnesse viz. not properly as if they were personally done by us but virtually because done by our Surety is to assert a great and necessary truth Dialogu From all the premises I think I may well conclude that your Authour is in a great errour to ascribe the whole matter of a sinners righteousnesse to Christs bloudy Sacrifice only Neither was his bloudy sacrifice the only procuring of his fathers atonement but his Priestly nature must concur thereunto he made his oblation by his divine nature as well as by his humane nature Answ The Dialogue calleth that a great errour which indeed is a great truth namely the making the passive obedience of Christ in his death performed in way of satisfaction to divine justice for the sins of the Elect to be of the matter of justification That he makes his passive obedience in his death only to be the matter of our justification excluding his active the contrary whereunto is proved par 2. S. 2. cha 7. we look at it as no little errour and do hereby bear solemn testimony against it Yet withall we may not conceal that observable temperature of that Learned and Godly Authour herein which appeareth by his Testimony concerning the doctrine of imputation of both active and passive obedience Chap. 24. beg and upon this occasion it may not be unseasonable here to acquaint the Reader with the tenet of those who assert the passive obedience of Christ only to be the matter of our justification consisting in these particulars Vid. Pisc praef in Ep. 1. ad Tim. Wotton They acknowledge 1. The active obedience of Christ to be the obedience of God-man our Surety unto the Law 2. That the active obedience of Christ hath an influence into the meritorious cause of our justification 3. That it doth in its way conduce unto our justification as a preparation or disposition 4. That our justification is by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed Lastly M. Forbes himself judgeth that the doctrine of imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ may be tolerated without any contention or strife acknowledging Forbes of justificat cha 24. it containeth not in it any impiety hindereth not any man from the mark or matter of his righteousnesse and that it is not contrary to truth Your labour to prove that the Mediatorly obedience of Christ was the oblation of whole Christ God-man Mediatour with the joint concurrence of both natures might have been spared Who is he that doubts of it Dialogu The bloud of Jesus Christ doth clense us from all sin 1 Joh. 1.7 by a Synecdoche for the Apostle doth not say that his bloud alone without any thing doth cleanse us from all sin as M. Forbes would have him speak but he names his bloud as a Synecdoche of his death or as a Synechdoche of his Mediatoriall obedience which also he sealed with his bloud when he made his soul a Mediatoriall Sacrifice Answ M. Forbes so far speaketh the truth as he interprets bloud synechdochically of Christs passive obedience imputed he erreth 1. In limiting his passive obedience imputed to that of his death only 2. In excluding his active obedience wholly from imputation The Dialogues Mediatoriall Obedience is confuted before and therewith its interpretation Dialogu I grant that all mankinde are one with Adam by ae naturall union as proceeding from the same root and fountain of nature but I fear your Authour doth stretch out naturall union with Adam unto a personall union I mean M. Forbes doth so by consequence to the end that he might make Adams personall action to be ours by imputation Answ The scope of M. Forbes is to prove the imputation of Christs passive obedience and that only in his death to be the matter of our justification Pauls comparison according to his interpretation is instituted not between that single act of Adams disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit imputed unto his seed and the obedience of Christ in generall both active and passive imputed to his seed but between the single act of Adams disobedience and one act of Christs obedience viz. his death We consent to M Forbes as concerning the argument taken from the comparison we dissent from him as concerning the restrictions the reason of the comparison being founded upon the condition of the persons and divine institution it holds between such acts as the first and second Adam acted as publike persons Adam therefore being in that act of disobedience only a publique person hence that act only is imputed unto his seed but Christ being in all his acts of obedience a publique person hence therefore all the acts of Christs obedience are imputed to his seed As upon the supposition of Adams continuing in obedience because he had then continued a publick person all the acts of his obedience even unto the finishing of perfect righteousnesse had been imputed unto his seed according to the nature of the Covenant of works unto their attaining of justification by the Law The union between Adam and his posterity was not personall nor only natural but mysticall It was a conjunction of the person of Adam and all contained then in his loins in one spiritual body by the institution of God whereby he was as their head they as his members to stand or fall with him standing or falling Dialogu Adams disobedience had this effect that it procured a corrupt and sinfull nature to himself and to all
Persons upon the creature is answerable to the manner of their subsistence in the divine nature The Father worketh of himself the Son worketh from the-Father Joh. 5.19 30. and 8.28 The holy Ghost worketh from the Father and the Son Joh. 16.13 hence though all the works of God concerning the creature are wrought jointly by all the three persons yet is the work principally ascribed to that person whose manner of subsistence doth most eminently appear therein Beginning works as creation are ascribed principally to the first person the carrying works on to perfection as redemption to the second person the perfecting of them as the application of redemption under which last work the grace of justifying faith is contained unto the third person To make the first person an efficient and the third person an instrumentall cause in the working of reconciliation or faith were by consequence to affirm some inferiority of the third person in respect of the fiâ—st consequently an inequality between the persons which were to inferre an inequality in God because every person is God which leaving the consideration of more dangerous inferences to the intelligent Reader is inconsisting with the perfection of God so unsafe is it to speak unadvisedly in these mysteries The second person in the Trinity is to be considered as in himself so he is only God and not man or as subsisting in personall Union with the manhood so he is God-man The second Person in the Trinity considered in himself works together with the Father and the holy Ghost jointly and equally in all essentiall works consequently as concerning faith atonement c. as we have already seen The Mediatorly obedience of Christ i. e. of God-man consisting of the divine and humane nature in one person called by the Father unto that service is the procuring and only meritorious cause of the Fathers atonement and all other spirituall blessings that beleeving sinners do enjoy Dialogu To conclude If thou hast gotten any spirituall blessing by any thing that I have said in this Treatise Let God have all the glory Answ To conclude Herosis in capite Pol. Syn. l. 7. c. 22. Vide Par. 1. Cor. 1.11 and 11.19 Ames Cas Con. l. 4. c. 4 Val. tom 3. dis 1. q. 11. punct 1 2 3. Taking heresie for a fundamentall errour that is such as whosoever liveth and dieth in cannot be saved The Dialogue containeth three Heresies The first denying the imputation of the sin of the Elect unto Christ and his suffering the punishment due thereunto contrary to 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 Isa 53.5 6. and Other Arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative Thereby leaving the Elect to perish in their sinne 1 Cor. 15.17 18. This Heresie is maintained in the first part The second denying that Christ as God-man Mediatour obeyed the Law and therewith that he obeyed it for us as our surety contrary to Galat. 4.4 5. Matth. 5 17 18. Heb. 10.7 compared with Psa 48.7 8. Rom. 3.31 and Other arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative Thereby rendring Christ both an unfaithfull and an insufficient Saviour and spoiling the elect of salvation This Heresie is maintained in the former Section of the second part The third 1. Denying the Imputation of Christs obedience unto justification Contrary to Rom. 4. Rom. 5.19 Phil. 3.19 and the arguments in the answer proving the affirmative Thereby leaving all that be ungodly under an impossibility of being justified 2. Destroying the very being of a sinners righteousnesse by taking away the obedience of Christ unto the Law and imputation which are the matter and form that is the essentiall causes of justification 3. Placing a sinners righteousnesse in a fictitious Atonement or pardon of sin such as in effect manifestly doth not only deny it self to be the effect of but denieth yea and defieth the very being of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ to the Law for us This Heresie is maintained in the second Section of the second part The first holdeth us in all our sin and continueth the full wrath of God abiding upon us The second takes away our Saviour The third takes away our righteousnesse and our justification What need the Enemy of Jesus grace and souls adde more This threefold cord of Hereticall doctrine so directly and deeply destructive to the truth of the Gospel and salvation of man We desiring after Christs example to distinguish where there is cause between Peter and Satan reserving all charitable and compassionate thoughts according to rule touching the compiler thereof who we hope did it ignorantly do principally impute to him who is not only a lyar but also a murtherer from the beginning Now the good Spirit of Grace that great Defender and Teacher of the Truth as it is in Jesus who in his rich mercy causeth all then whom he loveth to beleeve the truth that they may be saved and in his righteous judgement giveth up such who receive not the truth in the love of it to beleeve a lie that they may be damned Grant that truth may look down from heaven in this hour and power of the spirit of errour so perilously prevailing to deceive if it were possible the very elect Preserve the Reader from every false way and leade him into all truth Magnifie his compassion in the pardon and recovery of the Authour a person in many respects to be very much tendred of us in so saving of him though as by fire as that his rising again may be much more advantageous to the truth comfortable to the people of God and honourable to himself then his fall hath been scandalous grieving or dishonourable And lastly Inspire us all with a discerning and conscientious spirit as concerning the mystery of piety working in the way of truth and the mystery of iniquity working in the way of lying so as that in these evil daies wherein errours and heresies must be we may manifest our selves approved and to be acted vigorously and efficaciously by the spirit of him who sealed that good confession before Pontius Pilate saying To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world that I should bear witnesse to the truth Christian Reader if as sometimes through grace it was with Augustine concerning the Heresie of Pelagius by occasion of this Dialogue and other perilous Treatises with which this hour of temptation abounds threatning it it were possible to deceive the very elect thou hast been stirred up more to search into and hate the unsound tenets contained therein and more to search into and love the sound doctrines contrary thereunto Remember to glorifie that God which brings Light out of Darknesse by his good Spirit leading all those whose Names are written in the Book of Life of the Lamb into all truth teaching them to abhorre the wine of deadly errours notwithstanding they are presented in a golden cup and to discern Satan though transformed into an Angel of Light Glory be to God in Jesus Christ.
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
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
other namely to the joint desire of the Trinity all the Trinity desired to fullfil all that righteousnesse which appertained to the Mediators Person and Office at this time they desired to fulfil that part of righteousnesse which appertained to his publike Installment Answ This is not to explain a difficult but to take the Name of God in vain by forcing a far fetched and impertinent conceit upon a plain place whose sense he that runs may reade 't is ignorance or worse to turn the Greek thus is our Desire the word is rendred according to its meaning Thus it Becometh Vs The speaker is Christ The Persons spoken of are Christ and John The Righteousnesse spoken of is the Office and Service committed respectively to Christ and John part of which consisted in the present work which though John at first hearkned not to yet soon after he did If the Dialogue intends those words to fullfill that righteousnesse which appertained to the Mediator formally that is to make the Trinity the Mediator If efficiently then though the Interpretation were good it is altogether impertinent to the confirming of that misleading distinction of Legal and Mediatorial obedience CHAP. IV. Of the Dialogues further Reasoning against the influence of Christs obedience unto Justification by way of Imputation Dialogu THe Apostle in that Text Rom. 8.4 that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us doth not speak of that part ef Legal obedience which God requires of every man that looks to be saved thereby but in this place he speaks only of that part of righteousnesse which the Gospel-part of the Law taught and typified by their sacrifices of Atonement which sacrifices are called sacrifices of Righteousnesse because they taught sinners how they might obatin the Fathers Atonement by the Mediators sacrifice of Atonement for their full and perfect Righteousnesse Answ In plainer words the meaning of the Dialogue is The Apostle here by the Law understandeth not the Law of works the Righteousnesse whereof consists in Legal and Personal obedience But the Law of faith namely the Gospel whose Righteousnesse consists nor in Legal obedience either personal or sureties but in the Fathers Atonement It is plain enough by the dependence of this upon the fore-going verse that the Law here spoken of is the same with the Law there spoken of namely the Law that was weak through the flesh that is unable to justifie by reason of sin which all know to be the Law of works The way of fullfilling this Righteousnesse is by the Gospel which teacheth and giveth faith in Christ Bucan loc 30. qu. 28. Vide Par. Rom. 10. dub 5. col 2. which consists not in Atonement as the Dialogue speaks of but in the Legal obedience of another made ours by faith and therefore called the Righteousness of faith so that Righteousnesse or Legal obedience is the matter of our Justification both according to Law and Gospel the difference lieth in the manner of Justification The Law justifieth by our Personal obedience fullfilled thereunto the Gospel by our Sureties obedience thereunto received by faith Typical Sacrifices of Atonement are called Sacrifices of Righteousnesse because they taught and typified this truth The phrase SACRIFICES of RIGHTEOVSNESSE signifieth Righteous sacrifices that is Sacrifices done in Righteousnesse Sacrifices saith M. Ainsworth just and right and in faith contrary to those which the Prophet reproveth Mal. 1.14 Not Sacrifices causing Righteousness which if so it were did but further confirm that Christ the Antitype of the Legal Sacrifices by his obedience unto the death purchased Righteousnesse by faith So that hence there is neither cause nor occasion to confound Righteousnesse and Atonement But let us proceed to your other Reasons Dialogu Did Christ condemn sinne in the flesh by his Legall Obedience no but by his Mediatorial Obedience only Rom. 8.3 4. Answ It hath been before sufficiently shewn that the Legal and Mediatorial obedience of Christ is one and the same whereunto the Reader is referred as touching the confutation of this erroneous and misleading distinction Dialogu God sent his Son for sinne when he sent him to make his soul a sacrifice of Atonement for sin as I have opened the phrase at large in 2 Cor. 5.21 Answ That the Dialogue hath not opened but misinterpreted that phrase the Reader may please to see in the answer thereof Dialogu In brief the meaning of the Apostle lies thus when God sent his Son to die as a Malefactor in the similitude of sinful flesh Christ did at the same time condem◠sin because he did at the same time die as a Mediatour and made his soul a Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement for sin and so he procured his Fathers Atonement to poor sinners and by this means he condemned sinne in the flesh and made sinners sinlesse that is to say Righteous But this distinction of the double death of Christ I have opened more at large in Gal. 3.13 and Luke 22.19 and in Psa 22.15 The strength then of this misinterpretation being built upon your distinction of the double death of Christ namely his dying as a Mediator Answ and as a Malefactor that is to say a Malefactor in the Jews account but not in Gods The Reader again is desired to accept of the answer given to your distinction in the places mentioned where if the distinction fals all which is built thereupon will perish with it To be sinlesse is not enough to being Righteous the unreasonable creature is sinlesse but not Righteous The Dialogue having taken away from us the righteousnesse or Justification of the Legal obedience of Christ imputed now telleth us what is our Righteousnesse namely Gods Atonement or the Fathers Atonement and pag. 120. we have the Dialogues meaning concerning Atonement explained by the several terms thereof in pardoning and forgiving sin blotting out and covering sin bearing and taking away sinne purging and cleansing of sinners passing over and not imputing of sin so that a sinners righteousnesse justice or justification according to the Authour is nothing else but the Fathers Atonement pardon and forgivenesse pag. 118. The Hebrew translated Atonement properly signifieth to cover something 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet not with a garment or the like which may be taken off again but with some cleaving and tenacious matter as pitch lime mortar c wherewith the thing covered is wholly hidden hence referred unto wrath it signifieth to pacifie or appease and that either with a gift prepared Gen. 32.20 or compensation made for an injury done Expiare est piaculum pro peccato praestare 2 Sam. 21.3 referred to sin it signifieth to explate whence the day of Atonement Lev. 16. is called a day of expiation An expiation is a sacrifice given for the purging and satisfaction of some great offence To purge Psal 65.3 Psal 79.9 To be propitious or mercifull Deut. 21.8 And lastly to pardon Psa 78.38 in which last sense the Dialogue takes it for
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
having no essentiall matter witnesse the Dialogues enumeration of the causes since the righteousnesse of the morall Law fullfilled by Christ was typified by the Ceremoniall Law the righteousnesse of the Law is fullfilled in us because we by faith apprehend the obedience of Christ who fullfilled the Law for us Perkins in Gal. 3. so M. Perkins with the rest of the cloud of witnesses neither is there any other tolerable interpretation possible to be given With the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse Rom. 10.10 that is unto a judiciall righteousnesse upon beleeving we are judicially declared to be righteous with the righteousnesse of the Law though not by the Law That which was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse was that which Abraham so beleeved as that his faith for the sake of the object thereof was accounted unto him for righteousnesse Imputing and beleeving are as giving and receiving But righteousnesse without works viz. the righteousness of Christ not pardon of sin which is the effect of that righteousnesse received Act. 10.43 was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse Rom. 46. because it is imputed to all that are blessed universally whereof Abraham was an eminent one therefore the righteousnesse of Christ was that which Abraham so beleeved as that his faith for the sake of the object thereof was accounted unto him for righteousnesse Dialogu And in this sense the Apostle Paul doth prove that Abrahams faith was accounted to him for righteousnesse by a Testimony taken from David Psa 32. saying even as David also describeth the blessednesse of that man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord doth not impute sinne What other reason can any man else render why the Apostle should enterlace this testimony in this place but to describe unto us the true manner how Abrahams faith did make him righteous namely because by his faith he did apprehend and receive the fathers atonement by which his sins were forgiven covered and not imputed Answ We readily acknowledge that Paul Rom. 4.3 proveth that Abrahams faith was accounted to him for righteousnesse out of Moses Gen. 15.6 the scop of the Apostle in citing Psal 32.1 2. is not to prove the personall justification of Abraham by faith but to prove justification in the generall both of the Father of the faithfull and all others to be by faith and the reason why the Apostle cites the testimony of David Rom. 4.6 7 8. is to strengthen his doctrine of justification by faith without works which he having proved by the example of Abraham proceedeth to confirm it from the testimony of David His argumentation or manner of reasoning lying thus justification is by imputation therefore by faith without works the not-imputation of sin presupposeth imputation of righteousnesse ver 6 7. Evangelicall imputation of righteousnesse supposeth the righteousnesse that is imputed to be anothers subjectively and inherently therefore to be applied as ours by faith Touching Abrahams apprehending the Fathers Atonement by faith and the imputing oâ— accounting his faith unto him for righteousnesse we saw before but that Abrahams faith was accounted unto him for righteousnesse in the sense of the Dialogue is by us still denied and disproved by you still said and not proved Dialogu And thus after this sort the Apostle doth bring in forgivenesse of sin as an effect of justifying faith for faith is the only instrument of the Spirit by which sinners come to be united to the Mediator in and through whose Mediation they apprehend and receive the Fathers Atonement pardon and forgivenesse for their full and perfect justification Answ If atonement pardon and forgivenesse be the effect of justifying faith then they cannot be our righteousnesse for that is the object of our justifying faith Righteousnesse is before justifying faith as the object is before the act Atonement is after it as the effect is after the cause to say the cause and the effect is the same is to say a thing is before and after it self Dialogu This was the only true reason why God imputed Abrahams faith to him for righteousnesse namely because he beleeved in Gods atonement through the mediation of the seed promised Answ We have seen before that Atonement was not and also what was the true cause why Abrahams faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse The Atonement of the Dialogue is not Gods Atonement but a pestilent fiction to beleeve in it is to beleeve in an abomination Dialogu And it is further evident that this doctrine of a sinners righteousnesse by faith was taught and preached by all the Prophets as Peter affirmeth for all the Prophets saith he do witnesse that through the Name of Christ whosoever beleeveth in him shall receive remission of sins Act. 10.43 that is to say they shall receive remission of their sins for their justification by the Fathers atonement procured by Christs sacrifice of atonement Answ We are to distinguish between the righteousnesse of a sinner and the remission of sins Righteousness is the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed Remission of sins is the judiciall declaration of our discharge from the guilt and punishment of sin a part of our justification strictly taken and an effect of righteousnesse The name of Christ is Jehovah our Righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 according to which whosoever beleeveth in him how can it be otherwise but that remission of sins must follow as the effect doth its cause If then righteousnesse be the cause and atonement or remission of sin the effect To say again Atonement is our righteousnesse is to say the effect is the cause that is to say a thing is before and after it self that is to say and say again an impossibility without any probability Dialogu And to this tenour the Apostle Paul doth explain the use of faith in the point of a sinners justification Phil. 3 9. and in Rom. 10.4 6 10. With the heart saith he man beleeveth unto righteousnesse He doth not say faith is a sinners righteousnesse but that by it a sinner beleeveth unto righteousnesse Answ A bare deniall especially strengthened with the reasons thereof that are readily obvious out of the foregoing discourse is a sufficient answer to your bare allegation of Phi. 3 9. The righteousness whereof Paul speaks Rom. 10.10 because it hath faith foregoing it as is evident out of the words alledged must needs be such as followeth faith and may be either understood of Gods declaration of the righteousnesse of a beleever in the Court of conscience or of the beleevers declaration of his righteousnesse unto others as works are said to justifie declaratively which latter interpretation the context seemeth to favour Paul doth not say atonement is a sinners righteousnesse which is the question but he doth say that visible confession namely externall profession worship and conversation is the effect of that faith which is accounted unto righteousnesse
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