God shall reveal even this unto you Neverthelesse whereunto we have already attained let us * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est verbum militare tum enim milites dicuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum persistentes in suâ quâque statione ordine procedunt c. Zanch. in loc walk by the same rule let us minde the same things The sum whereof is that those who consent in Fundamentals notwithstanding they dissent in points of an inferiour nature are not only to be tolerated but are to be looked upon by Gods blessing thereby in the use of means as likely to be gained provided they walk regularly and orderly Such hitherto have been the suitable proceedings of this Court unto the premises tempered with that zeal against the errour and tenderness towards the Author of this Dialogue as that they that hear thereof have cause to blesse you as the eyes that saw gave winesse to you Upon which occasion having after the example of Leo to Theodosius rendred hereby unto you solemn thanks I accounted it my duty that wheresoever this poor Script should come not only that this should be told as a memoriall of you but also That you have now above twenty years ruled in this place during all which space you have not been ashamed to take upon you the protection of your exiled Brethren fled for conscience sake from the face of the late Prelacy to worship God in this vast Wildernesse That you have given proof by so long experience unto the world that Civil Government and the Congregational way may consist together That you have been amongst the first of Magistracies which have approved and practised that Congregational way no small favour from God nor honour to your selves with the generations to come when that shall appear to be the way of Christ I have no more to adde but that poor New-Englands superadding hereunto the concurring Testimony of the Synod Court and Churches respectively to what shall be found to be the Truth concerning Doctrine and Disciplihe according as you were lately stirred up shall thereby doubtlesse witnesse a good confession a service of a high nature which God will not forget and posterity will reremember gain to it self not the least name among the two Witnesses Such work was worthy of Christ and both the work and worth of those that during the Reign of Antichrist were and are designed to prophesie in Sack-cloth And lastly help to prepare that choice weapon of bearing witnesse to the Truth an Engine fitter to do execution then Goliath's Sword which together with the rest of like nature held forth in the Ages of the Patience of Saints the true David hath promised to make use of and prosper unto victory not only in the lighter skirmishes of the Lord but in the great day of Battle of God Almighty at the Fall of Babylon in the place of Armageddon For even then it shall be said They overcame by the Bloud of the Lamb and by the Word of their Testimony Though the Witnesses die their Testimony lives This shall be when they are not Higgajon Selah The Lord lift up your hearts in his Name alwaies inspiring you with that divine discerning of the Seasons that through his Grace you may quit your selves as becometh his exiles in such a cause and at such a time So prayeth and ceaseth not to pray To your Worships and worthy Personages respectively Sincerely addicted and devoted JOHN NORTON THE CONTENTS PART I. THe Introduction Ch. 1 Pag. 1 The stating of the Controversie Ch. 2 Pag. 13 The Vindication of Gen. 2.17 Ch. 3 Pag. 20 The Vindication of Isa 53.4 5. Ch. 4 Pag. 35 The Vindication of Isa 53.6 Ch. 5 Pag. 32 The Vindication of Exo. 20.10 Lev. 1.4 and 4.29 Lev. 8.14 and 16.20 21. Ch. 6 Pag. 48 The Vindication of 2 Cor. 5.21 Ch. 7 Pag. 53 The Vindication of Matth. 26.37 Mar. 14.33 Luk. 22.43 Ch. 8 Pag. 56 The Vindication of Heb. 5.7 Ch. 9 Pag. 70 The Vindication of Psa 22.1 Ch. 10 Pag. 77 The Vindication of Gal. 3.13 Ch. 11 Pag. 90 Christ redeemed us not from the curse of the Law by his Soul-sufferings onely And of the meaning of Haides Ch. 12 Pag. 105 Of the Dialogues Arguments taken from the description of the torments of hell and from the place of suffering the torments of the damned Ch. 13 Pag. 110 PART II. SECT I. Of the nature of Mediatorly Obedience both according to the Dialogue and according to the Orthodox Ch. 1 Pag. 135 Of the divers waies of Redemption Ch. 2 Pag. 141 Of that wherein the true meritorious efficacy of the Bloud of Christ lieth Ch. 3 Pag. 147 Whether the Jews and Romans put Christ to death Ch. 4 Pag. 156 Of the Dialogues distinction of Christs dying as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor Ch. 5 Pag. 164 PART II. SECT II. Of the Morall Law Ch. 1 Pag. 176 The Dialogues Arguments against the Imputation of Christs Obedience unto Iustification Answered Ch. 2 Pag. 185 Of the Dialogues distinction between Legall and Mediatoriall obedience Ch. 3 Pag. 195 Of the Dialogues further Reasoning against the influence of Christs obedience unto justification by way of Imputation Ch. 4 Pag. 207 Whether the Iustice and Righteousnesse of a sinner doth lie only in Gods mercifull atonement pardon and forgivenesse Ch. 5 Pag. 216 How Abrahams Faith was imputed to him for Righteousnesse Ch. 6 Pag. 224 Of the Enumeration of the causes of Justification according to the Dialogue and according to the Orthodox Ch. 7 Pag. 233 Of the Dialogues examination of certain Arguments propounded by M. Forbes for the proving of Iustification by the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in his death and satisfaction Ch. 8 Pag. 244 Of Atonement or Reconciliation Ch. 9 Pag. 246 AN ANSWER TO A DIALOGUE INTITULED The Meritorious Price of Mans Redemption Reconciliation Justification c. And pretending to Prove I. That Christ did not suffer for us those unutterable Torments of Gods Wrath which commonly are called Hell torments to Redeem our Souls from them II. That Christ did not bear our Sins by Gods Imputation and therefore he did not bear the Curse of the Law for them CHAP. I. The Introduction THE Mediatorly obedience of Christ in the full extent thereof comprehendeth the universal execution of the whole Office of the Mediator which he as King Priest and Prophet throughly performed and still performeth to the glory of the Father and salvation of the Elect. This Dialogue singleth out a principal part of his Priest-hood against which it contends primarily and against the received doctrine of Justification secondarily the later necessarily following upon the former Omitting therefore the Kingly and Prophetical parts of the Mediatorship altogether and so much of the Priestly part thereof as is herein untouched for the better confining and guiding the apprehension of the Reader in the ensuing Dispute before we close with the Discourse it self give me leave together with the foregoing
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
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
his posterity which otherwise had continued righteous and sinlesse In like sort Christs Mediatoriall obedience had this effect that it procured Gods fatherly atonement and acceptance of all his posterity and seed that should be born of the same promise Gen. 3.15 Answ If the sinfull nature of Adams posterity was the effect of Adams disobedience in like sort as Atonement i. e. remission of sin is the effect of Christs obedience then it was the effect thereof according to justice as indeed it was for original sin is the penal effect of Adams sin he is just to forgive us our sin 1 Joh. 1.9 Dialogu By one man namely Adams sin in eating the forbidden fruit death entred into the world and death by sin namely spirituall death in sin fell upon Adam and his posterity for his sin and so death passed upon all men for that all men had sinned That is to say in whose loins all men have sinned by receiving from his loins his corrupt nature which is sin and also is the punishment of Adams sinfull eating not whose act of disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit all men have sinned in eating the forbidden fruit for then we must have been united to Adam as one person with him Answ What is to be understood by death see in the vindication of Gen. 2.17 The Dialogue not enduring the imputation either of our disobedience unto Christ or of Christs obedience unto us to avoid the Apostles argument taken from the imputation of Adams disobedience to mankinde Rom. 5. denieth that we are guilty of Adams sin acknowledging only that we receive from Adam a corrupt nature or a spirituall death in sin viz. that which we call originall sin Whilest you acknowledge corruption of nature to be the punishment of Adams sinfull eating and yet deny that we sinned in eating the forbidden fruit you make a contradiction for there can be no punishment without sin and by consequence also you put injustice upon God who notwithstanding by his absolute will he might yet having limited himself he doth not afflict without sin That all descended of Adam by ordinary generation are guilty of Adams sin is evident 1. From the expresse Text for that all have sinned Rom. 5.12 or in whom i. e. in Adam all have sinned as it is upon the margent and according as the Learned Interpreters generally turn it Both come to the same sense In this Chapter the Apostle insists upon Adams sin as in the 7th upon originall sinne 2. From the effect all sinned in Adam because all died in Adam even those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression viz. Infants who sinned not actually in their proper persons but only in their publike person Rom. 5.14 Gen. 2.17 1 Cor. 15.22 3. There can be no other reason given according to the revealed will of God of the propagation of of originall sin This doctrine of yours too much favours Pelagius who denied Infants to be guilty of Adams sin and of original sin 4. Adam in his first transgression stood as a publike person by the free constitution of God whose will is the rule of righteousnesse who is the figure of him that was to come Rom. 5.14 Adams being a publike person was a great aggravation of Adams sin hence a world of sin was in Adams sin 1. Because Adam was the whole world the world sinned in Adams sin 2. Because Adam by that sinne slew the whole world 3. Because all sin by consequence was contained in this sin Thence is Originall sin as an effect from the cause hence actuall sinne as an act from the habit 4. It was a universall sin because in it was in sum the violation of the whole Decalogue Dialogu But it passeth my understanding to conceive how God in justice can impute the act of Christs Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement to us as our act unlesse he do first make us one with Christ in the personal unity of both natures noither can I see how any of the actions of Christ can be imputed to Beleevers as their actions Answ Though there needs no other ground for the justice thereof then the good pleasure of God and the free consent of Christ yet herein the pleasure of God and consent of Christ and the mysticall not personall union of Christ and Beleevers concurre The Legal acceptance of the offended or creditor Justitia Christi non imputatur nobis ut causis sed ut subjectis tantura Bellarm. encr Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. and the consent of the surety are sufficient for the Legall charging the offence or debt of a third person who is the offender or debtor upon the surety Christs obedience is imputed to us not formally as if we were the performers thereof but in respect of its efficacy because we have the benefit of it as effectually as if we had performed it our selves The obedience of Christ is imputed to us as the Subjects meerly not as the causes of it Christs actions are ours not properly but virtually in respect of their vigour good benefit and efficacy Dialogu In like sort our blessed Mediatour as he is the mysticall head of all beleevers in the Covenant of grace did take care to do all and every act of Mediatoriall obedience that might procure his Fathers Atonement for the good and benefit of every member of his mysticall body as fully and effectually as if every member could have performed those acts of Mediatoriall obedience themselves And in this sense God doth imput◠the efficacy of all Christs Mediatoriall obedience to all beleevers as the only meritorious price of his Fathers atonement for them Answ The Reader may at the first sight hereof haply think that as it was sometimes with Bellarmine who having spent whole Books in a laborious disputation for mans merit against grace Bellarm. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 7. Tutissimum c. at length saith It is most safe to place our confidence in the alone mercy of God So it is here fallen out with the Authour who after his labour hitherto against the doctrine of Imputation now at length may seem to acknowledge it But though his words be equivocall yet his meaning is the same that it was before and so much the more dangerous because the same evil sense is insinuated in a better language To suppose a sinner to have performed those acts of Mediatorly obedience which Christ performed is to suppose an impossibility Christ was and is God-man and without sin neither of which can be found in him who is a sinner The voice of this whole clause this supposition excepted or somewhat qualified is not unlike the voice of Jacob but the sense is the sense of Esau i. e. the minde of the Dialogue uttered by the tongue of the Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is with the minde of the Orthodox as hath been said of old concerning the Scripture it lieth not in the sound but in the sense
intimation to premise briefly certain Propositions four Questions five Distinctions with some few Arguments The Distinctions serving to Answer some chief Objections The Propositions Questions and Arguments tending to clear and confirm the Truth Prop. I The Lord Jesus Christ as God-man Mediator according to the will of the Father and his own voluntary consent fully obeyed the Law doing the command in a way of works and suffering the essential punishment of the curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto Divine justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant which active and passive obedience of his together with his original righteousness as a Surety God of his rich grace actually imputeth unto Beleevers whom upon the receipt thereof by the grace of Faith he declareth and accepteth as perfectly righteous and acknowledgeth them to have right unto eternal Life More fully and particularly Prop. II God in the first Covenant the substance whereof is Do this and thou shalt live Lev. 18.5 But in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Gen. 2.17 proceeded with man in a way of justice Prop. III Justice in God is either Essential whence God can do no wrong Or Relative in respect of the creature viz. Gods constant will of rendring to man what is his due this is the free constitution of Gods good pleasure whose will is the first and absolute rule of Righteousness Prop. IV Relative justice supposeth somewhat due from God to man in a way of debt so as if God should not perform it he should be unjust That which thus obligeth God in a way of Reward is called Merit in a way of Punishment Demerit yet so as the word Merit is ordinarily used promiscuously Prop. V Merit is either Absolute so God cannot be a Debtor to the creature no not to Christ himself or By Way of free Covenant so God hath in case made himself a Debtor to man Justice then consisting in rendring to every one their due and Gods will being the rule of Justice it followeth that and only that to be the due desert merit or demerit of man which God hath willed concerning him The Moral Law it self that eternal rule of manners The recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience The punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience are all the effects of Gods good pleasure Merit by vertue of free Covenant notes such an obedience whereunto God by his free Promise hath made himself a debtor according to order of Justice Demerit notes such disobedience whereunto by force of the Commination death is due according to the order of Justice Merit or Demerit is a just debt whether in way of reward or punishment the genus of merit is debt i. e. To indebt or make due its form in a way of Justice Prop. VI The demerit or desert of man by reason of sin being death according to Relative justice the rule of proceeding between God and him Justice now requireth that man should dye As God with reverence be it spoken of him who cannot be unjust in case man had continued in obedience had been unjust if he had denied him life so in case of disobedience he should be unjust in case he should not inflict death Prop. VII The elect then having sinned the elect must diâ—â— if they die in their own persons Election is frustrate God is unfaithfull if they die not at all God is unjust the Commination is untrue If elect men die in their own persons the Gospel is void if man doth not die the Law is void they die therefore in the man Christ Jesus who satisfied Justice as their Surety and so fulfilled both Law and Gospel As Gods will is the rule of righteousness so Gods will is the rule of the temperature of righteousness Prop. VIII Though God by his absolute power might have saved man without a Surety yet having constituted that inviolable rule of relative justice In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die he could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this rule but man having sinned man must die and satisfie the Law that man may live Justice requireth that the Surety should die thâ—â— the Debtor may live That he might be just and the Justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Rom. 3.26 God suffereth multitudes of sins to be unpardoned but he suffereth not one sin to be unpunished Quaere 1 What is Vindicative justice strictly taken Answ It is an execution of relative justice rewarding sin with the punishment due thereunto according to the Law Justice in God as was said before is either essential which is in him necessarily hence he can do no wrong Or relative which is in him freely that is it hath no necessary connexion with the Being of God This Relative or Moral justice is an act of Gods good pleasure whence flows his proceeding with men according to the Law of righteousness freely constituted between him and them Quaere 2 What is the supream and first cause why justice requireth that sin should be rewarded with the punishment due thereunto according to the Law Answ The free constitution of God The principal and whole reason of this mystery depends upon the good pleasure of God Nam hujus mysterii summum imo tota ratio independit quis negat potuisse Deum alio quovis modo providere saluti hominuÌ„ sed hoc voluit nec nisi hoc Cham. de Descensu To. 2. l. 5 cap. 12. for who can deny that God could have saved man in another way but he would save him thus and no otherwise then thus This great principle is all along to be kept in minde and occasionally to be applied serving not as a sword to cut but as a leading truth to loose many knots of carnal reason The good pleasure of God is the first rule of Righteousness the Cause of all Causes the Reason of all Reasons and in one word all Reason in one Reason Quaere 3 Wherein consists the sufficiency and value of the obedience of Christ as our Surety Answ In three things 1. In the dignity of the person obeying 2. In the quality or kinde of his obedience 3. In the acceptation of this obedience The person obeying was God-man The first Adam was by Gods institution a publick person hence in him sinning the world sinned The second Adam is not only by Gods institution a publick person but also an infinite person because God This publick and infinite person doing and suffering was as much as if the world of the Elect had suffered If the first Adam a finite person was by Gods institution in that act of disobedience A world of men why should it seem strange that the second Adam being an infinite person should be by Gods institution in the course of his obedience As the world of the Elect He being an infinite person there needed no more then Gods pleasure to have made him The world of men yea
ten thousand-thousand worlds That which is infinite knoweth no bounds but Gods will The kinde of his obedience was Legal the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto This his obedience to the Law was more acceptable to God then the disobedience of Adam was detestable yea more acceptable then the obedience of Adam had he continued in the first Covenant Though all these ingredients are so essentially requisite unto the obedience of the Mediator as that the defect of any one of them renders Christ an insufficient Mediator yet is it both the grand Error and a great part of the unhappy Labour of the ensuing Treatise to take away the Second of the Three It is therefore unworthy a Christian to say with Fevardentius One drop of the bloud of Christ is sufficient to have redeemed us Or with Bellarmine That the bodily death of Christ is sufficient for the Elect though according to both performed in way of satisfaction to Divine justice But much more unworthy a Christian to say with the Dialogue That the bodily death of Christ is sufficient for redemption though not performed in order to satisfie justice Quaere 4 How doth it appear that the justice of the Law is answered by a sinners suffering the punishment due to sin either in their own person or in the person of their Surety Answ Because God Gen. 2.17 no otherwise obliged himself by the Law to the punishment of sin with death but so as that it was free for him to execute that punishment either upon the offender or upon the Surety Distinct 1 Distinguish between the Essential or Substantial and the Accidental or Circumstantial parts of the punishment of the curse The essential part of punishment is that execution of justice which proceedeth from the curse Desperatio non est de essentia paenae infernalis Bellar. enerv To. 1. lib. 2. c. 2. considered absolutely in it self without any respect to the condition or disposition of the patient this may be called The essence of punishment The accidental part of punishment is that execution of justice which proceedeth not from the cause considered absolutely but from the disposition or condition of the patient being under such a curse this may be called A penal adjunct For examples sake In the execution of the sentence of death upon a malefactor Mors Per se Aeterna the separation of the soul from the body is of the essence of the punishment the gradual decay of the senses impotency of spirit losse of friends are accidental parts of punishment or penal adjuncts arising not from the meer separation of the soul and body Polan Carcer debiti pars nulla est Parker de Descen l. 3. num 91. but from the disposition of the patient In case of execution of the sentence of imprisonment upon a debtor Imprisonment is of the essence of the punishment but duration in the prison is from the disposition of the debtor viz. his insufficiency to pay the debt The essential punishment of the curse is the total temporal privation of all the sense of the good of the promise called by some The pain of losse and the inflicting of the positive evil flowing from the curse considered absolutely in it self without any respect to the disposition of the patient called The pain of sense This essential punishment was that and only that which Christ suffered Medull l. 1. c. 22. th 6. The death which Christ died was in nature and proportion the same which was due unto the Elect for their sin according to justice The accidental part of the punishment of the curse is all the rest of the penal evil thereof and befals the reprobate not from the curse simply but from the disposition of the patient under that curse Of these accidental parts of punishment which if you please may well passe under the name of penal adjuncts are final and total separation from God final death in sin final and total despair duration of punishment for ever the place of punishment c. Pataeus in Matth. 27.46 p. 889. Absolute separation from disunion or discovenanting with God is a consequent of reprobation but not of the essence of punishment because the elect notwithstanding the Commination stood in as full force against them as against the reprobate yet continued elected and in Covenant with God in Christ the Elect were in Christ before they were in Adam The personal union of Christ continued notwithstanding he suffered the punishment due to the sinnes of the Elect. Sin is not of the essence of the punishment because essential punishment is a satisfaction unto justice for injury done but sin is a continuing of the injury and a provocation of not a satisfaction unto justice Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author but it is blasphemy to say God is the Author of sin The Elect suffer no part of penal punishment yet are left unto sin Duration for ever and the place of the punishment are adjuncts as the nature of them sufficiently shews Distin 2 Distinguish between the wrath of God as concerning the Elect Vide Zanch. de natura Dei l. 4. c. 6. Hatred is taken either for the willing of affliction or for hatred opposite to eternal love in the last sense God hates not the Elect. Odium sumitur pro volitione malorū odio opposito amori aeterno Twiff Vind. Grat. l. 3. errat 8. S. 7. Dei ira in electos non est odium oppositum dilectioni quā antea ipsos est prosecutus Rhetorf exc 1. c. 2. and the hatred of God strictly taken Wrath is sometime taken for Gods hatred of persons and signifieth reprobation thus the reprobates are called Vessels of Wrath Rom. 9.22 Sometimes for the execution of Vindicative Justice Rom. 1.18 chap. 2.5 in this sense the elect are called the children of wrath Eph. 2.3 because their state by nature is such whereunto vindicative justice is due by reason of their sin Sometimes for the execution of corrective justice Deut. 4.21 Psal 78.62 in the first sense God is wroth with the reprobate in the second sense he was wroth with Chirst in the last he is wroth with the Elect Though in the second sense not in the first God may be said to be wroth with Christ yet in no sense could God be said ever to hate Christ God hates both persons and sins of the reprobate he hates sin in the Surety and in the Elect but he ever loved their persons God is wroth with all whom he hates but he hates not all with whom he is wroth Distinct 3 Distinguish concerning imputation of sin Imputation of sin is either of the commission of sin or of the guilt of sin guilt not taken for the commission of sin but for the obligation unto punishment for sin committed sin is imputed to Christ in the later sense not in the former Distinct. 4
followeth upon Adams sin Originall sin proceeding thence as an effect from the cause and actuall sin as an act from the habit As all evil is inflicted for sin so all evil in Scripture-language is called Death The evil of affliction Exo. 10.17 Of bodily Death Gen. 3.15 Rom. 8.10 Gen. 26.10 Exo. 21.16 Of spirituall death i.e. the death of the soul in sin 1 Tim. 5.6 1 Joh. 3.14 Of eternall death Joh. 8.51 Ezek. 33.8 Concerning the Distribution of Death Punishment is taken in a large or strict sense If taken largely the castigations of the elect are punishments but not so if taken strictly Poena est castigatio aeterna vel vindicta poena correctionis vel maledictionis Oecolampad in Ezek. 22. Castigatio electorum est poena latè sumptâ voce poenae eadem non est poena strictè sumptā voce poenae Polan l. 6. c. 4. The sufferings of the Elect are not vindicatively-paenall in a strict sense i.e. they are not inflicted by God upon them in a way of satisfaction to justice Death is either Death In sin Separation of the Image of God from the soul and the Castigatory or correctively-poenall and temporary in the Elect Properly poenall viz. Vindicatively or strictly-poenal i.e. in way of satisfaction to divine justice Presence of sin For sin Separation of the soul from the body Temporal and castigatory in the Elect. Temporal and properly-poenal in Christ Temporal and properly poenal in the Reprobate Separation from the sense of the good things in the promise Partiall temporary and castigatory in the Elect. Total temporal and properly-poenall in Christ Total perpetual and properly-poenall in the Reprobate Presence of the evil things in the Commination Separation of the whole person soul and body from God Totall eternall and properly poenal in the Reprobate The castigatory or correctively poenall part of death only was executed upon the elect the essentiall properly poenall part upon Christ both the essentiall and circumstantiall properly-poenall parts of death upon the Reprobate The castigatory but not poenall i. e. strictly-poenall part was and is executed upon the elect Post remissam culpam adhuc tam multa patimur tandem etiam morimur ad demonstrationem debitae miseriae vel ad emendationem labilis vitae vel ad exercitationem necessariae patieutiae August tractat 124. in Joannem for though Christ freed his from the punishment of sin yet not from the castigation or correction for sin thereby leaving a testimony against sin a remedy for sin a place for conformity unto their head The whole essentiall properly-poenall death of the curse that is the whole essentiall punishment thereof was executed upon Christ The whole properly-poenal death of the curse is executed upon the reprobate both in respect of the essential and accidental parts thereof Adam then standing as a publike person containing all mankinde and which is more so standing as that the first Adam a publike person contaiing all mankinde disobeying was a figure of Christ the second Adam a publike person containing all the Elect obeying so Paul expresly who is the figure of him that was to come Rom. 5.14 the meaning of these words In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die is this If man sin man shall die either in his own person as the Reprobate or in the person of the man Christ Jesus their surery as the elect according to the distribution above so is the Text a full and universal truth Man sins and man dies Touching the Reprobate there is no controversie Concerning the Elect thus Either Christ suffereth the poenall Death of the curse due to the Elect for sin or the Elect suffer it themselves or the curse is not executed but the Elect suffer it not themselves neither is the curse not executed for then the truth of the Commination and Divine justice should fail Therefore Christ suffered the poenall Death of the curse due to the Elect for sinne Briefly this Text Gen. 2.17 is Gods judiciall denunciation of the punishment of sinne with a reservation of his purpose concerning the execution of the execution of it The punishment is denounced to shew divine detestation of sin to deterre man from sin to leave man the more inexcusable in sin his purpose concerning the execution is reserved that the mystery of the Gospel might not be opened before its time This for the clearing of the Text. Since you dislike the last member of the disjunction you do ill to approve the former for thence it followeth Either that God is not true or else that Adam with his Elect posterity must perish for they sinned yet by your exposition neither die in themselves nor in their surety notwithstanding the Divine Commination and so either you take truth from God or salvation from the elect which also denieth the truth of God in the promise in your very entrance But why cannot the curse here threatned be extended unto the Redeemer Dialogu This Text doth not comprehend Jesus Christ within the compasse of it for this Text is a part of the Covenant only that God made with Adam and his posterity respecting the happinesse they had by Creation Answ Though Christ do not fall within the compasse of the Covenant of works it doth not thence follow that he is excluded the compasse of the Text. Damnation is no part of the Gospel yet it is a part of the verse wherein the Gospel is revealed He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved but he that beleeveth not shall be damned Adam in his eating intended and prohibited in this verse was a figure of Christ to come Rom. 5.14 Vel potiu◠ex ipso eventu Evangelij patefactione hunc typum Apostolu◠nos vult intelligere Pareus in loc Sequitur illam comminationem quo die comederis morieris ex intentione divinā non fuisse purè legalem c. Vide Rhetorf exercit pro div gratia ex 2. c. 2. 'T is certain then though Adam during the first Covenant perceived it not yet that Christ was couched and comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant 'T is very probable that the Tree of Life Gen. 2.9 was a Figure of Christ who is called and indeed is the Tree of life Rev. 22.2 If Christ be not within the compasse of the Text the Text is not true Dialogu Death here threatned concerns Adam and his fallen posterity only therefore Christ cannot be included within this Death Answ This is nakedly affirmed your reason annexed being impertinent and the contrary to your assertion is already proved Dialogu God laid down this rule of Justice to Adam in the time of innocency Why should the Mediatour be comprehended under the term Thou Answ Because God so pleased Because elect sinners not dying in their own persons must die in their surety else the Text should not be a truth Unde admirabilis Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cognoscitur qui in
morbo remedium in morte vitam in perditore â—ervatorem adumbratum voluit Paraeus in locum He that compareth Rom. 5.14 with Gen. 2.17 hath an unspeakable ground of consolation whilest he reades Gods purpose to redeem us in our first fathers sinning and we in him From hence Paul gathers an argument to conclude that all Adams posterity descended from him by way of ordinary generation to be guilty of Adams sin Whilest you acknowledge that in Gen. 2.17 God laid down a rule of justice to Adam you must needs imply the surety of the elect to have satisfied that rule of justice and consequently to have suffered the wrath of God and in conclusion you tacitely contradict your self and act our cause Dialogu The nature of death intended in this Text is such as it was altogether impossible the Mediatour should suffer it Answ The distinction premised concerning death in sin and death for sin is here to be applied and accordingly the castigatory part of death in sin was intended to the sinner not to the surety The essentiall part of death for sin was intended to the surety not to the elect sinner The essentiall and circumstantiall poenall part of death in sinne and death for sin was intended for the Reprobate The Text must needs proceed according to this interpretation in respect of the elect There iâ— as good and greater reason why it should so proceed in respect of Christ it being much more impossible that he should suffer death in sinne that is become a sinner then that the elect sinners should suffer poenall i. e. properly-poenall death for sinne that is be damned though both be impossible Dialogu The death here threatned must be understood primarily of a spirituall death or death in sin Answ All that you say concerning spiritual death befalling Adam in the day that he sinned and therefore primarily inflicted is vain and impertinent for that denyeth not the inflicting of eternall death to be intended afterward nay it rather argueth eternall death to be primarily intended because not executed according to that Proposition That which is first in intention is last in execution That which is of the essence or substance of the punishment of sin is primarily in the curse and therefore primarily to be understood but death for sin not death in sin is of the essence of the punishment of sin as we saw in the first Distinction Chapter the first Instead of proving your assertion viz. That it was impossible for Christ to suffer any of the cursed death intended Gen. 2.17 your arguing only proves another thing viz. that the death here primarily intended was spirituall death i. e. death in sinne which Christ could not suffer and so you lose your Question Though it be granted that death in sin be here understood primarily yet if death for sinne be understood secondarily then this argument concludes not against Christs suffering any death intended but only against his suffering the death primarily intended in the text Though death in sin compared with eternal death be primarily intended in regard of Adams reprobate posterity yet it cannot be said it was primarily intended in respect of Adam himself if you will yield him to be saved and his elect posterity because that would imply eternall death to be secondarily intended which was never at all intended as concerning them Howsoever certain it is that death for sin as concerning the essentiall poenall part thereof is solely intended concerning Christ and death in sin not at all Dialogu Calvin in Gen. 2.17 demandeth what kinde of death it was that God threatned to fall upon Adam in this Text he answereth to this purpose It seemeth to me saith he that we must fetch the definition thereof from the contrary Consider saith he from what life Adam fell at the first saith he he was created in every part of his body and soul with pure qualities after the image of God therefore on the contrary saith he by dying the death is meant that he should be emptied of all the image of God and possessed with corrupt qualities as soon as ever he did but eat of the forbidden fruit Answ It is a vain question saith Calvin upon the place how God threatned death unto Adam in the day wherein he touched the fruit since he deferred the punishment unto a long time afterward Your labour to confirm Adams falling into death in sin the same day that he sinned is altogether impertinent the Question being Whether â—uch poenall death for sin is not here intended as it was possible for Christ to suffer Mihi definitio petenda ex opposito videtur tenendum inquaÌ„ est ex quâ vitâ homo ceciderit erat enim omni ex parte beatus Calvin in loc That poenall death for sin is here intended Calvin proveth though you omit his proof by the nature of opposites thus The death that he fell into was opposite to the good he fell from But the good he fell from was all kinde of blessednesse Therefore the death he fell into comprehended all kindes of misery This is the scope of his argumentation your mistake thereof though it is easily pardoned yet your other defect in the citation the Reader that compareth Calvin and the Dialogue together can hardly excuse Dialogu If there be good and necessary reason as there is to exempt our Mediatour from suffering the first cursed spirituall death then there is good reason also to exempt him from suffering any other curse of the Law whatsoever Answ The sum is Christ could not sinne Therefore he could not suffer the punishment due to the elect for sin as a surety a most reason-lesse and sick consequence and the contrary true He could not as Mediator and Surety have suffered satisfactorily the punishment for sinne if he had not been without sinne Though Christ was not a sinner inherently yet he was a sinner imputatively whereupon the substantiall curse of the Law was justly executed upon him Dialogu Examine the particulars of any other curse of the Law and they will be found to be such as Christ could not suffer Diseases naturall death putrefaction of body after death eternall death are curses of the Law Christ did not bear diseases and bodily infirmities yet by the common doctrine of imputation you must affirm it nor suffer naturall death in our stead nor see corruption nor suffer eternall death therefore he did not suffer the cursed death meant Gen. 2.17 Answ We are to distinguish between the sufferings which are of the essence or substance of the curse and those the inflicting whereof in particular is not of the essence of the curse Bodily diseases Putrefaction the duration of punishment for ever are not essentiall to the curse because the wrath of God may be suffered where these are not The Devils are not sick the reprobate that shall not die but be changed therefore not see coruption yet shall suffer the wrath of God No reprobates endure all miseries
formally and individually yet all suffer the wrath of God Eternall death is an evill not in kinde but in value not formally but virtually As the enjoyment of blessednesse doth not presuppose all temporall good things enjoyed in kinde so neither doth the suffering of the wrath of God suppose the suffering of all temporall evils in kinde Duration of punishment for ever is not of the substance of punishment but is an adjunct following upon the inability of the Patient to satisfie justice as continuance in prison is no part of the debt but the consequent of the debtors inability to pay the debt the punishment of the damned continueth for ever because they can never satisfie divine justice The punishment of Christ endured but a time because he satisfied justice The sufferings of Christ were eternall in value though temporall in duration Mors aeterna duratione pondere Paraeus in Rom. 3. Willet Synops cen 5. gen cont 28. par 4. qu. 3. had they been eternall in duration he had been overcome by the curse had they not been eternall in value he had not overcome the curse Christ suffered death as inflicted upon him by the justice of the curse Gal. 3.13 1 Pet. 2.24 hanging on the tree was a type therefore a divine testimony of a cursed death The curse notes the execution of justice and that executed upon sin in our stead Rom. 5.25 Who was delivered for our offences The bodily death of Christ alone did not redeem our bodies nor the spirituall death of Christ alone redeem our souls but the whole suffering of that person who was God In respect of his humane nature both body and soul from the instant of his incarnation to the instant of his death redeemed our whole persons both bodies and souls Those places of Scripture which attribute our redemption unto his bloud are to be understood synechdochically mentioning a more visible part of his sufferings for the whole Dialogu My reasons why Christ could not suffer eternall death for our redemption therefrom are first Then he must have suffered all other curses of the Law to redeem us from them but I have shewed that utterly impossible immediatly before 2. Then he did descend locally into hell it self to suffer it there for no man can suffer death eternall in this life no man can suffer the second death till after this Life is ended Answ Your first reason is in effect satisfied in the foregoing answer where we saw that Christ suffered the eternall wrath of God and consequently eternall death in value equivalent unto yea exceeding of eternall death in kinde it doth not follow that he must suffer all the other curses of the Law in kinde but the contrary followeth he hath satisfied the debt therfore there can be no more required Sufferings for sin as we have divers times said before are such as are poenall essentially viz. in respect of the punishment considered in it self namely the privation of the present fruition of the good of the promise and inflicting of the sinlesse misery of the curse or consequentially viz. not in respect of the punishment it self but in respect of the condition of the Patient such are called detestable consequents namely sins imperfections c. And evils that are proper to the reprobate 3. Innumerable common sorrows of this life 4. The duration of the punishment for ever As the eternall vertue of Christs sufferings redeemed us from the eternity of suffering formally so Christ in suffering the wrath of God formally suffered virtually whatsoever was due to the Elect for their sin and so by suffering redeemed us from all the properly-poenall curses of the Law whatsoever 'T is true Heb. 2.17 and 4.15 Omnis poena damnatorū his duobus continetur generibus ut aliae pertineant ad corpus aliae ad animam Cham. 1.2 l. 5. c. 19. s 14. in all points he was like unto us sin only excepted in All generically not individually that is in All in respect of the generall kindes of temptation namely both bodily and spiritually but not in All in respect of each particular passion and malady As concerning your second Reason The place of punishment is not of the essence of punishment Malefactors may and oft do suffer out of the ordinary place of execution The devil alwaies suffers hellish pains in some degree yet is many times out of the place of hell Souls in this life feel the wrath of God in some degree 't is not impossible then in respect of the thing it self but that it may be felt in its full degree Christ felt the joys of heaven out of heaven in his transfiguration and after his Resurrection so he both might and did feel the pains of hell out of hell There is a poenall hell and a locall hell a poenall hell may be where there is not a locall hell 'T is from the free dispensation of God not from the nature of the things themselves that the full measure of the wrath of God is not ordinarily executed in this life As Enoch and Eliah entred into the joys of heaven without death So if God please may a person enter into the pains of hell without death The Reprobate alive at the last day shall not die and yet shall suffer the pains of eternall death The distinction of the first and second Death in respect of the order of the execution holds only concerning the Reprobate Christ suffered the essentiall poenall wrath of God which answers the suffering of the second death due to the elect for their sin before he suffered his naturall death Dialogu If Christ bare Adams sin by Gods imputation and his curse really then you make Christ to be dead in sinne Answ We distinguish between the imputation of the Commission of sin and the imputation of the guilt i.e. the obligation of the punishment God imputed not unto Christ the guilt of Commission of sin but the guilt of obligation unto punishment for sin committed and because so the contrary followeth from our doctrine viz. that Christ is not dead in sin As it is not the inherent righteousnesse of or actuall working of Righteousnesse by Christ Willet Synops but the vertue power and efficacy which is imputed to the beleever so it is not the inherence or commission of sin but the guilt and punishment of sin that is imputed to a Beleever Dialogu Consider the true force of the Word Impute in the naturall signification thereof and then I beleeve you will acknowledge that it cannot stand with the justice of God to impute our sins to our innocent Saviour for to impute sin to any is to account them for guilty sinners and to impute the guilt of other mens sins to any is to account them guilty of other mens sins by participation Answ To impute in Court-language is judicially to reckon unto a person either that which is his properly and not only as a Legall Surety so sin is imputed to the
Hence in your saying he bare sin ergo not by imputation you may see your self intangled in a contradiction and the argument turning head directly against you In but saying so and not proving it you beg but do not prove what you say Synonima's are divers words signifying the same thing but death bearing sinne intercession are doubtlesse divers things though they concurre as ingredients into the same whole of Mediatorship Those other words OF ATONEMENT are here only superadded unto your reason immediatly before-going and were also necessarily implied there this then being the same reason with the former the former Answer may satisfie both The force of this reason is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sursum tulit Piscat in 1 Pe. 2.24 Christs sacrifice was effectuall to procure Atonement therefore sin was not imputed to him a meer non-sequitur nay the contrary consequence is true Christ appeared that is was manifested in the flesh to put away sin Heb. 9.26 28. was once offered to bear the sins of many ver 28. The greek word used here by Paul and elsewhere by Peter 1 Pet. 2.24 signifieth to take carry or bear up op high and that so as to bear away and is an allusion unto the whole burnt-offering that we may then have the clear and full sense of the Apostles phrase we must inform our selves as concerning the type or manner how the burnt-offering was laid upon the Altar whereunto the crosse is in some respect tacitly compared which was thus The Person that brought the sacrifice was to put his hand lay his hand saith Ainsworth upon the head thereof yet living Lev. 1.4 as confessing his guilt and putting or imputing it upon the Beast to be sacrificed Compare Exo. 29.10 Lev. 4.24 29. 5.5 6. 16.21 By the like ceremony of Imposition of hands sin was charged both for the testifying of the accusation and the stoning of the offender Deut. 17.7 Guilt thus typically imputed to the Beast it was slain and laid upon the Altar The Apostle then whilest he is speaking of the Antitype choosing out such a word to expresse Christs bearing of sin teacheth us thereby that Christ did both carry up and bear the load of our sins imputed to him upon the crosse and also bear them clear away and thus Isaiah Paul and Peter sweetly agree together and interpret one another as concerning Christs bearing the imputation of guilt and punishment of sin Dialogu If you will build the common doctrine of imputation upon this phrase The Lord laid all our iniquities upon Christ then by the same phrase you must affirm that the father laid all our sins upon himself by imputing the guilt of our sins to himself for the father is said to bear our sins as well as Christ Psal 25.18 32.1 and elsewhere Answ This place is but one of very many whereupon the doctrine of Imputation is builded The Hebrew word NASA signifieth sometimes to take up a burden simply as is to be seen in the places mentioned by you sometimes to sustain or bear a burthen as a Porter beareth it Levit. 5.1 Numb 18.1 Deut. 1.31 Isa 49.12 the word therefore is to be interpreted according to the nature of the agent spoken of Christ beareth away our sins as the surety by satisfying the debt God taketh away sin as the creditor by acquitting the debtor upon satisfaction given Your reasoning is as if one should say Upon the paiment of the debt to the Creditor by the Surety the Creditor dischargeth the debt Therefore the Creditor payeth the debt Sure you mistake your self in arguing out of this Text from the word NASA against concluding the doctrine of Imputation therefrom because the word NASA is not in the Text. Dialogu Those three terms Blessed is the man whose transgression is born whose sin is covered whose iniquity is not imputed are Synonima's and they do sweetly expound each other and they do also set out the true manner how sinners are made just and blessed namely when their sins are born away covered and not imputed by the fathers mercifull atonement pardon and forgivenesse Answ Paul alledging these words of David Rom. 4. sheweth us that the Psalmists scope therein was to teach us justification by faith Paul findes imputation of righteousnesse Rom. 4.6 in Davids not imputation of sin Psal 32.1.2 Imputation of righteousnesse the effect whereof is our justification consisting of the not-imputing of unrighteousnesse and the accepting of us as righteous Paul teacheth expresly David by consequence The justification of a sinner held out by the Dialogue which not only denies it self to be the effect of but also denies and well nigh defies the very being of Christs mediatorly obedience to the Law is a pestilent fiction You here preproperate your conceit concerning the formall cause of justification but of it in its proper place Dialogu The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is translated in ver 6. hath laid upon is translated in the 12. ver of this 35. ch hath made intercession and therefore the Verb signifying both incurrere fecit and intercessit is too weak a foundation for the doctrine of imputation and of Christs suffering Gods wrath Answ If this reason holds then your own translating the word in Hebrew Psa 22.1 Why hast thou left me will not hold because the same word elsewhere signifieth to help up or fortifie Neh. 3.8 and 4.2 Piaculum significat sacrificium flagitium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat sanctum profanum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat benè precari male precari Who indifferently acquainted with the Languages is ignorant that one Hebrew root hath not only various but sometimes contrary significations the like whereof is observed in other and may be in our English tongue in such cases which signification is here or there intended the learned know how they know it is not here the place to speak The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by vertue of the conjugation signifieth to cause to meet together upon a heap the root signifieth properly to meet one or fall upon metaphorically to intercede because the intercessor doth as it were meet the offended by his prayers and interposes between him and the offender We look at this text not as a foundation but as a solid argument of imputation CHAP. VI. The Vindication of Exod. 20.10 Lev. 1.4 4.29 Lev. 8.14 16.20 21. Dialogu EVery owner must impose both his hands upon the head of the sin-offering this imposition of hands did as the assertors of the doctrine of imputation say typifie the Lords laying our sin upon Christ by imputation and so godly expositors do understand it See Exo. 20.10 Lev. 1.4 and 4.29 and 8.14 and 16.20 21. Answ Aaron and his sons imposed their hands on the head of the sin-offering Exod. 29.10 the owner thereof laid on his hands Lev. 1.4 and 4.29 the Elders of the Congregation lay on their hands Lev. 4.15 the Priests Lev. 4.4 8.14 Aaron
as Christs were are moved according to the nature of the object so much therefore as bodily death is a lesse evil then eternall death so much is the regular trouble of humane nature conflicting therewithall lesse then that trouble which it is capable of suffering in case of its conflicting with eternall death All mankinde ought to desire and endeavour to preserve their naturall lives as much as lies in them in the use of means Dialogu and therefore seeing Christ as he was true man could not prevent his death by the use of means he was bound to be troubled for the sense of death as much as any other man Answ But it was more then manifest that his trouble exceeded the trouble of any other man as concerning meer naturall death Other men conflicting with death by reason of sin do not conflict only with death other men conflicting with naturall death conflict also often with eternall death Christ according to you conflicted only with a naturall death how do you say then without any distinction he was bound to be troubled with fear of death as much as any other man Christs meer inability as man to prevent death by the use of means or other mens inability thereunto and that at such times when they were not wanting on their part neither was it their duty to endeavour continuance of life but on the contrary to give up themselves to death such as was the present case of Christ and was long before the case of Isaac and oftentimes hath been the case of the Martyrs who notwithstanding have given up their lives with joy cannot be looked at as a reason of his or their being bound to be so troubled with the fear of death Dialogu These were the true causes why Christ was so much pained in his minde with the fear of death not only that night before his death but at other times also even long before Answ It 's true Christ often in his life time made mention of his passion but it 's most untrue that he looked at a bodily death as the only matter of it the two causes alledged were not the true causes why he was so much pained with fear Luk. 12.50 sheweth Christ not only to be held back with the fear of his sufferings on the one hand but also that he was urged forward with the remembrance of the counsell of God and the good of the Elect on the other hand between these was he straigthned whilest it was accomplished whereunto Calvins interpretation of the place agreeth Dialogu But Mathew and Mark in the place cited speak only of these sorrows which fell upon him in the night before his death Mathew saith he began grievously to be troubled i.e. he began afresh to be troubled with a neerer apprehension af his death then formerly M. Calvin in his Harmony upon those words speaks to this effect We have seen saith he our Lord wrestling with the fear of death before but now saith he he buckleth his hands with the temptation Matthew cals it the beginning of sorrow Answ Be it so that he began to be troubled with the nearer approach of his death then formerly this maketh nothing to prove your assertion viz. that the death approaching was a bodily death onely The sufferings that fell upon Christ before his sufferings in the garden because they were in degree much lesse then those that followed are conveniently distinguished from them that fell upon him in the garden and afterward Calvins meaning is that he conflicted before with the fear of death but now with the sight of death he meaneth not a meer bodily death only as you say but such a death as wherein saith he he took upon him the curse and wherein our sins whose burthen was laid upon him pressed him with a mighty weight and wherein he felt that he had to doe with the judgement of God Those words of Mathew c. 24.8 All these are the beginnings of sorrow are spoken either in reference to the destruction of Jerusalom or the end of the world but not to the passion of Christ Dialogu By these sentences out of M. Calvin we may see that Christ was deeply touched with the fear of death for he wept and groaned in spirit and troubled himself for the death of Lazarus Answ Though Calvin speaking of those words John 11.38 inclineth to think that Christ by occasion of Lazarus death called to minde his own death yet you deceive your self not a little in conceiving thence as if Calvin thought that the death of Christ was no other then a bodily death and such as the death of Lazarus Upon this occasion therefore and the rather because of your so frequently quoting of Calvin it may be seasonable to present you with Calvins judgement in this point that so it may appear how well Calvin and the Dialogue agree herein The Dialogue saith Christ made all this adoe about a meer bodily death only and that he suffered not any degree of Gods wrath at all Calvin saith but whence is there both heavinesse Vnde autem illi maeror c. Calvin in Mat. 26.36 Atque hic rursus tanti maeroris Idem Instit l. 2. c. 16. s 10. anxiety and fear upon him except because he conceived something more sad and horrible then the separation of the soul from the body And here again we ought to call to minde the cause of so great fear for neither would the death of the Son of God by it self have so tortured him except he had perceived that he had to do with the judgement i.e. the divine justice of God Christs death had been of none effect if he had suffered only a bodily death And truly if his soul had not been partaker of pain he had been only a Redeemer of our bodies The same Authour speaking upon Isa 53.6 saith that he was put instead of the wicked doers as a surety and pledge yea and as the very guilty person himself to abide and suffer all the punishment that should have been laid upon him Calv. instit l. 2. c. 16. s 13. Moreover in answer to some who being confuted leaned as he saith to another cavillation that though Christ feared death yet he feared not the curse and wrath of God from which he knew himself to be safe After other discourse he useth words to this effect whereby it appeareth saith he that those triflers against whom I now dispute boldly babble upon things they know not because they never earnestly considered what it is or of how great importance it is that we be redeemed from the judgement of God thus far Calvin Dialogu I cannot apprehend that he was afraid of the wrath of God for our sin in the night before his death for then he could not have said as he did I have set the Lord alwaies before my eyes he 's at my right hand Psa 16.8 therefore I shall not be moved I cannot apprehend that his troubled fear
fear of death by prayers therefore there was a necessity for him to pray and to strive in prayer untill he had overcome it as I shall further explain the matter by and by in Heb. 5.7 Answ There can no reason be given why the fear of naturall death should be as much as the humane nature of Christ could bear without sin because the object of that fear may be and is much exceeded paenal-spiritual death is a greater object of fear incomparably Dialogu Again Because the humane nature of Christ whatever had been inflicted upon it could not have sinned there can no sufficient reason be given why Christ should fear naturall death either more or so much as other men there being therefore not such a measure of fear in Christ of naturall death as the Dialogue affirmeth there was no such fear foretold nor was his earnest prayer to be delivered from that fear which could not be what it was and what he praied to be delivered from we shall see where you promise us to explain Heb. 5.7 We must observe the due time of every action the manner the place and the persons and all other circumstances to fullfill every circumstance just as the Prophets had foretold nothing must fail if he had failed in the least circumstance he had failed in all and his humane nature could not be exact in these circumstances without the concurrence of the divine nature in all these respects his naturall fear of death could not chuse but be very often in his minde and as often to put him unto pain till he had overcome it Answ As things were foretold by the Prophets concerning Christ so he fullfilled them Act. 3.18 Luke 22.37 that there might be a ready concurrence of the divine nature with the humane for the enabling of it unto the fullfilling of them he was both God and man Heb. 9.14 Rom. 1.4 there could not therefore be in Christ any fear as concerning his failing to fullfill his office to the utmost Your mentioning other causes though false of Christs fear besides his naturall death is a secret acknowledgement that his conflict with the fear of naturall death only was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows felt before his death Dialogu Scanderbeg was in such an agony when he was fighting against the Turks that the bloud hath been seen to burst out of his lips with very eagernesse of spirit only I have heard also from credible persont that Alexander the great did sweat bloud in the couragious defence of himself and others The sweaeting sicknesse caused many to sweat out of their bodies a bloudy humour and yet many did recover and live many years after but if their sweating bloud had been a sign of Gods wrath upon their souls as you say it was in Christ then I think they could not have lived any longer by the strength of nature Answ The effusion of certain drops of bloud at Scanderbergs lips through the commotion of his spirits was no sweat Your information concerning Alexander in all probability is a mistake there being no such matter reported of him by the ordinary Historiographers of his life It was but a bloudy humour if so and in a time of sicknesse not bloud Arist l. 3. depart animal c. 5. l. 3. De Historia anim c. 9. Fernelius lib. 6. that you mention at the sweating sicknesse Aristotle reports of one that sometimes sweat a kinde of bloudy excrement which yet he looked at proceeding from an evil disposition of the body Theophrastus confirmeth the same Fernelius writes that he saw bloud effused out of the extremity of the veins through infirmity of the Liver and the Retentive faculty Lib. de dignosc morb c. 11. 8. Vid. Gerh. Herm. in Luc. 22.43 Rondelettius tels us that he saw in the year 1547. a kinde of bloudy sweat in a certain Student occasioned by some defects of the veins bones and thinness of bloud Maldonat upon Mat. 26. makes mention of a man at Paris strong and in health who having received the sentence of death was bedewed with a bloudy sweat But this bloudy sweat of Christ properly so flowing from such a person and free from all distemper either of body or minde and in such a manner and plenty as Luke reports differed much from all these Whether the sweat of Christ were naturall or miraculous we leave it to them that have leisure and skill to enquire though the Evangelist mentioneth it as an effect proceeding from a greater cause then the fear of a meet naturall death all which notwithstanding yet is not our doctrine built only or chiefly upon this Argument Dialogu Do but consider a little more seriously what an horrid thing to nature the approach of death is see in how many horrid expressions David doth describe it Psa 116.3 18.4 55.4 5. Answ There were many times many causes why David was much afraid of death none of which are to be found in Christ yet you make Christ much more afraid of death then David was Though death be horrid unto nature yet not so to faith much lesse so horrid as to cause affections of fear above the nature of the evil feared that is erring affections in an unerring subject Dialogu Suppose Adam in innocency had grapled with the fear of death like enough it would have caused a violent sweat over all his body Answ Adam being a sinner did grapple with death Genes 5.5 without any such sweat mentioned doubtlesse Adam innocent would not have been inferiour to Adam a sinner Christ was much superiour to Adam innocent though you make him inferiour in this matter to Adam a sinner Dialogu It 's no strange new doctrine to make the naturall fear of death to be the cause of Christs agony seeing other learned men do affirm it Christopher Carlile in his Treatise of Christs desceut into hell p. 46. saith thus Was not Christ extreamly afflicted when he for fear of death sweat drops in quantity as thick as drops of bloud John Fryth a godly Martyr saith thus in his answer to Sir Thomas Moor B. 2. Christ did not only weep but he feared so sore that he sweat drops like drops of bloud running down upon the earth which was more then to weep Now saith he if I should ask you why Christ feared and sweat so sore what would you answer me was it for fear of the pains of purgatory he that shall so answer is worthy to be laughed to scorn wherefore then was it Verily even for the fear of death as it appeareth plainly by his prayer for he prayed to his Father saying If it be possible let this cup passe from me Answ These Authours I not having by me cannot examine the quotations their words therefore rather better bearing the sense of the Orthodox then the sense of the Dialogue charity untill the contrary appeareth construeth in the best sense M. Fryth's other writings call to have it so But though
and we delivered from the dominion of death i. e. of the cursed death of the crosse therefore he suffered the curse i. e. the wrath of God Dialogu Neither doth the word Fear in this Text signifie such an amazed naturall fear of death as the other word Fear doth signifie Mar. 14.33 which word I have expounded to signifie our Saviours troubled naturall fear of death and no more Answ According to you Fear Mar. 14.33 signifieth naturall fear of death and no more but Fear Heb. 5.7 signifieth a godly fear lest he should offend God by his unwillingnesse to die that is Mark speaks of a naturall fear of a naturall evil the Authour to the Hebrews of a morall fear of a morall evill a distinction as vain as weak without any warrant The object of fear in both places is the same why should not the affection of fear at least for the kinde of it be the same He offered up prayers with strong cries Heb. 5.7 and Jesus cried with a loud voice Mar. 14.37 Dialogu And therefore it caused him in the daies of his flesh to offer up many prayers and supplications with strong cries and tears unto him that was able to save him from death namely from his natural fear of death and he was heard because of his godly fear Just now you interpreted the word Death in the Text properly he prayed say you to be delivered from the dominion of death now you interpret it figuratively namely for the naturall fear of death one and the same word especially not being typicall is capable but of one sense in the same place As concerning the meaning of the place There are no greater asserters of Christs suffering the wrath of God then those who translate the Greek word by Reverence understanding it causally viz. that Christ was heard for that humble reverence wherewith he was affected towards God in his prayers yet those who translate it Fear give many reasons leading thereunto How terrible is eternall death if naturall death be called the King of terrour Job 18.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza in loc Cham. de descen Bellarm. enerv t. 1. l. 2. c. 2. 1. The proper signification of the word 2. The frequent use of it in this sense by Greek Authours both sacred and secular as also Philosophers Historiographers and Poets 3. Analogy of Scripture 4. The mention of death that great object of fear together with the affection of fear in the same verse And Lastly Because the Greek praeposition annexed thereunto doth not well agree with the translation of it by reverence For though the praeposition according to Bellarmines instances is read with a genitive case and noteth the internall cause of an action yet it never is observed to signifie the externall moving cause of an action which is the present case Pareus who disalloweth neither of the interpretations yet thinks the Syriack interpreter to have best understood the place and cleared the text rendreth it thus Vid. Bezam Paraeum in loc who also in the daies of his flesh offered prayers and supplications with strong cries and tears unto him that was able to save him from death and was heard And though he were a son yet learned he obedience from his fear and the things which he suffered Tremellius followeth him and Beza dislikes him not herein the sense being the same CHAP. X. The Vindication of Psa 22.1 Psa 22.1 My God My God why hast thou forsaken me Dialogu MAny Divines conclude from this Text that God did forsake his son in his anger because he had imputed to him all our sins but yet other Divines differ from them M. Broughton saith My God My God sheweth that Christ was not forsaken of God but that God was his hope 2. Saith he The word forsaken is not in the Text but Why dost thou leave me namely why dost thou leave me to the griefs following from the malice of the Jews as they are expressed in the body of the Psalm 3. Saith he None ever expounded one matter and made his amplification of another but Psal 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by men and not from Gods anger Therefore the Proposition in the first verse is not a complaint to God that he forsook his soul in anger for our sinnes M. Robert Wilmot sheweth at large that the term forsaken is not so proper to this place as the term leave and he doth parallell it with the word leave in Psal 16.10 M. Ainsworth saith the Hebrew word which we translate forsaken may be translated why leavest thou me And he saith in a Letter to my self that there is no materiall difference between leaving and forsaking so as the meaning be kept sound Therefore it followeth by good consequence that Christ doth not complain Psa 22. that God had forsaken him in anger for our sins Answ The Hebrew word as also the Syriack used by our Saviour Mat. 27.46 and the Greek word used here by the Septuagint signifyeth to leave another helplesse in their necessity or extremiry which appeareth not only in its frequent use in the Scripture but also in that this very word per Antiphrasin it being one of those Hebrew words that have two contrary significations signifyeth to help up that which is down or fortifie Nehem. 3.8 4.2 and such leaving we usually expresse by forsaking and accordingly its read by Latin Expositors promiscuously who all do in effect say with M Ainsworth there is no materiall difference betwixt leaving and forsaking so as the meaning be kept sound which with M. Ainsworth was but with you is not therefore you chuse leaving which with us is more generall and refuse forsaking which is a more proper term The Hebrew word then signifying to Forsake the word forsaken is in the Text more proper then the word leave contrary to M. Broughton The leaving or forsaking here is not only bodily but chiefly spirituall The matter propounded in the first verse and amplified in the body of the Psalm is the same namely the passion of Christ Psa 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by men instrumentally and by Gods anger as the efficient cause Gods anger and mens herein are not opposite but subordinate one to another Anger in Scripture is taken sometimes for the hatred of God unto a person sometime for the execution of vindicative justice in the latter sense God was angry with Christ not in the former Separation from God in sense or feeling Absolute separation from God this second was in Christ Perk. Gal. 3.13 Forsaking is either totall and finall so God forsakes the Reprobate or partial and temporal as concerning the fruition and sense of the good of the promise so God forsook Christ and of this forsaking Christ complaineth in this place being a principall part of that punishment which Christ as the surety of the Elect was to undergo the words clearly holding forth this truth the Text neither according to Grammaticall sense nor Analogy of
faith can admit of any better interpretation Christ in his death was made sin imputatively that is he suffered the guilt and punishment of sin a chief part whereof was this divine paenall desertion his death was joyned with the curse made up of the pain of sense and the pain of losse If the pain of losse be not joyned with the pain of sense there can be no sufficient cause given of so bitter and lamentable a cry for that person who was God man therefore it follows by good consequence that Christ doth complain Psa 22. that God had forsaken him in anger for our sinne Dialogu Our Saviours complaint must run thus Why hast thou left me into the hands of my malignant adversaries to be used as a notorious malefactor It 's not so fit a phrase to say Why hast thou forsaken me into the hands of my malignant adversaries as to say Why hast thou left me into the hands of my malignant adversaries Answ Our Saviours complaint runs so in your interpretation namely as concerning men but it runs not so according to truth either only or chiefly He was not only a notorious malefactor though unjustly according to men as you would have it but he was a notorious malefactor having upon him the guilt of the sinnes of the Elect by imputation and that justly before God It is as fit a phrase to say Why hast thou forsaken me in the hands of my malignant adversaries as to say Why hast thou left me into the hands of my malignant adversaries The words of the Psalmist are Why hast thou forsaken me or Why hast thou left me and no more the addition fit or unfit is the Dialogues paraphrase not the Psalmists phrase Dialogu God forsakes the damned totally and finally because there is no place of repentance left open to them but he did not so forsake his son neither did he forsake his son by any inward desertion as he doth sometimes forsake his own people for the triall of their grace but he left his son only outwardly when he left him into the hands of Tyrants to be punished as a malefactor without any due triall of his cause Answ Rather there is no place of repentance left open to the damned because they are forsaken totally and finally we say that Christ was forsaken paenally yet partially and temporally not totally and finally Christ was forsaken in way of trial though not only nor principally in way of triall Luke 22.28 Heb. 2.18 4.15 And he was in all points tempted like unto us Dialogu Therefore the complaint of Christ lies fair and round thus Why hast thou left me in my righteous cause unto the will of my malignant adversaries to be condemned and put to death as a wicked Malefactor Answ This is but the same in effect in more words with what you lately said in fewer words and therefore receiveth the same answer Dialogu John Hus appealed to Jesus Christ for justice saying My God My God why hast thou forsaken me Ammond de la Roy Martyr in the time of his torments said Lord Lord why hast thou forsaken me Answ It 's a most lame and sick consequence The Martyrs or others in the time of their desertions under the castigatory wrath of God complained in these words therefore Christ suffered not paenall desertion As weak is the other consequence God for the manifestation of his glory in the witnessing of his truth for the good example of others the discovery of the tyranny of Antichrist forsook David and others with a castigatory desertion therefore he forsook not Christ with a paenal desertion for the manifestation of the glory of his justice Dialogu Christopher Carlile upon the Article of Christs descent into hell saith not one word of the suffering of his fathers wrath yet he makes use of Psal 22.1 and of M. Calvins judgement in other points though he doth differ from him in his exposition of Psa 22.1 Answ If he doth differ from him without reason we may oppose Calvins authority with reason against his without it It 's not the authority of Calvin that concludes for much lesse the authority of Carlile that concludes against but the reason of either according to truth that determines the question Dialogu The holy Ghost hath indited this Psalm by the Prophet David in the Person of Christ If so then all the words of this Psalm must have relation to the person of Christ The Psalm it self hath two principal parts the first is from ver 1. to 21. in all which Christ doth complain to his father of his unjust usage by his malignant Adversaries the 2d part of the Psalm is from the 22. ver to the end Answ The inditing of the Psalm by David with the distribution thereof nothing disproveth the desertion mentioned vers 1. to proceed from the wrath of God In this Psalm Christ complaineth of his unjust usage by his malignant adversaries but not of that only nor principally The passions whereof Christ complaineth in this Psalm may be conveniently distributed into four heads The suffering the wrath of God ver 1.2.11 The grief of his spirit by reproaches ver 6 7 8 17 18. His fear from the cruelty of his enemies vers 12 13 16 20 21. The torture of his body by crucifying ver 14.15 16 17. the greatest whereof was the sense of the wrath of God Dialogu Therefore seeing Christ in this place doth double the term of his affiance in God saying My God My God it proves evidently that God had not forsaken his Son in anger for our sins but that God was still his hope and that he would at last turn all his sufferings but unto the tryal of his perfect obedience Answ Of forsaking and anger we have distinguished before where we saw that God forsook Christ temporally and partially in executing upon him as our surety the vindicative justice due to the elect for their sins all which consists fully With this stedfast and unshaken affiance in God Therefore his sufferings were not only in way of testimony but also in way of satisfaction to divine justice Dialogu Why art thou then so far from my help and from the words of my roaring Why dost thou leave me unto the will of my malignant adversaries notwithstanding my prayers and my righteous cause Answ You wrong the Text in restraining it unto the wrath of man Christ principally if not wholly herein looks unto the wrath of God Our Lords complaint here expressed by a Metaphor of roaring is by the Evangelists called crying with a loud voice Mat. 27.46 Mar. 15.34 Luke 23.46 By Paul strong crying Heb. 5.7 This last Text M. Ainsworth cites to the same purpose whose judgement the Dialogue seems much to account of Dialogu My heart is melted in the midst of my bowels that is to say the evil spirit that is in my malignant Adversaries and their doctors do make my humane affections to melt in the midst of my bowels Answ If
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
appeareth by the causall particle For who proveth the fore-going part of the Text which is his answer to the objection raised as we saw before out of vers 10. namely Christ hath redeemed c. by the following part for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree If those words Gal. 3.13 Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree and that Text Deut. 21.23 have both but one and that the same one sense what then hinders that the foregoing part of the verse namely redemption of us from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us is true of every one that was hanged upon a tree in Judea from Moses time until the passion of Christ inclusively the latter words containing in them a proof of the former as we saw just now from the causative particle For. Then which inference what is more abominable The typicall reason excepted namely of signifying Christ bearing the morall curse upon the tree there can be no sufficient nor probable reason given why hanging upon a tree should infame and fasten upon the person hanged this speciall curse whence followed the defiling of the Land in case the body continued unburied after Sun-set above all other capitall sufferings For were all received which is said by the Hebrew Doctors that is not repugnant unto Scripture yet it is certain that some crimes for which they were hanged were not so great as some crimes which were punished according to other capitall sentences without hanging As also that hanging after the manner of the Jews was not so painfull as some other deaths in use with them Adde hereunto which is also acknowledged by you that the Jews manner was often to hang them not alive but after they were dead yet not he that is stoned alive to death is accursed but he that is hanged though first stoned to death is accursed hanging after stoning though it be acknowledged yet it is not so clearly expressed in Scripture as burning after stoning is Josh 7.25 burning the body to ashes was as sore an execution in it self as hanging up the body for a short space There were Malefactors hanged before the giving of this Law Deu. 21.23 yet we reade not that they were accursed during the space between the giving of this Law and the Passion of Christ a malefactor hanged out of Judea was not accursed In Iudea no person how great a malefector soever if not hanged was thus accursed The person hanged was equally accursed whether he was hanged alive or dead whether he was hanged after this manner or after that Jewish or Romane c. whether his crime were more hainous or not so hainous yea for ought appeareth though he were innocent yet if hanged judicially he was accursed Since the Passion of Christ hanging in Iudea is not ceremonially accursed For otherwise saith Iunius neither according to the Law of nature nor according to civill Law Nam alioqui neque secundum naturae legem c. Junius paral lib. 2. par 52. nor in respect of the thing it self is he that is hanged accursed seeing therefore the cause why the carcasse of him that is hanged must not continue all night unburied is ceremoniall Christ being the body and fullfilling of the ceremonies it is no doubt but in this ceremoniall curse Moses himself being a Type of our eternall Mediatour had respect unto our eternall and perfect mediation This Exposition making the man that was hanged upon a tree a ceremoniall curse and Christ hanged upon a tree a morall curse is both generally received and every way agreeing to the analogy of faith which is a rule of interpreting Scripture In that Christ Gal. 3.13 is expresly said to be a curse it will thence unavoidably follow that sinne was some way judicially upon Christ for we reade of no curse inflicted according to the determinate and revealed way of proceeding with the reasonable creature but presupposeth sin Wherefore he could neither have been made a curse nor die since the only cause of the curse and of death is sin from the which he was free Luther in Gal. 3.13 but because he had taken upon him our sins So Luther This Proposition then Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree is a typicall proposition and containeth in it these two truths 1. That every one that hangeth upon a tree in Iudea from the promulgation of that curse untill the Passion of Christ inclusively is ceremonially accursed i. e. all that are hanged shall be infamed with this speciall infamy that the carcasses of such in case they be not buried before Sun-set shall defile the Land 2. That Christ in testimony that he redeemed us by beating the morall curse should be hanged upon a tree Est enim propria destinata Jun. in Deut. 21.23 Suspensi propter crimen capitale c. Pisc obs in Deut. 21. Park de desc l. 3. For Christ our Saviour by this manner saith Iunius speaking of hanging upon the crosse is figured by a ceremony proper appointed of God and singular who as the Apostle excellently delivereth Gal. 3.13 was made a curse for us They that were hanged for a capitall crime amongst the Israelites typified Christ who was to be hanged upon a tree for the sins of the Elect Piscator Parker in his learned discourse of the Descent of Christ into hell not only owneth and useth the distinction of the judiciall and morall curse but saith also that the malediction of the morall Law may be proved by the malediction of the judiciall Law How farre M. Ainsworth Ainsw on Exo. 27.1 who though the Dialogue often quote him in this controversie is wholly ours is like minded judge by his ensuing words upon Deut. 21.23 and here in the utmost rigour and severity of the Law God saith he fore-signified the riches of his grace toward sinners in Christ who redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us as appeared in that he was hanged upon a tree Gal. 3.13 This premised for the clearing of the Text let us see why according to you the word Curse in those words being made a curse for us Gal. 3.13 doth not signifie the morall and eternall but an outward and temporall curse Dialogu This latter curse is no other then an outward temporary curse for the text in Deut. 21 22. runs thus If there be in a man a sin worthy of death and thou hang him on a tree c. then he that is hanged is the curse of God What curse of God is it that is meant I answer that may be discerned by taking notice of what kinde of persons and for what kinde of sin this curse of God doth fall upon any The persons the Text describes them thus namely he that is put to death as a Malefactor by the Magistrate The kinde of sins that are said to deserve this curse of hanging upon a tree are described by this generall
term a sinne worthy of death namely of this death hence it is evident that not every sinne that deserved death is here meant but such as deserved a double death namely 1. Stoning to death 2. Hanging up of their bodies upon a tree after they were stoned to death Answ Though the person thus accursed was according to the Law a person worthy of death yet not the guilt of the person but the typifying of the morall curse was the reason of this ceremoniall curse For greater Malefactors as was intimated before then some that were hanged if they were not hanged were not accursed Though the manner of the Jews were to hang up those that were stoned to death yet we reade not in the Scripture of any that were both stoned and hanged though we reade of Achan that he was both stoned and burned but not that he was hanged Naboth was stoned but we do not reade that he was hanged The King of Ai was hanged but we do not reade that he was first stoned Josh 8.29 The like we may observe of Sauls sons 2 Sam. 29.4 The Gibeonites being Proselytes were bound to the same laws with the Jews Exod. 12.49 Those five Kings that were hanged were first slain but 't is not said they were stoned nor doth any reason in the text leade so to think and afterwards hanged Howsoever it is no consequence they were great offenders upon whom the ceremoniall curse was inflicted Deut. 21.23 Therefore the curse inflicted upon Christ whom we have already proved to be the greatest offender as being imputatively guilty of all the sins of the elect both hanged upon the crosse and others was not the morall curse Dialogu M. Calvin in Deut. 21.23 saith That the hanging of Christ upon a tree was not after the manner that is here spoken of for such as were stoned to death among the Jews were also hanged up upon a gibbet after they were dead M. Goodwin and M. Ainsworth from the Hebrew Doctors reckon 18 particular capitall sins for which men were first stoned to death and after hanged and M. Ainsworth doth also say that the Hebrew Doctors do not understand this hanging of being put to death by hanging but of hanging a man up after he was stoned to death which was done for the greater detestation of such heinous malefactors Answ M. Ainsworth upon Exo. 12.21 telleth us that the Hebrew Doctors say that all that were to be stoned death by the Law were 18. but he doth not there say that after they were stoned they were hanged The curse indeed fastened upon the person hanged shewed the hainousnesse of sinne charged upon the Antitype as our surety but that the Jews would not see though the Hebrew Doctors say there were 18 sins for which men were stoned and hanged not women see Ainsworth on Deut. 21.22 yet Moses doth not say so Who is ignorant that the Jewish and Romane manner of hanging was as Calvin saith diverse or who denieth the manner of the Jews for a long time to be according to their Doctors writings but we look at this discourse as impertinent It doth not appear that hanging by divine institution above all other punishments pointed out the detestation of the fact If it did the person hanged was so much the fitter to be infamed with that curse which might render him a type of the truth in controversie namely that Christ who was hanged upon the tree was the most hainous Malefactor imputatively Dialogu The rebellious son Deut. 21.21 is brought in as an instance of this double punishment he was first stoned to death and then hanged upon a tree Answ The Dialogue saith so but not the Text interpreters look at the Law concerning the disobedient son and the Law concerning the person hanged as distinct laws whether so or not is not materiall to the point in hand Dialogu Thou shalt not let his carkasse remain all night upon the Tree but thou shalt surely bury him in the same day at the going down of the Sun and the reason is added because he is the cursed of God namely because such sinners are more eminently cursed of God because they were punished with the heaviest kinde of death that the Iudges of Israel did use to inflict upon any Malefactors Answ All that were hanged and only those that were hanged in Iudea after this Law given were thus accursed without reference to any other punishment suffered or not Though hanging of it self concludeth the person accursed yet not punished with the heaviest kinde of death Stoning and burning were by the Hebrew Doctors themselves both distinguished from and accounted heavier then strangling or hanging See Ainsw on Exod. 12.21 If they were dead before they were hanged they felt not the pain of hanging All that were slain before they were hanged were not stoned Iosh 10.26 If a man were both stoned and hanged yet stoning and burning was as heavy if not a heavier punishment of which last execution we reade expresly Iosh 7. but not so of the first Even according to the Hebrew Doctors alledged by M. Goodwin and M. Ainsworth you may observe some offences punished with stoning and burning not so hainous as some offences punished by other deaths Lying with his daughter in law or a betrothed maid was according to them punished with stoning to death and hanging whereas lying with his daughter and that whilest his wife lived was punished with burning and murder was punished with the sword Ains on Exo. 12.21 The reason why such sinners as were hanged were more eminently cursed of God then other malefactors was not because they were punished with the heaviest kinde of death but for the typicall use of this death Dialogu I think I have sufficiently proved that God did not appoint the hanging upon a tree to be a type of the temporall curse Answ We think you have not and indeed that in all you have said you have said little to that purpose whose thoughts are right belongs to the Reader to judge Dialogu If hanging upon the tree had been appointed by God to be a type of the eternall curse then every one that is hanged upon a tree should be eternally accursed and then diverse Martyrs that were crucified as Christ was are eternally accursed and then the penitent thief was eternally accursed Answ Nothing so Neque enim maledictos vocat ac fi desperata esset corum salus sed quia maledictionis nota est suspensio Calv. in 5. lib. Mosis for the type as the type could not be the Antitype Canaan was a type of heaven but Canaan was not heaven Adam in his first sin was a type of Christ obeying Rom. 5.14 yet Adam was not Christ nor disobedience obedience Calvin often alledged by the Dialogue telleth you that the salvation of him that was hanged upon a tree was not desperate A person might be ceremonially accursed yet everlastingly blessed As if it were requisite to the being of a type or thing
signifying that it put on the nature of the Antitype or thing signified whereas the type as the type can no more put on the nature of the Anti-type then the adjunct can put on the nature of the subject Adam as a publike person disobeying and communicating guilt and punishment to his seed was a type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 5.14 of Christ obeying and communicating righteousnesse and life unto his seed Did then the first Adam put on the nature of the second and so become a mediator or did obedience put on the nature of disobedience Moses the Minister of the Law dying before he came into Canaan as M. Ainsworth observeth on Numb 20.12 signified the impotency of the Law to save was therefore Moses no instrument of salvation unto any Cyrus was a type of Christ must therefore Cyrus not only be saved but also put on the nature of a Mediator who neither then Isa 45.4.5 nor afterwards for ought that appeared beleeved Who ever reasoned thus before that in any measure understood the nature of a type Dialogu But if the circumstances of the Text be well marked they will tell you plainly that this hanging upon a tree cannot be a type of the eternall curse for 1. This Law of Moses must not be understood of putting any man to death by hanging but of hanging of a dead body upon a tree after it was first put to death by stoning but Christ was crucified whilest he was alive 2. This hanging in Moses time was done by the judiciall Law and civil Magistrates and not by the ceremoniall Law nor the Priests 3. This hanging in Moses was commanded to be practised by the Magistrates of the Iews Common-wealth but the death which Christ suffered was a Roman kinde of death Answ Yet Paul who well marked and understood also the Circumstances of the Text telleth us plainly Gal. 3.13 that Christ hanging upon the Crosse though by the Romane power and also after a Romane manner was intended in and proved out of Deut. 21.23 The ceremoniall curse therefore was laid upon every one that was judicially hanged upon a tree in Judea from the time of the giving of this Law until the time of the passion of Christ by what lawfull authority soever or after what manner soever The principall scope of this Text is not to command putting to death by hanging upon a tree the ground whereof is had elsewhere but to give a Law concerning him that is hanged namely that he should in any wise be buried that day with the reasons thereof annexed Dialogu When the Romans did put Christ to that kinde of death which they used to inflict upon their base fugitive slaves they made him cursed in his death in the highest degree they could and yet at the self-same time Christ did redeem us from the curse of the Law even from the eternall curse because Christ died not only as a Malefactor by the power of Roman souldiers but he died also as a Mediator by his own Mediatoriall obedience Answ If he that only granteth Christ died as a Malefactor in the Romans and Jews account but denieth that he died a Malefactor in Gods account should not put in that yet Christ died as a Mediator he could expect no other but utmost abhorrence from every Christian man for such a tenet as did not secretly steal away by subtle sophisms but openly and before the Sun spoil them of their Mediator The curse laid upon Christ hanging upon a tree was not the curse of the Romans or a humane but a divine curse Gal. 3.13 Deut. 21.23 for he that is hanged is accursed of God Christs death as a Malefactor in the Jews and Romans account unjustly was a part though but a small part of the just punishment of God inflicted upon him as the great Malefactor imputatively in Gods account Christ died both as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor in Gods account Of his dying as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor in the sense of the Dialogue See before Ch. 10. Dialogu This act of Christ was an everlasting act of Mediatoriall obedience it was no legall obedience nor was it any humane act of obedience as all legall obedience must be but it was a supernaturall act of obedience it was no lesse then a Mediatoriall oblation and therefore it was the meritorious procuring cause of our Redemption from the curse of the Law even at that very same time when Christ was made a curse for us by hanging as a Malefactor upon a tree Answ Christ acted in his death not as his own Executioner but as our Priest and faithfull Surety yeelding up his life according to his voluntary pre-consent This act of Christ in laying down his life was an act of legall obedience because it was done in obedience to the Law This commandment have I received from my Father Joh. 10.18 He was obedient to the death he humbled himself and became obedient to the death even the death of the Crosse Phil. 2.8 He was made under that is subject to the Law Gal. 4.4 and fullfilled the Law Mat. 5.17 this act of laying down his life was supernaturall but not only supernaturall it was both divine and humane according to both natures for it was the act and obedience of him who was God-man as God-man-Mediator otherwise it could not have been effectuall This reasoning is as full of perill as empty of sound reason Dialogu Therefore the Tree on which Christ was crucified as a Malefactor cannot be the Altar neither were the Roman Souldiers the Priests by whom this mediatorial sacrifice was offered up to God but it was his own Godhead that was the Priest and his own Godhead was the Altar by which he offered up his soul to God a mediatorial sacrifice for the procuring of our redemption from the curse of the Law Answ Who saith the Tree was the Altar or that the Souldiers were the Priests when the crosse is sometimes in Writers resembled unto the Altar it is an illustration by way of allusion unto the type that is the Altar whereon the beast was laid but not unto the Antitype Christ was both Priest Sacrifice and Altar which yet is not to be understood as excluding either of his natures in any of these considerations He was a Sacrifice in respect of his humane nature yet he who was the Sacrifice was both God and Man He was the Altar in respect of his divine nature yet he that was the Altar was both God and Man He was Priest as God-man CHAP. XII Christ redeemed us not from the curse of the Law by his soul-sufferings only And of the meaning of Haides Dialogu GOod Divines do affirm that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law not by his bodily but by his soul-sufferings only which God inflicted upon his soul when his body was crucified upon the Tree Answ I do not finde that any Orthodox Divine so affirmeth Willet cen 5. err 3. par 3.
to this order which is the scope of the Dialogue in this discourse for order of succession is not of the essence of punishment Again the reasons that require this order in the Reprobates in inflicting paenall wrath upon the damned have no place concerning Christ Adde hereunto that according to extraordinary dispensation some of the Reprobates namely those that shall be found alive immediatly before the Judgement 1 Cor. 15.51 shall suffer eternall death without any separation of the soul from the body so as eternall death which is a finall separation of the soul and body from God being opposed to naturall death which is a separation of the soul from the body is not necessarily a second death no not in the Reprobates Dialogu The second part of the tormentt of hell is the pain of sense or the sense of all torturing torments Answ As we did formerly in the pain of losse so now in the pain of sense we are to distinguish between what is essentiall and what is accidentall thereunto Fallacia compositionis div sionis otherwise the Question intending that which is essentiall only but the description including both that which is essentiall and accidentall is apt to deceive the Reader by a fallacy for the better preventing whereof as before the Reader had a description of the pain of losse so let him here if he please take along with him this description of the pain of sense The pain of sense taken essentially is the inflâ—cting of all the substantiall positive evill of the curse flowing from it as such without any respect to the condition of the patient The pain of sense taken essentially and accidentally superaddeth unto the essential punishment fore-mentioned the suffering of such positive punishments as were concomitant effects of justice in respect of the disposition of the patient viz. the evil of sin desperation duration of the pains for ever c. Dialogu As Gods rejection is the principall efficient cause of their damnation so Jesus Christ the Mediatour is the principall instrumentall cause thereof because they beleeved not in him that was promised to be the seed of the woman Answ Gods rejection that is Reprobation as it is the Antecedent not the cause of sin so it is also the Antecedent not the cause of condemnation Reprobation is an act of absolute Lordship and Soveraignty not of Justice Condemnation that is the judiciall senâ—encing unto punishment for sin is an act of Justice not of Lordship no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger because a Reprobate but because a sinner Dialogu Now come we to examine the particulars and whether Christ did suffer these torments of hell for our Redemption 1. Did Christ suffer these torments of hell for our Redemption Did Christ suffer the second death Was he spiritually dead in corrupt and sinfull qualities without any restraining grace and did God leave him to the liberty of these corrupt and sinfull qualities to hate and blaspheme God for his justice and holinesse as inseparable companions of Gods totall separation for these sinful qualities are inseparably joyned to them that suffer hell-torments as the effect is to the cause Did Christ suffer this pain of losse when he said My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Answ Except the Dialogue had laid a better foundation for the disproving of Christs suffering the paenal wrath of God flowing from the curse as such without any consideration of the condition of the Patient that is the essentiall punishment then such a description as disproveth only his suffering of the circumstantiall part of the punishment these vain and reasonlesse interrogatories as so many triumphs before the victory might well have been spared There are that deny that the damned sinne whom though I see not why to consent unto therein yet it concerned such a Questionist though that being done his work had still been to do to have satisfied their objections by the way The sinfull qualities of the damned proceed not from hell-torments as an effect from the cause Parker de descensu lib 3. the torments of hell are an effect and execution of justice whereof God is the Authour sinfull qualities are a defect not an effect therefore have a deficient not an efficient cause therefore of them God cannot be the Authour to to say the contrary were to say God is the Authour of sin which is high blasphemy Sinfull qualities are of the circumstantiall not of the substantiall part of punishment which is manifest 1. Because God is the Authour of punishment essentially but he is not the authour of sin 2. Christ suffered the essentiall punishment but was without sin 3. The Elect sin yet suffer not the punishment due to sinne otherwise they should be both elected and not elected and in the conclusion both saved and damned In that Proposition God punisheth sin with sin the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin it self the infallible and paenall futurition of sin is an effect of justice Sin as sin is not an effect of justice but a defect in man Though the separation of the damned from God is totall and finall yet the separation or rather desertion of Christ was partiall and temporall in respect of the sense of the favour of God and only for a time Separatio quoad substantiam quoad sensum Wilict cen 5. err 3. par 9. q. 3. 1141. There are two kindes of paenall desertion or forsaking one is only in part and for a time so Christ was forsaken the other is totall and finall so the Reprobates in hell are forsaken Totall separation from God is not of the essence of the curse Gen. 2.17 Otherwise the Elect whilst elect could not be ministerially obnoxious to the Curse In a word we must carefully keep in minde the distinction between the essentiall part and the circumstantiall part of the punishment of sin Christ suffered the former not the latter Defects saith Damasoone are either simply miserable or detestable and vitious Christ suffered the former not the latter When our Lord Jesus Christ that man of sorrows cried out upon the Crosse My God My God Austin Damascen Jun. cont 2. l. 4. c. 5. why hast thou forsaken me he suffered the pain of losse understanding alwaies thereby the substantial not the circumstantial pain of losse Dialogu Did Christ at any time feel the gnawing worm of an accusing conscience Was he at any time under the torment of desperation truly if he had at any time suffered the tormets of hell he must of necessity have suffered these things Tho. par 3. q. 46. art 6. Perk. de desc l. 3. n. 53. Willet cen 5. err 3. par 6. q. 3. 1129. Neque enim in eo questionis hujus cardo vertitur an inhaesivè verum an imputativè tantum peccatis nostris pollu us Christus dicendus sit Dialogu for they are as nearly joyned to those that suffer the torment of hell as the effect is
for our sins therefore necessary that remission of sins might be without any prejudice to the truth and justice of God Paul telleth us that God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation Rom. 3.25 The word is observed to signifie a just and propitiatory expiation of sin Ezek. 18.20 argueth for not against the justice of the death of Christ The soul that sinneth shall die Good Man sinned ergò man died Christ was a sinner imputatively though not inherently and the soul that sinneth whether inherently or imputatively shall die Mors animae absoluta vel bypothetica The death of the soul is either absolute so none die but such as are inherently guilty or Hypothetical viz. Cautionary in way of a Surety that undertakes for the satisfaction of justice so Christ suffered death Mors non conditionis sed criminis Park l. 3. n. 87. Willet cont 5. Err. 3. part 3. quaest 3. Austin calleth it a death not of condition but of crime It is clear according to this Text that every one shall bear his own iniquity Who seeth not saith Dr Willet that the Prophet maketh exception of the person of the Mediatour for the Scripture testifieth of him that he bare our iniquities Isa 53.11 Therefore as he bare our sins in himself so also in Gods justice he was to bear the punishment for the same Yet neither according to this Rule nor any other Rule of justice can either the torments of hell or any other no not the least punishment be inflicted upon a person simply innocent Christ though he was innocent in himself yet he was not innocent as our Surety until the guilt imputed to him was satisfied for It is no way repugnant to the justice of God saith Vrsinus and after him Paraeus that a person innocent in himself should die for the sin of another upon such conditions as were mentioned Chap. 3. Dialogu And as God doth tye himself to this Rule of iustice touching the everlasting state of mens souls so he doth appoint civil Magistrates to observe this Rule of iustice touching the bodiet of sinfull Malefactors they may not punish an innocent for a guilty person but that man only that sins must die as 2 Kin. 14. doth expound the meaning of the iudicial Law in Deut. 24.16 I hold it a point of grosse iniustice for any Court of Magistrates to torture an innocent person for the redemption of a grosse Malefactor Answ It is manifest that as God according to his own free constitution doth not so man according to Gods Law may not punish a person that is simply innocent concerning such an one that Law holds Deut. 24.16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers Every man shall be put to death for his own sin But we must here distinguish between an inherent judiciall guilt and an extrinsecal judiciall guilt if Thomas be judicially guilty of a capitall crime inherently though Peter be guiltlesse thereof inherently yet if he be guilty thereof extrinsecally it seemeth to be no injustice for the Magistrate in case to put Peter to death for Thomas his crime In some cases saith D. Willet Willet cen 5. gen cont 20. part 7. qu. 3. by the Law of God the surety gave life for life as the Prophet sheweth unto Ahab by this Parable A man was taken in battel and committed to another to keep under this condition If he be lost thy life shall go for his life or else thou shalt pay a Talent of silver A price of equall value to his life that went away But in the application of this Parable the Prophet leaveth out the Talent because God cannot be waged with money and saith unto Ahab precisely thy life shall go for his life 1 Kin. â—0 39.42 The justice whereof Ahab himself not yet considering it to be his own case readily acknowledgeth and pronounceth sentence accordingly ver 40. Hostages or pledges whose lives with their consenr are legally engaged for the security of the faith of that state whereof they are members may lawfully be put to death in case the state whose fidelity they are to secure break their faith for the consequence or inconsequence of securing or not securing the fidelity of States is a greater good or evil then the life or death of a pledge Besides that the part oweth it self unto the preservation of the whole That this position is subscribed unto by the common consent of Nations may be gathered from their carriages concerning and executions of Hostages diverse of which though they may be disputable or blameable yet they all serve to be founded on this generall truth namely that there are cases wherein a pledge though innocent in himself yet guilty by the legall contract of the violation of the state upon himself may be justly put to death The people of Spain howsoever inclined to joyn with with the Romans against the Carthaginians Tit. Livij hist lib. 22. lib. 24. yet durst not for fear they should lament the guilt of their defection in the bloud of their sons then pledges in Hannibals custody The Romans put to death the pledge of Tarentum for making an unlawfull escape out of custody Keepers of prisons engaged to the Common-wealth that the prisoners shall be forth-coming to satisfie justice in case of the escape of the prisoners through their default though the fault be in it self inconsiderable yet by reason of the circumstances may justly be put to suffer the punishment due to such an offender escaped and that the Romans thought so may well be collected from Act. 12.19 though Herods command in that place is unjust He that is legally guilty of a capital crime the Civil Magistrate may justly put to death but a person though inherently guiltlesse yet extrinsecally and judicially guilty of a capitall crime is legally guilty of a capital crime Therefore a person inherently guiltlesse and innocent but extrinsecally and judicially guilty may be put to death Neither do Histories afford instances only in publike but also in personal cases wherein the surety hath suffered the punishment of another and by so suffering delivered the person suffered for and that not only in inferiour grievances Quint. Declam 5. 9. Idem Declam 6. but even in the matter of life it self Quintilian makes mention of one friend that redeemed another by vice-labour i. e. by doing that servile work in his friends stead which he was to have done l and in another place of a son that redeemed his father by vice-handywork that is by doing with his own hands that work which his father was to have done Cham. de desecnsu l. 5. c. 21. Greg. lib. Dial. c. 37. referente Estio 1 Jo. 3.16 And Chamier reports out of others of one Paulicus Nolanus who enslaved himself unto the King of the Vandals for the redemption of a certain widows son Gregory telleth us of
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
Adam but then all men had they stood in their innocency had performed If he performed more then was required of us then he performed as much Christ performed actually what was so required and habitually or rather eminently whatsoever could be required if man had stood in his innocency he had had but as much grace as there was duty in the command his grace had been in measure because but a creature but Christ had more grace in him as man then there was duty in the command Grace was in him out of measure by vertue of the personall union CHAP. III. Of the Dialogues distinction between Legal and Mediatoriall Obedience Dialogu IT is a necessary thing to observe a right difference between Christs Legal and Mediatorial obedience which we have in part distinguished already but for your further satisfaction I will again distinguish between them I grant that God required the Mediator to fulfil all righteousnesse but yet his obedience to the Law of works and his obedience to the Law of Mediatorship must be considered as done for severall ends and uses Answ The scope of this distinction is to take away merit from the Legall obedience of Christ because the value of his obedience rising from the eminency of the person and its acceptation from office in denying it to be performed by Christ as God-man or as Mediator it is deprived both of value and acceptation which are two of the three ingredients often fore-mentioned of meritorious obedience Meritorious obedience which is alwaies to be kept in minde requires the concurrence of three things viz. the dignity of the person such a kinde of obedience and Gods acceptation The fallacy of this distinction which is one of the fundamental errours of the Dialogue lieth in the mistake of an adjunct for a form viz. in taking that which is but an inseparable concomitant or qualification of obedience for another kinde of obedience The terms of Legal and Mediatorly are two names of the same obedience but signifie not two kindes of obedience one and the same obedience is called Legal in respect of the Law which is the rule and Mediatorly in respect of the office of the person obeying As if upon supposition of Pauls discharge of the debt he engaged for unto Philemon in Onesimus behalf one should say it were both a Legal and fidejussorial i.e. a sureties act That the legal obedience of Christ was not the obedience of Christ as man only but of God-man yea of God man Mediator is proved thus Christ received the Law not as man only but as God-man Mediator Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire Mine ears hast thou opened a body hast thou prepared Heb. 10.5 burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required then said I Lo I come In the Volume of thy Book it is written of me to do thy will O my God yea thy Law is in my heart the boring of the ear and preparing of a body note his incarnation i e. Christ as God man The Law or will of God which he was to do is that will whereby we are sanctified the word taken largely for our being consecrated unto God and therefore notes Christs redeeming of us Christ was made subject to the Law not as man only but as God-man Mediator But when the fulnes of time was come God sent forth his Son made of a woman made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law that they might receive the Adoption of Sons Gal. 4 4.5 His Son made of a woman signifieth God-man the Law whereunto he was subject is the Law whereunto we are subject he was made under the Law from under which he redeemed us his circumcision argued him a debtor to that Law chap. 5.3 the end was to redeem us which evinceth his doing thereof as Mediatour Christ fullfilled the Law not as man onely but as God-man Mediatour Think not that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets I came not to destroy it but to fullfil it Mat. 5.17 compared with Heb. 10 7. he that had a body prepared came to do the will of God by which i.e. by the doing of which the relate taken together with the correlate of obedience we are sanctified Christ came to fullfil the Law as he was sent but God set him as God-man Mediator Gal. 4.4 those words are spoken by Christ after Johns Baptism in the time of his Mediatorly obedience according to the Dialogue If Christ then according to the Scripture had the Law of works or the Law of Moses written in his heart was made subject thereunto and fullfilled it not as man only but as God-man Mediatour then Christs Legal obedience was not the obedience of a man only All the Legal actions of Christ God-man from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of Christ God-man Mediator All the Legal actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of Christ God-man therefore all the Legal actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of Christ God-man Mediatour The major is not denied by the Dialogue which though it asserts the Legal obedience of Christ to be done by him as man only yet it affirms not to my observation that any act of God-man was not the act of God-man Mediatour Neither indeed can the maior with any good reason be denied even those who say Christ merited for himself which yet is generally denied by the protestants understand the word wherefore Phil. 2.9 not causally but as a note of consequence according as it is used Act. 20.26 Heb. 3.17 1 Pet. 2.10 and reading those words Heb. 2.9 with a comma or rather a colon at death and referring those words suffering death unto the words fore-going made little not to the word following crowned acknowledge that in those actions wherein he merited for himself he also merited for us which is sufficient to the Proposition asserted Let an instance of any Legall act of Christ God-man incarnate be produced which was not an act of Christ God-man Mediator as such i. e as Mediator Principium operationum commune persona formale natura Polan syntag li. 6. cap. 27. Trelcat Jun instit l. 2. c 4. Ame. med l. 1. c. 18. Wolleb compend l. 1. c. 16. The minor appears because rational actions of persons flow from the person as their agent In the work of Christ four things are to be considered 1. The agent i.e. the person 2. The principle according to which the action proceeds viz. either or both of the two natures 3. The action 4. The work it self that operation which proceeds from both natures and so it is twofold in respect of its next principle is yet but one action because the person or agent is but one actions in respect of their next principle proper to either nature are common to the person consisting of both natures The humane nature having no subsistence of its self it is impossible it should have
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
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
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