of Gods dispensation Paul speaks frequently of this accidental use of the Law in order to conversion after the cessation of the judicial and ceremonial Law Christ not only being come in the flesh but also dead buried and ascended Rom. 3.20 4.15 7.8 9 10 11 13. into heaven The whole Law of Moses was a school-master to leade us unto Christ the moral Law leades us unto Christ by an accidentall direction of it self it shuts souls up into the prison of sin that it may condemn it is by accident that being shut up we seek after righteousnesse and life by faith in Jesus Christ the ceremonial Law led unto Christ by direct signification and its period of duration the judicial Law led unto Christ by his distinction of the Jews from all other people and by the the period of its duration It follows by good consequence from this School-masterly discipline of the Law that God did never intend to justifie any corrupt son of Adam by Legal obedience done by his own person but that God did not intend to justifie his Elect by our Saviours Legal obedience followeth not at all from hence except in the mistake of the Authour of the Dialogue Paul evidently enough concludes the direct contrary consequence Par. in loc Gal. 3.24 those words the Law was added for transgressors till the seed should come Gal. 3.19 are to be interpreted according hereunto in a limited not in an absolute sense Dialogu God cannot in iustice iustifie sinners by our Saviours Legal obedience imputed because Legal obedience is altogether insufficient to iustifie a corrupt son of Adam from his original sin for our corrupt and sinful nature did not fall upon us for the breach of any of Moses his Laws but for the breach of another Law of works which God gave to Adam in his innocency by way of prohibition In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death so God cannot in iustice impute our Saviours Legal obedience to any corrupt son of Adam for his full and perfect righteousnesse because it is altogether insufficient to make a sinner righteous from his original sin Answ We are to distinguish of the Law it 's taken sometimes more largely either for all the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament Luk. 16.17 Joh. 15.25 or for all the Books of Moses Matt. 7.12 sometimes more strictly for the Moral Law Rom. 7.7 So Paul opposeth the Law of works to the Law of faith and Luke the Law of Moses unto Christ Act. 13.39 because by him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses The Law of Moses taken strictly and the Law of works usually known by the name of the Decalogue or ten Commandments are the same and differ no otherwise then as two Editions of the same Book the Law of Moses being nothing else but an external pattern of the internal Law of nature printed in the hearts of our first Parents by their creation after the Image of God consisting in holiness and righteousnes Eph. 4.24 the sum of the two Tables it is called the Law of works Rom. 3.27 because it required personal obedience unto life Lev. 18.5 the Law of Moses Act. 13.39 because it was given to the people of Israel by the Ministry of Moses Joh. 1.17 In the Law strictly taken which also holds concerning the Law taken largely we must distinguish between that part of it which is moral positive Vide Wille Exod. 21. qu. 1. Jus morale positivum jus divinum positivum Weems exerc 37. in precep 8. The habitual writing whereof in our hearts by nature together with its obligation were both from the first instant of Creation this bindes perpetually and is immutable so essential is the nulling and obliging nature of the Law as that though life be not attained by obedience thereunto as it was in the Covenant of works yet is obedience thereunto unseparable from life in the Covenant of grace and that part which is divine positive which though it be habitually written in our hearts by nature yet it bindes not without a superadded command these are accessory Commandments added to the Law written and binde not by force of creation or light of nature but by force of institution both moral positive and divine positive Law are the Law of nature only that 's the primary this is the secondary Law of nature As God at Mount Sinai after the Decalogue gave the judiciall and ceremonial Laws which were accessory commands part of and reducible thereunto as conclusions to their principles so God at the creation having given the Law unto Adam by writing it in his heart Gen. 1.27 after that gave him this accessory command concerning the Tree of the knowlege of good and evil Gen. 2.17 part of and reducible thereunto and as a Conclusion of its principle The transgression then of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit was a breach of the same Law of works which was given to Adam and afterwards given by Moses and so the punishment of original sin inflicted upon man therefore did fall upon us for the breach of Moses Law which was first given to Adam and afterwards given by Moses that the imputation of the Legal obedience of Christ God so being pleased to accept thereof is sufficient to make sinners righteous from all sinnes is manifest because Christ performed perfect obedience for us unto the Law of works given to Adam which had Adam himself personally performed he had been just The Law that was given by Moses convinceth us effectually and fully of Adams sin Rom. 5.20 moreover the Law entred that sin i. e. Adams sin for of that he speaks might abound therefore Adams sin was committed against the Law of Moses to this purpose serveth the labour of Divines shewing how Adams sin was a violation of the most yea of all the Commandments if so then it was a breach of Moses Law Dialogu If Christs Legal obedience imputed were sufficient to iustifie a sinner from all kinde of sinne both originall and actuall then Christ made his oblation in vain for it had been altogether needlesse for him to give his soul as a Mediatorial sacrifice of atenement for the procuring of our iustice in Gods sight if his Legal righteousnesse performed by his life had been sufficient to iustifie us from all sin in Gods sight for if righteousnesse could have come to sinners by the Law then Christ died in vain Gal. 2.21 Answ Christs inherent righteousnesse and active obedience is an essentiall part of our justification but not all our justification Christs active and passive obedience make up our righteousnesse Original justice and active obedience was sufficient to justifie man innocent but not to justifie man fallen The law in case of innocency required only doing Lev. 18.5 but in case of sin it cannot be satisfied without suffering Gen. 2.17 and doing Gal. 3.10 that is without both passive
justice that he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Rom. 3.36 yea with the establishing of justice Do we then make void the Law by faith God forbid Yea we establish the Law ver 31. Therefore the meritorious mediatorly obedience of Christ was performed in such a way of satisfaction unto justice as included also a suffering of justice You disagree with the truth and us and scarcely agree with your self Dialogu Secondly Though I say that Christ did not suffer his Fathers wrath neither in whole nor in part yet I affirm that he suffered all things that his Father did appoint him to suffer in all circumstances just according to the prediction of all the Prophets even to the nodding of the head and the spitting of the face as these Scriptures do testifie 1. Peter told the Jews that they had killed the Prince of Life as God before had shewed by the mouth of all the Prophets that Christ should suffer and he fullfilled it so Act. 3.17 18. 2. Christ did expresly by his Disciples tell that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things of the Elders and cheif Priests and Scribes and be killed and raised again the third day Mat. 16.21 3. After his resurrection he said to the two Disciples O fools and slow of heart to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken Ought not Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory Luk. 24.25 26. and in ver 44.46 he said thus to all his Disciples These are the words which I speak unto you that all things must be fullfilled which are written in the Law of Moses in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning me thus it is written and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day 4. Paul told the men of Antioch that the Rulers of the Iews condemned him because they knew not the voices of the Prophets concerning him and therefore though they found no cause of death in him yet they desired Pilate that he should be slain and when they had fullfilled all things that were written of him they took him down from the tree and laid him in a sepulchre Act. 13.27 28 29. mark this phrase They fulfilled all things that were written of him if they fulfilled all his sufferings then it was not Gods wrath but mans wrath that he suffered 5. The Lord told Adam not only that the promised seed should break the devils head-plot but also that the devil should crucifie him and pierce him in the foot-sole Gen. 3.15 the devil did it by his instruments the Scribes and Pharisees by Pilate and the Romane souldiers Answ He that saith Though Christ did not suffer his Fathers wrath in whole nor in part yet he suffered all things that his Father appointed him to suffer saith that his Father did not appoint him to suffer his wrath either in whole or in part That you say thus cannot be denied but with what reason you so say let the Reader judge by what follows None of the Scriptures alledged by you confirm though some of them alledged by you deny what you affirm Christ sheweth that he must suffer many things by the Elders chief Priests and Scribes Matth. 16.21 true yet he doth not there shew that he must not suffer the wrath of God God fullfilled those things which he had before shewed by the mouth of all his Prophets that Christ should suffer Act. 3.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to this sense the Greek Text is to be read and not as you seem to mistake it this may include but certainly excludes not the suffering of the wrath of God Luke 24.25 26. concludes that Christ was to suffer the word All ver 26. includes the suffering of divine justice the word All Act. 13.27 28 29. is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fullfilled by the Romanes and the Jews as the instruments thereof not absolutely for all things whatsoever he was to suffer from any They fullfilled all things that he was to suffer from them true but it doth not therfore follow that they fulfilled all things he was to suffer The meaning of those words Thou shalt bruise his heel Gen. 3.15 is that Christ chiefly and with him beleevers that live godlily both which are the seed of Eve shall suffer affliction and persecution by Satan and his malignant agents which are the seed of the Serpent Notwithstanding what you have hitherto said touching the stating of the matter controverted that the Reader who shall be pleased to cast his eye upon this poor paper may not be at a losse but may with the more facility clearnesse and distinctnesse go along with us in the following discourse he is desired here to take just and seasonable notice that the whole controversie between you and us consisteth of four parts 1 Concerning Christs suffering the wrath of God due to the elect for sin 2. Concerning Gods imputation of sinne to Christ 3. Concerning the nature of Mediatorly obedience or the meritorious price of redemption 4. Concerning the Justification of a sinner The Dialogues method wherein though in respect of the two first immethodical for the second should have been first the answer is constrained to observe and accordingly to begin with the first viz. Whether Christ suffered the wrath of God due to the Elect for their sins we assert the Affirmative you endeavour to prove the Negative and that first by disproving the received interpretation of Certain Texts alledged by the Orthodox for the proof of the Affirmative which we are now Christ assisting to consider with you CHAP. III. The Vindication of Gen. 2.17 Gen. 2.17 In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death Dialogu YOu say that the term Thou is thou in thine own person and thou in thy posterity thus far I approve of your exposition but whereas you extend the term Thou unto the Redeemer this last clause I dislike for the death and curse here threatned cannot extend it self unto the Redeemer in the manner of his ing out our redemption Answ For the better understanding this Text the misunderstanding whereof seemeth not a little to have mislâ—d the Authour and the true understanding whereof may be of good use to preserve the Reader Consider these three things 1. What is here intended by death 2. The distribution of death 3. The application of that distribution The Death here spoken of is the wages of sin Rom. 5.21 and 6.23 That is all evill the evil of Adams sin excepted in one word As all lines unite in the center so all sorrows meet in that one term Death The commination Thou shalt surely die is not particular concerning some kinde of Death but indefinite therefore aequivalent to a universall comprehending all kindes of death God inflicts no evill upon man but for sin and all evill not only of affliction but also of sin
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
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
of which Exo. 24.6 8. be called the first Covenant implying that the Covenant as dispensed under the Gospel is a second we are not to understand by the first and second two distinct Covenants but two distinct dispensations of one and the same Covenant By the Law in the first consideration faith is not required in the second Man stands obliged to faith in Christ conditionally viz. when God shall call for it in the third Faith is not only required but is a part of our obedience Unto whom also as to God the Father Son and holy Spirit our obedience is due not only according to the four first Commandments as the Dialogue speaks but also according to all the ten Commandments fullfill the Law of Christ Gal. 6.2 ye serve the Lord Christ Col. 3.23 24 The old Testament or Covenant saith Paraeus in its first and proper signification was the doctrine of spiritual grace Palam quidem sub conditione perfectae obedientiae rectè verò sub conditione paenitentiae fide Par. in Heb. 8. quest 1. promising eternal Salvation to the Fathers and dull people of the Jews openly indeed under the condition of perfect obedience unto the moral Law and threatning of eternall malediction except they fullfill it together with the unsupportable burthen of rites and yoke of the most strict Mosaical polity but secretly under the condition of faith in the Messiah to come prefigured with the shadows and the types of the Ceremonies that by this manner of doctrine-worship and polity a people of a stiffer neck might partly be tamed and be led by the hand as it were by a kinde of paedagogy unto Christ lying hid in those shadows thus Paraeus As the Gospel is called the Law of faith because it giveth salvation by faith without personall works so the first Covenant is called the Law of works because it requires works i. e. personall keeping of the Law unto salvation The observation of the Leviticall worship cannot be especially called the Law of works because it is a part of the Ceremoniall Law long before which was the Law of works besides its ceremonial leading us unto Christ takes us off from the Law of works and carieth us to the Law of faith CHAP. II. Of the Dialogues Arguments against the Imputation of Christs Obedience Dialogu I Cannot see how the common doctrine of Imputation can stand with Gods justice God cannot in justice impute our Saviours Legall obedience to us for our just righteousnesse or justification because it is point blank against the condition of the Legall Covenant so to do for the Legall promise of eternall life is not made over to us upon condition of Christs personal performance but upon condition of our personal performance Answ Mans desert by sin is such whence that God in justice cannot justifie him by the Law but mans desert is not such whence God in iustice cannot justifie him in another way Nothing is due to man according to justice but what God hath appointed the Law is not against the promises Gal. 3.21 God is just and the justifier of him that beleeveth Such was the demerit of sin Longè itaque ista differunt c. Rhetorf de oration exer 2. c. 3. why man according to justice could not be justified legally but not such why it should be unjust for God to justifie him Evangelically according to Gods righteous constitution Such was mans desert why he should not be justified by his own righteousnesse yet mans demerit not being absolute but having dependance upon Gods free constitution he could not deserve why God might not justifie him by the righteousnesse of another if he pleased If it were unjust for God to justifie otherwise then legally then it were unjust for God to justifie in the way of the Dialogue viz. by atonement or acceptilation without all legall obedience it is more against legall justification to justifie without legall obedience personal or otherwise then to justifie by the legall obedience of another Sophisma à limitato ad non limitatum the Dialogue by this reason fights as much or rather more against it self then against us the fallacy lieth in asserting that in an unlimited sense which holds only in a limited sense God cannot justifie man fallen legally ergò he cannot justifie man fallen Evangelically by the righteousnesse of another is not only a meer non-consequence in reason but also a Pestilence in religion Dialogu It 's evident that God never propounded the Law of works to the fallen sons of Adam with any intent at all that ever any of the fallen sons of Adam should seek for justification and atonement in Gods sight by Legall obedience but his intent was directly contrary for when he propounded the Legal promise of life eternal to the fallen sons of Adam he did propound it upon condition of their own personal obedience to allure them thereby to search into their own natural unrighteousnesse by this perfect rule of Legal righteousnesse so by this Law of life God intended chiefly to make the soul of the fallen sons of Adam to be sensible of their own spiritual death in corruption and sin thereby to provoke our souls to seek for life some other way viz. by the mediation of the Mediator promised So it follows by good consequence that God did never intend to iustifie any corrupt son of Adam by Legal obedience done by his own person nor yet by our Saviours obedience imputed as the formall cause of a sinners iustification or righteousnesse Answ God propounded the Law of works to man before the fall with the promise of justification and life in case of Legal obedience Though Gods intent in propounding the Law of works to man fallen were that man should seek that justification which was directly contrary unto Legal righteousnesse that nothing opposeth but rather maketh for justification by the righteousnesse of Christ for justification by our own righteousnesse and justification by the righteousnesse of another are directly contrary in regard of the manner of justification the matter oâ—â—â—stification is the same in both Covenants viz. Legal obedience but the way of attaining it is contrary that by personal righteousnesse this by the righteousnesse of another The principal use of the Law by accident is that seeing our selves uncapable of righteousnesse thereby to provoke the soul to seek for life some other way viz. by the mediation of the Mediatour promised so saith the Dialogue to be our Schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith Gal. 3.24 that is that we might be partakers of the righteousnesse of another so saith Paul Though the Ceremonial and Judicial Law with their discipline are ceased yet the Moral Law still continueth as a perpetual rule of obedience whereunto beleevers are bound not in order to justification but in way of thanks-giving As a School-master until Christ so long as there remains any of the Elect to be converted according to the ordinary way
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
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
Distinguish between such a measure of punishment and the particulars whereby that measure is made up Parker de Desc lib. 3. n. 55. Such a measure is necessary but that this measure should be made up by suffering these or those particulars is arbitrary Distin 5 Distinguish between a Local hell and a Penal hell Bonavent li. 3. in Sent. dist 22. q. 4. Rivet Cathol Orthod Tom 1. Tract 2. qu. 60. Willet Synops Cent. 5. gen contr 20. p. 5. q. 3. Christ suffered a Penal hell but not a Local he descended into hell Virtually not Locally that is He suffered the pains of hell due unto the Elect who for their sin deserved to be damned Arg. 1 Either Christ suffered the justice of God in stead of the Elect denounced against sin Gen. 2.17 or God might dispense with the execution thereof without violation of his justice But God could not dispense with the execution thereof without the violation of his justice What was sometimes spoken of the Law of the Medes and Persians holds true at all times concerning the Law of God that it altereth not for the confirmation of this truth Christ solemnly engageth his truth Verily I say unto you Till heaven and earth passe one jot or one tittle shall in no waies passe from the Law till all be fulfilled Matth. 5.18 This sentence was universal given to Adam as a publick person and holds all his posterity whether elect or reprobate in case of sin guilty of death Hereby the omnipotent hath so limitted himself as that now he cannot do that which else he could do in respect of his absolute power The command being given out for Lots preservation God could not destroy Sodom till Lot was secured Gen. 19.22 for the Decree being passed and the word gone out of his mouth God cannot deny himself Hence in the case of execution of justice 't is not only a truth that God spared not the Angels 1 Pet. 2.4 nor the old world vers 5. but it is also a truth that he spared not his Son Rom. 8.28 Unto this purpose Piscator well interprets those words of our Saviour If it be possible c. Matth. 26.39 Confer Piscat Analys Observ in Matth. 26. Davenant in Col. 1.20 p. 105. That is saith he If in respect of the righteous will of God the father there could be any other way found to save the Elect without Christs suffering of the wrath of God for their sin he praieth that then the cup might passe from him but because that could not be he submits his will to his Fathers will the summe whereof is God sheweth by the example of his Son that he having constituted his Law the rule of relative justice between him and man the dispensation with the exemption from punishment in case of sin was impossible Arg. 2 Either Christ suffered the wrath of God i. e. the punishment due to the sins of the Elect or else God is untrue in that Commination he that sins shall die because the Elect themselves do not suffer it But God is true The strength of Israel will not lie 1 Sam. 15.29 God cannot lie Titus 1.1 Arg. 3 He that was the Surety of the Elect was bound to pay their debt and consequently to satisfie the Law for them Polon â—ynt lib. 6. c. 36. But Christ was the Surety of the Elect Heb. 7.22 By so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better Covenant Neither is the Argument at all infringed by saying he is our Surety in regard of the Covenant of grace here called a better Covenant but not in respect of the Covenant of works for besides that the word better is not to be referred unto either Covenant it self but to the manner of the dispensation of the Covenant of grace under the Gospel we are to know that the Covenant of grace it self obligeth us to fulfill the Covenant of works in our Surety Faith establisheth the Law Rom. 3.31 We cannot fulfill the Covenant of works or the righteousness of the Law in our Surety by believing if it were not a truth that he fulfilled the Covenant of works for us Arg. 4 Either Christ suffered the punishment due to the Elect for sin or the Law remaineth for ever unsatisfied for it is as true as salvation it self that the Elect satisfie it not in themselves Arg. 5 If the Gospel save without satisfaction given to the Law then the Law is made void by the Gospel and the Law and the promises are contrary But neither of these are so Rom. 3.31 Gal. 3.21 Therefore Arg. 6 If Christ suffered not the punishment due to the Elect then the Elect must suffer it in their own persons man hath sinned therefore man must die Therefore in his own person if not in his Surety Arg. 7 If Christ did not suffer the wrath of God a punishment due unto the Elect for sin then there can be no justification of a sinner without Christs suffering of the punishment due to sin i.e. his passive obedience there can be no remission of sin without obedience there is no reason to acknowledge his active obedience whence we are accepted as righteous this being in vain without that if there be neither passive obedience nor active then there is no remission of sins nor acceptation as righteous and consequently no justification Arg. 8 If justifying faith establish the Law then Christ the object of faith hath established that is fulfilled the Law for otherwise the Law cannot be established by faith But justifying faith establisheth Rom. 3.31 Do we then make void the Law through faith God forbid yea we establish the Law Willet Synops Cent. 5 gen contr 20. Christ suffering the essential punishment of the curse i.e. the wrath of God containeth nothing derogatory from the worth of his person nor prejudicial unto Redemption The denyall then of Christ to have satisfied the wrath of God in that it renders the Mediatorship of Christ insufficient takes away the being of the Justification of a sinner and leaves the elect to suffer the wrath of God in their own persons which who can exempt to use Peters words from the charge of a damnable heresie and if so in that it so denies Christ to have suffered the wrath of God as therewithall it not only exceedingly diminisheth the love of God and the love of Christ but also imputes injustice and untruth unto God leaves the Law for ever unsatisfied made void by the Gospel and not established by faith one and the last of which Paul looketh at as abomination Rom. 3.31 I see not how it can be pronounced lesse then both an abominable and damnable heresie These premised come we now to the Dialogue it self beginning with its beginning viz. the stating of the Controversie CHAP. II. The stating of the controversie Dialogu I Hold that Jesus Christ our Mediatour did pay the full price of our Redemption to his father by the merit of his mediatorial obedience which
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
and his instruments were all instruments herein In those effects wherein Satan and men are instruments God is the first and universall efficient not a meer counseller fore-speaker and permitter The efficiency of the second cause is the effect of the first cause Satan the Sabeans and Chaldeans were subordinate causes and instruments of Jobs sufferings yet he saith God hath taken away Job 1.21 So Joseph Gen. 45.8 David Psa 39 9. in cases much alike Satan and men were Instrumens in inflicting such a stroak therefore it is no stroak of divine vindicative justice is no good consequence All evils inflicted upon the reprobate whether corporall or spirituall are stroaks or acts of vindicative justice So often then as Satan or men are instrumentall in inflicting such evils so often Satan and men are instrumentall in stroaks of vindicative justice judicial punishment of sin with sin is an act of vindicative wrath but of this parents are instrumental in the propagation of original sin to their Reprobate children The spiritual distres of an excommunicate person that is a Reprobate is an effect of vindicative wrath But in such distresses Satan is instrumental 1 Cor. 5.5 That delusion of which 2 Thes 2.9 10 11 12. is an act of vindicative justice But in working it Satan and men are instrumentall Casting the wicked men into hell is also an act of vindicative justice in which Gods Angels are instruments Matth. 13.42 Creatures then both good and bad may be instruments of Gods vindicative wrath inflicted both on body and soul Yet we must distinguish between the wounds bruises and stripes inflicted upon Christ and the sin in inflicting of them Satan and his agents were the sole authours and actors of sin yet as concerning the wounds bruises stripes themselves though Satan and men were the subordinate instruments yet God himself was the Authour and principall efficient of them The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all Isa 53.6 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him vers 10. The sufferings of Christ included in this Text are not only such wherein Satan and men were Instruments but some of them were inflicted immediatly of God without any second means as instruments thereof Not only the body but the soul also is capable of bearing wounds bruises and stripes hence we reade of a wounded spirit Pro. 18.14 A wounded conscience 1 Cor. 8.12 The broken and bruised in heart Luke 4.18 The plague of the heart 1 King 8.38 The words proceeding from the very same Hebrew roots with the very words used in this Text are in the Scripture applied to the soul My soul is wounded within me Psa 119.22 A broken and a contrite spirit Psa 51.17 Receive instruction or castigation and not silver Pro. 8.10 which words proceed not only concerning corporeal but also concerning spiritual chastening Should the soul be supposed to be uncapable of wounds bruises chastenings properly yet experience shews it is capable of them metaphorically Satan being a spirit may have accesse unto and consequently both may and doth afflict the spirit 1 Cor. 5.5 Eph. 6.12 16. If Satan could not God can Christ suffered not only in body but in soul Isa 53.10 when thou shalt make his soul a sacrifice for sin My soul is exceeding sorrowfull even unto death Mat. 26.38 Mar. 14.13 His great heavinesse sore amazement agony sweat as it were drops of bloud Mar. 14.33 34. Luk. 2◠44 cannot be looked at in a person that was God-man as lesse then the effects of soul-sorrows hell-sorrows Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell The soul is by judicious and learned Authors understood properly Rivet Hell metaphorically that is for pains aequivalent to the pains of hell it self Parker de Desc l. 3. n. 62. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vir dolorū His sufferings are in the plurall number called passions not a single passion 1 Pet. 4.13 Death 's not a single death Isa 53 9. to shew as some conceive his sufferings both of soul and body He was a man of sorrows Isa 53.3 The word All Act. 13.29 is to be taken in a limited sense as you were told before for all that he was to suffer by them there mentioned not for all that he was to suffer He bare our sins in his body 1 Pet. 2.24 therefore our sins were imputed to him he bare them in his body but not only in his body he hung upon the tree being made a curse Gal. 3.13 The curse is not only bodily but spirituall As we were delivered from our sin so he bare our sin But we were delivered not only from the bodily but also from the spiritual punishment of sin Therefore Most aptly from the example of Christs suffering patiently the punishment of our sins he committed not are we exhorted to suffer patiently our chastisement for the sinnes which we have committed With good reason did he appeal in his sufferings unto the righteous Judge because though he suffered justly in respect of God yet he suffered most unjustly in respect of men The demonstration of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ is truly acknowledged as a subordinate end of his sufferings but the supream end you leave out namely the manifestation of the glory of Gods mercy tempered with justice Mercy to the elect justice unto Christ To declare I say at this time his righteousnesse or justice that he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Whilest you so often affirm the obedience of Christ to be meritorious and yet all along deny it to be performed in a way of justice you so oft affirm a contradiction The very nature of merit including justice for merit is a just desert or a desert in way of justice as Chap. 1. Dialogu I hold it necessary often to remember this distinction namely that Christ suffered both as a malefactor and as a Mediator at one and the same time Answ Though the notions of a Mediatour and a Malefactour are clearly distinct in themselves yet your distinguishing between Christ dying as a Mediatour and as a malefactor is unsound because it implieth that in dying as a Mediatour he died not as a Malefactor no not imputatively whereas to be a malefactor imputatively was for the times a part of his Mediatorly office and essentiall to the death of the Mediator The Dialogue makes him a malefactor in respect of mens false imputations only but denies any imputation of sin unto him by God Dialogu He bare our sins in his body upon the tree 1 Pet. 2.24 Peter means he bare the punishment of sin inflicted according to the sentence of Pilate in his body on the tree sin is often put for the punishment of sin Answ True sin is here taken for the punishment of sin though not only so but for the guilt of sin also 'T is true also that Christ in enduring the sufferings inflicted upon him by the Jews bare as you say our punishments and our sins i. e. the
essentiall part of our punishment due to us for our sin From your own words I inferre then Christ bare our punishment and our sins either in the account of the Jews or in the account of God Not in the account of the Jews they charged them as his proper crimes without any regard to the sins of the elect therefore he bare our punishment and our sins in the account of God In that then Christ suffered punishment Paraus in Heb. 10. and bare our sin in the account of God it followeth Christ bare guilt in the account of God because guilt and punishment are relates Punishment doth not only signifie a suffering but such a suffering that is suffering for offence in way of justice Had Christ suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment thus whilest you acknowledge Christ to have born punishment and born sin and that by just consequeoce at least in the account of God and yet deny the imputation of sinne you run your self into a contradiction He bare our sins in his body but not only in his body Body is here taken synechdochically both for body and soul a part of the humane nature for the whole he bare them upon the tree that is he bare the curse due to sin Gal 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree he bare the morall curse which was the truth signified by the Ceremoniall curse Deut. 21.23 the morall curse extendeth both to soul and body Dialogu I will shew you how Christ did bear our sins divers waies in several senses 1. When he bare away our diseases as I have expounded Isa 53 4. 2. As our Priest and sacrifice as I have expounded Isa 53.5 3. As a Porter bears a burden as I have expounded 1 Pet 2.24 4. When he did patiently bear our sinful imputations and false accusations and imputations of the malignant Iews Psa 40.12 Psa 69.5 In these words Christ doth not complain or grudge against his father for his imputing of our sins unto him as the common doctrine of Imputation doth make the stream of Interpreters to speak Answ How the Dialogue hath not only not expounded nor only mis-interpreted but corrupted the three former texts viz. Isa 53.4 5. 1 Pet. 2.24 We have seen before 'T is very true that Christ bare our sins as our Priest and sacrifice and as a porter bears a burden yea as a surety but very false that he bare them only in your sense Scripture is in sense and not in sound only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Your calling of the Jews unjust criminations of Christ sometimes our sinful imputations sometimes the false accusations of the Jews sounds too harsh without a distinction 'T is true that Psal 40.12 and Psal 69.5 hold forth a type of Christ complaining under the injuries of the Jews from which their false imputations are not excluded though neither of them only nor chiefly To complain unto God is blamelesse and no grudging To cemplaln against God is a sin and sheweth grudging M. Ainsworth whom you oft make use of in his notes on Psal 69.5 is amongst those who acknowledge sin to be in Christ by imputation yet your conscience herein appealed unto where did you ever reade in him or any other orthodox Interpreter that Christ complained against God as say you the common doctrine of Imputation doth make the stream of Interpreters to speak CHAP. V. The Vindication of Isa 53.6 Isa 53.6 All we like sheep have gone astray we have turned every one to his own way and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all Dialogu THe Lord laid not the sin of the Elect upon Christ by imputation The true manner how the Lord laid all our iniquities upon Christ was the very same manner as the Lord laid the sinnes of Israel upon the Priest and sacrifice and no other Answ If he laid them no otherwise on the Antitype then upon the type then sin was laid typically only and not in truth upon Christ consequently the type and the antitype are confounded and those types are so many untruths yea we are yet in our sins But whatsoever your words are we presume your meaning is The types instanced in did not typically hold forth any imputation of sin unto Christ the antitype How then did the Lord lay the sins of Israel upon the Priest and upon the sacrifice Dialogu The Priest bare the iniquity of the holy things by his Priestly appearing before Iehovah with his priestly apparrell especially with the golden plate Exo. 28.38 he bare the iniquity of the Congregatton by eating the peoples sin-offering in the holy place to make atonement Lev. 10.17 The Lord laid all our sins upon Christ as upon our sacrifice Isa 53.12 where dying bearing sin intercession are Synonima's He bare the sins of men namely by his Mediatoriall sacrifice God laid all our sins upon Christ as our sacrifice of atonement In this sense Paul explaineth the Levitical bearing of sin Heb. 9.26 28. Answ It is not requisite to the nature of a type in all respects to answer the Antitype Similitudo non currit quatuor pedibus Paraeus Log. 122. Figura non habet quodcunque habet veritas but to testifie and according to the pleasure of the Authour to exemplifie the thing typified Logick refers types to similitudes and you know the Proverb Similitudes run not on four feet there is alwaies some dislikenesse between the parts of the comparison Ionah was a type of Christ lying dead in the grave yet Ionah though he lay in the Whales belly did not lye dead there Put case you produce a type which holdeth not forth bearing of sin by imputation in the Antitype except it may appear that the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended you conclude nothing Aaron the High-Priest wearing the golden plate upon his forehead having engraven therupon HOLINESSE TO THE LORD typified rhe perfect holinesse in Christ by reason of the Divine nature whereby he was able effectually to bear and bear away sin What is here against Imputation nay it is implied in the Priesthood of Aaron The Priests Lev. 10.17 by eating the peoples sin-offering declared by that act together with the fore-mentioned appearing in their stead confessing of their sin and offering sacrifice for them that by divine institution they took upon them typically to make atonement for their sin Hereby it is more plainly figured that Christ should bear away our sin by bearing it in our stead This Text maketh against you It is very true God laid our sins upon Christ as our sacrifice Isa 53.12 therefore say we by imputation for Christs sacrifice is his voluntary and obedient yeelding himself unto death according to the Covenant of God in a way of satisfaction to divine justice for sin and meritorious expiation of sin
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
himself layeth both his hands upon the live goat and confesseth over him the iniquity of the children of Israel Lev. 16.21 which confession of sin though it be only expressed in the case of the Scape-goat yet it is judged to have accompanied imposition of hands upon the sin-offering From the collation of the texts with Lev. 5.56 as also because there is like reason in all Calvin in Lev. 1.1 Junius in Lev. 1. Ainsworth Lev. 1.4 Willet in Lev. 1. qu. 9. 4.10 16.23 Annot. in Le. 16.21 Ita per fidem oportet nos peccata nostra imponere Christo h.e. certò staâ—uere quòd illa ei impofita sint â Deo ut ea expiaret Orthodox and judicious Expositors seem rather to understand that the rite of imposition of hands did typifie the profession of their faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for sin imputed to him and that the present sacrifice or beast slain was a type thereof then that it did typifie the Lords laying our sin upon Christ by imputation there is difference between an act typifying Gods imputation of sin unto Christ and an act testifying our faith concerning Gods imputation of sin unto Christ You should have produced your Expositors for they do not generally so speak the man saith M. Ainsworth that brought the offering was to lay or impose his hands thereby testifying his faith in Christ the true sacrifice to be slain for sin But it being granted that Expositors did so understand it how doth the Dialogue disprove their exposition A private mans imposition cannot represent Gods act the imposition of the hands of the Elders cannot for the Elders actions represent the Churches astions neither can the imposition of the Priests and High-Priests they were types of Christs Priestly nature and not of the father Answ If these Reasons were good for what they are alledged yet they are impertinent as not reaching the minde of Expositors at least generally upon the place There is nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing but that the act of a private person was capable if God so pleased to become a type of Gods act which is also true concerning the Elders Priests and High-Priests The act of an Israelite though a private person in letting his Hebrew servant go free for nothing either at the seventh year Exo. 21.2 or at the year of Jubilee Lev. 25.40 figured or represented God the Fathers gift of free redemption by Jesus Christ Cyrus as every King or Emperour which receiveth his office from the people was Persia's representative yet in letting the Jews go without price and reward he typified our free salvation which is the act of God the Father the putting of Gods name upon the children of Israel by Aaron and his sons Num. 6.27 was saith Ainsworth a sign that the name and blessing of God was imposed upon them It 's improper to say the Priests were types of Christs Priestly nature they were types of his Priestly office or if you please of the Priestly part of his office whereof the person consisting both of divine and humane nature was the subject Dialogu Imposition of hands with confession of sins upon the head of the sin offering signified the owners faith of dependance Then it signified the owners faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for our sin imputed to him for besides that this notion of faith in particular is included in the faith of dependance as the part is in the whole he that asserteth the faith of dependance asserteth therewithall the object thereof for faith and its object are Relates a part of which object and that directly intended in these texts is this truth to wit That Christ did bear and take away the guilt and punishment due to the elect for sin In your reasoning against the doctrine of Imputation from the Text alledged omitting any other you commit these two errours 1. You put upon us an interpretation which is not ours nor hath our doctrine need of it our conclusion sufficiently proceeding from these Texts according to the Exposition given The Question is not whether this rite of Imposition of hands with confession uf sin doth represent Gods laying of the sins of the Elect upon Christ but whether the sins of the elect were laid upon Chtist by God 2. In disputing for these rites to signifie faith of dependance you do not only not dispute against us but in conclusion against your self because the faith of the truth controverted is included in the faith of dependance nor do you in your whole discourse concerning it interpose a syllable to the contrary to provide against the retorting of your Argument upon your self The conclusion then you argue for being for us though we approve not your arguments we think it best to passe them by and ease the Reader of so much impertinence only minding you that your assertion so often used viz. that they imposed hands and leaned upon the sacrifice with all their might is groundlesse whatsoever you refer us to in Ainsworth out of Maimony neither the Hebrew text nor any other reason countenancing of it Dialogu If you make the act of laying on of hands on the sin-offering to signifie Gods laying our sins upon Christ by imputation then the same act of laying on of hands with confession of sins upon the Scape-goat must also signifie that God did impute our sin to Christ as well after he was escaped from death by his resurrection and ascention as when he made his oblation here upon earth and thus by this doctrine Christ is gone as a guilty sinner into heaven We have already said that we make not this act a type of Gods laying sin upon Christ the live-goat and the scape-goat were both types of Christ that of him dying this of him delivered from death sin was laid upon the scape goat not after but before its escape and signifieth that notwithstanding his bearing of sin typified by both goats yet after he had suffered which was typified by the killed goat he then should be delivered from those sufferings which were typified by the scapegoat and thus by the doctrine of the Scapegoat Christ is risen again ascended and sits at the right hand of God the Father acquitted from all sin Dialogu But the Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition of hands with confession of sins of Gods imputation but they understood it to be a typicall sign of the faith of dependance upon Christs sacrifice of Atonement and so much the prayer of the High-Priest imports See Ainsworth Lev. 16.21 Answ M. Ainsworth on this very place saith that this act shewed how our sins should be imputed unto Christ it is not likely therefore he so understood the Hebrew doctors otherwise we might well think he would either have forborn a needlesse citation contrary in his judgement to the truth or would have taken notice thereof Neither is there any reason so to interpret their meaning
from the words cited by him out of Maimony or yours out of him the Atonement rightly understood is so farre from opposing that it presupposeth satisfaction to divine justice by the surety of the meritorious cause thereof Dialogu If Gods imputing of the sins of the Elect to Christ was the cause of Gods extreme wrath upon him then by the same reason Christ doth still bear the wrath of God for Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much as ever be bare them upon earth Answ Christ on earth suffered the wrath of God that is the execution of divine justice because then he stood as a surety to satisfie the curse due for sin Isa 53.10 But having satisfied it Joh. 19.30 Col 2.14 the same justice that before punished him now acquits him Rom. 8.34 If the debtor be discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the surety is free the same justice that holds the surety obliged to the creditor whilest the debt is unpayed acquits him when the debt is payed CHAP. VII The Vindication of 2 Cor. 5.21 2 Cor. 5.21 God made him to be sin for us which knew no sin Dialogu THe meaning of these words is not that he was made sin for us by Gods imputation but that he was made sin for us that is to say a sacrifice for our sin sin is often used for a sin-offering sacrifices for sin are often called sin the word Made is a word of Election and Ordination Answ He was made sin for us as we were made righteousnesse that is by judiciall imputation without the violation yea with the establishing of justice he was made sin as he was made a curse Gal. 3.13 the Greek used here and there are the same But he was made a curse by judiciall imputation Because he was the sin-offering in truth therefore he was made sin by reall imputation as the legall sin-offering was made sinne by typical Imputation The summe of what you say touching the word Made to be a word of Election or Ordination how improperly soever concluding that God ordained concerning Christ so as he might make his soul a sin-offering concludes not against but consequently for us and against you from the typicall nature of a sin-offering Of which in the fore-going Chapter Dialogu The Apostle doth explain the word Sin Psal 40.6 thus for sin Heb. 10.6 therefore seeing the Apostle doth explain the word Sin by the particle for I may well conclude that Christ was not made sin by Gods Imputation Answ What David expresseth by Sin Psal 40.6 is expressed by For sin Heb. 10.6 both places intend the sin-offering therefore you still argue against your self and for us it is called a sin-offering because sin was typically imputed to it it is said to be for sin because it was offered for the expiation of sin the same offering is said to be a sin-offering in respect of its nature and said to be for sin that is for the expiation of sin in respect of its use the use of a thing destroyeth not the nature of it The particle For besides the taking away of sin notes the manner of its taking away viz. by way of expiation Dialogu The water of purification from sin is called sinne Numb 19.9 the money employed to buy the publique sacrifice for sinne is called trespasse-money 2 King 12.16 and in this sense God made Christ to be sinne Answ The water that did typically purifie from sin is metonymically called sin Numb 19.9 the money that was to buy the sin-offering 2 King 12.16 is also figuratively called sin and Christ who is the tru◠sin-offering is said to be made sin 2 Cor. 5.21 true Therefore For Christ to be made sin is not to have sinne imputed to him Vide Bezam in Gal. 3.13 is a meer non sequitur If Christ be made sin for us in the same sense that the water of purification and trespasse-money are called sinne then Christ is made sinne only figuratively consequently suffered for sin figuratively not properly the elect also are saved figuratively and not properly To say God made Christ to be sin not by imputing their sin to him but by ordaining him to be a sin-offering is as if you should say God made Christ sin not by imputing sin to him but by ordaining him to have sin imputed to him If sin was imputed to him consequently the guilt of sin was imputed which we here affirm and you deny Dialogu Isaiah tells that Christ made himself a trespass or a guilt for us Isa 53.10 and if Christ made himself a trespasse for us by imputing all our trespasses to himself then he must likewise inflict upon himself all the curses of the Law that are due to us for our trespasses Answ If Isaiah tels us Christ made himself a guilt for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubtlesse it is a truth The Hebrew word is not made himself but if his soul shall set it self God chargeth Christ with sin as the supream Law-giver and Judge Christ accepts the charge as a surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of justice which is the part of a surety but doth not execute that justice which is the part of a Judge so Isaiah and Paul do not only sweetly agree with the Leviticall phrase but Isaiah Paul and Moses jointly agree with us against you Paul saith Christ was made sin that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him Rom. 3.26 that is that we might be justified The same Paul saith That the Beleever in Christ is so justified as that God is just which cannot be without a judiciall imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety So when Paul saith Christ is made sin he means by judiciall Imputation of the guilt and punishment of sinne Doubtlesse Paul to the Corinthians agreeth with Paul to the Romans CHAP. VIII The Vindication of Mat. 26.37 Mar. 14.33 Luke 22.53 Dialogu MAthew saith that Christ was sorrowfull and grievously troubled chap. 26.37 Mark saith that he was sore afraid and amazed chap. 14.33 Luke saith that Christ was in an agony chap. 22.53 Christ made all this adoe about a bodily death only Answ If words have their taste as Elihu implieth Job 34.4 then your expression of the dolorous passion and lamentation of the Lord Jesus by that phrase of making this ado for I beleeve it 's not the language of any Orthodox writer ordinarily used by way of diminution and rebuke argueth a minde not affected as becomes a Christian with the sufferings of his Saviour Dialogu But how do you prove this sorrow and complaint to have proceeded ftom the fear of a bodily death only Answ Only do but consider what a horrid thing to humane nature the death of the body is then consider that Christ had a true humane nature and therefore why should be not be troubled with the fear of death as much as his humane nature could be without sin Because Regular affections such
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
exceeded the bounds of naturall fear Answ His confidenee that he should not be moved by his sufferings either from his hope state or the good hoped for but that it should be with him as ver 10. sheweth us his certainty of victory which doth not oppose but rather suppose the matter of his sufferings which the Scripture manifests to be the wrath of God Neither can we apprehend that Christs fear exceeded the bounds of naturall fear understanding by natural fear regular fear in which sense this distinction is used by Divines after Damascene who distinguished fear into a fear according to nature this was in Christ and a fear besides nature adverse to reason this was not in Christ Dialogu These sentences of M. Calvin may advise us how we do attribute such a kinde of fear to Christ as might disorder his pure naturall affections which doubtlesse would have fallen upon him if he had undergone the pain of losse for our sins such as the damned do feel in hell as the common Doctrine of Imputation doth teach Answ It is vain labour to write so much out of Calvin to prove against us that the fear which was in Christ was pure and not impure it being the professed and known judgement of all the inference of impure and vicious fear in Christ from his undergoing of the pain of losse for our sins is your own Institution lib. 2. c. 16. s 10. See Willet synops and an errour nor have you any greater adversary then Calvin therein who not only affirms the fear and affections in Christ to be pure according to your citations but also that in his soul he suffered the terrible torment of the damned and forsaken men Yet because the sufferings of the damned differ in some things from the sufferings of Christ later Writers choose rather upon just reason to say he suffered the punishment of the elect who deserved to be damned then that he suffered the punishment of the damned Dialogu And if he had died without manifesting fear of death it would have occasianed wofull heresie yea notwithstanding the evident proof given of his humane nature sundry hereticks have denied the truth of his humane nature it was necessary therefore that he should be pinched with the fear of death as much as his true humane nature could bear without sin as Calvin well observeth Answ There 's difference between manifest fear and excessive fear to have feared naturall death with excessive fear and that such as never man or woman manifested was to have manifested something lesse then man It was a sufficient manifestation of Christ to be man that he was touched with the feeling of our infirmities that he was in all points tempted like to us His words are these speaking on Matt. 26.39 Sed quantū ferri potuit sana integra natura hominis metu percussus anxietate constructus fuit Dialogu yet without sin So far as I can finde in Calvin for you have not pointed to the place you put in the word Therefore and so force both it and the whole sentence to confirm your own premises contrary to his minde which is directly against you See Calv. Comment on Ver. 2.28 of the chapter mentioned If the fear of death which he expressed to his Disciples in the night before his death had risen on the sense of his fathers wrath inflicted upon him for our sinne then you must also say that he suffered his fathers wrath for our sins six daies before this for six daies before this he spake those words Luk. 12.50 where our Saviour doth expresse as much distresse of minde as here yet I know no expositor that ever gathered so much from this place of Luke Answ Expositors do generally agree that as in Mathew and Mark so also Luke 12.50 Christ speaks of his passion as likewise that the wrath of God was the principal matter thereof in Luke he 's troubled at the remembrance of his future passion of his fathers wrath the sense of that wrath had at present in great degree taken hold upon him Christ doth not expresse so much distresse of minde in Luke as here he saith he was straightned but here he professeth his sorrowfullnesse unto death together with consternation and expavefaction of which straightway Dialogu Our Saviour tells the two sons of Zebedee they must drink of his cup and be baptized with his baptism by these two expressions which are Synonima's or equivalent our Saviour doth inform the two sons of Zebedee what the true nature of his sufferings should be viz. no other but such only as they should one day suffer from the hands of tyrants Answ Herein is a fallacy confounding such things as should be divided this Text saith Piscator is to be understood with an exception of that passion in which Christ felt the wrath of God for the Elect Quod tamen intelligendum est cum exceptione passionis illius quâ Dominus pro electis sensit iram Dei Pisc in loc Dialogu Christ suffered both as a Mattyr and as a satisfier the sons of Zebedee drank of the cup of Martyrdom not of the cup of satisfaction or redemption James and John the sons of Zebedee were asleep whilest Christ was drinking of that cup. His son was not touched with any sufferings from Gods wrath at all except by way of sympathy from his bodily sufferings only Answ If his soul was touched with Gods wrath by way of sympathy then his body was touched with the suffering of his wrath properly then Christ suffered the wrath of God by your concession These sufferings in the soul were not by way of sympathy his soul suffered properly and immediatly Isa 53.10 Mat. 26.37 the cause of his sufferings required that his soul should suffer as well as his body we sinned in soul properly therefore our surety must suffer in soul properly The greatest of the sufferings of Christ were spirituall and such as immediatly seized on his soul As his active obedience was as properly spirituall as bodily so his passive obedience was as properly spirituall as bodily Much rather is their judgement to be embraced who say The body suffered by way of sympathy because the soul is sensible of sufferings without the body but not the body without the soul Dialogu If the circumstances of his agony be well weighed it will appear that it did not proceed from his fathers wrath but from his naturall fear of death only because he must be stricken with the fear of death as much at his true humane nature could bear he must be touched with the fear of death in a great measure as the Prophets did foretell Adde to these pains of his minde his earnest prayers to be delivered from his naturall fear of death the fear of death doth often cause men to sweat and earnestly pray as he was man he must be touched with the fear of death as he was Mediatour he must fully and wholly overcome his naturall
Authorities also are incomparably for us it is not mans Authority but Scripture and reason from thence deduced that conclude the question Dialogu It passeth my understanding to finde out how an Angel could support our Saviour under the sense of his fathers wrath Can Angels appease Gods wrath or can Angels support a mans soâ—â— to bear it It 's absurd to think so God will not afford the least drop of water to cool any mans tongue that is tormented in the â—ames of his wrath therefore that cannot be the reason why God sent an Angel to comfort him Answ Veteres dicunt Angelus confortat sed non portat Ger. Harm Had you accepted of that saying of the Ancients viz. the Angel comforted him but carried none of his burthen you might have spared the Reader these Quaeries The cause of the Angels apparition and consolation was to support the humane nature from utter fainting before the time and to strengthen it not only at present but so as it might be able to undergo the sufferings that remained the necessity whereof argueth his conflict to have been greater then could be caused by the fear of a meer natural death 'T is true God will not afford the least drop of water to cool any mans tongue that is tormented in the flames of his wrath viz. that is totally in torment He had a taste of consolation at present but but there were times wherein he had not a drop of consolation as In his totall desertion in respect of sense upon the crosse Christ had his interims of respit and here an intervall of consolation otherwise he could not have fullfilled that which was written of him It is no good argument to say he drunk not the cup off at once ergò He drunk it not up He tasted of it in the garden he drunk it off upon the crosse The pain of losse and pain of sense which make up the full measure of the essentiall wrath of God met both together in full measure upon him on the crosse Dialogu But on the contrary it 's evident that God doth often use to comfort his people against the fear of death by the Ministry of Angels Answ It followeth not Men have needed the consolation of Angels against the fear of death therefore Christs consolation by an Angel was only to support him against the fear of a naturall death who can say it was only the fear of death that men were allwaies in such cases comforted against there are other concomitants of death viz. the sting of death the curse guilt unbelief that are more terrible then death it self Though Angels comfort sometimes against the fear of death yet not only against the fear of death but according to other temptations and necessities of those whom they are sent to minister unto 1 Kin. 19.5 7 8. Dan. 10 17. Mat. 4.11 Dialogu The fathers sending of an Angel to comfort his son in his agony was not an evidence that the father was angry with him for our sin but it was a sure evidence to him that his Father was highly well-pleased with him even in the time of his agony Answ Those sufferings whence he needed an Angel to he sent unto him interpreted according to analogy of Scripture are an evidence that his father was angry with him for our sins As the love of God unto the person of Ghrist and the wrath of God that is the execution of justice upon him as a surety consist together so may evidence of that love and partiall execution of that wrath answerably consist and meet together Dialogu Good reasons there were why Christ should be more afraid of death then many Martyrs have been namely for the clear manifestation of his humane nature and also for the accomplishment of the predictions that went before him touching his sufferings if he would he could have suffered lesse fear of death and shewed more true valour then ever any Martyrs have done but then his death would not have been so usefull to his children which for fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage Answ You make Christ not only more afraid of naturall death then many Martyrs but to shew more fear of death then any man yea then any Malefactor Your reasons are but deceptions what clearer manifestation of the truth of his humane nature can be desired then that he was in all things like unto us except sin It 's a fiction to assert any divine prediction that Christ should only suffer a bodily death There can be no reason given why the Martyrs or other men having received from Christ but a drop of that spirit which was in him out of measure should endure with joy the same death which he himself entring but into the Porch and suburbs of Cartwright in Rhem. Test Mat. 27.46 through anguish of his soul had clods rather then drops of bloud streaming down his blessed body a thing which neither was seen or heard before or since The true reason thereof is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternall death The Martyrs died justified cheared with the sense of the love of God and conflicting only with a temporall death It is more usefull unto those who for fear of death i.e. eternall death are all their life time subject unto bondage that Christ conflicted with that death wherwith they principally conflict then otherwise CHAP. IX The Vindication of Heb. 5.7 Heb. 5.7 Christ in the daies of his flesh when he had offered up praiers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death and he was heard in that which he feared Dialogu I Reverence your Authours who expound the word Fear to mean the Fear of Astonishment at the feeling of Gods wrath for our sin but I must tell you that there are other Learned and Godly Divines that are contrary to them in their interpretation of the word Fear K. James his Translators do reade it thus in the margent He was heard because of his piety M. Tyndal and M. Overdale translate thus He was heard for his reverence And the Geneva in other places translate the same Greek word Godly fear as in Luke 2.25 Act. 8.2 Heb. 12.28 and in this very sense must this Greek word be translated in Heb. 5.7 Answ It is sufficient that Christs suffering of the wrath of God be taught in other Scriptures though not in this it may be taught in this verse though not in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated In that which he feared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a word that signifieth both Fear of reverence and a fear of evil impending notwithstanding the received rule of interpretation which orders such words to be expounded according to the nature and circumstances of the place many godly learned have taken it some one way some another yet all generally acknowledging that Christ suffered the wrath of
God though some acknowledge not this word to afford an argument thereof K. James Translators as they reade piety in the margent which you mention so they reade fear in the Text which you mention not M. Tyndall and M. Overdale though they translate the Greek as you say yet how far that translation is from helping your cause or prejudicing ours will fully appear in the sequel of this chapter If the Greek word be translated Godly Fear Heb. 5.7 it may only thence be inferred that this word affords not an argument but it no way weakens the cause which hath Arguments enough beside Dialogu The Greek word doth properly signifie such a fear as makes a man exceeding wary and heedfull how he toucheth any thing that may hurt him Answ Cartwright in Rh. Test Heb. 5.7 Your explication is too generall to give the property of the word the word signifieth both Reverence and fear but the proper signification of this word being saith Cartwright never severed from fear and yet sometimes disjoyned from reverence It followeth that the property of the Greek word serveth better for to note fear then reverence Dialogu I come now to explain the very thing it self from which Christ prayed to be saved which was that he might be delivered from death and this petition was the masterpeece of all his prayers Answ He prayed that he might be delivered from death Good but this death was the death of the crosse for unto it his strong cries refer Mar. 14.37 the principall matter whereof was the curse viz. the wrath of God wherefore also out of this verse from the word Death if not from the word translated Fear it is truly argued that Christ suffered the wrath of God Not Christs salvation out of his sufferings but the glory of God in the salvation of the Elect was the master-piece of his prayers Joh. 17. Dialogu But for the better understanding the very thing it self that he did so often and so earnestly pray to be delivered from we must consider him with a twofold respect 1. As he was true man so he prayed to be saved from death conditionally Mat. 26.39 2. We must consider him in this Text as he was our Mediatour and so he prayed to be saved from death absolutely namely to be saved from his natural fear of death when he came to make his oblation for he knew well enough that if there had remained in him but the least naturall unwillingnesse to die when he came to make his oblation it would have spoiled the mediatorial efficacy of his oblation Answ To consider Christ as man distinct from the consideration of Christ as Mediatour is to consider the Mediatour without the consideration of him as man that is to consider the Mediatour as not a Mediatour for it is essentiall to Christ as Mediatour to be Godman That praier of Christ Mat. 26.39 was as much the praier of the Mediatour as this Heb. 5.7 neither was the manhood more concerned in that then in this To understand by death Heb. 5.7 his naturall fear of death and by that his fear of offending God by his naturall unwillingnesse to die for so you expound your self beside the manifest and fearlesse violence offered thereby unto the text is that you may wave the true cause of his fear namely the wrath of God together with your silencing the wonted cause asserted by you namely the fear of bodily death to devise a new cause of the fear of Christ viz. lest he should offend God i. e. lest he should sin choosing rather to say that Christ was afraid of the evil of sin then of the evil of punishment for sin That which it was impossible for Christ to be touched with that Christ was not afraid of But to offend God by his unwillingnesse to die was impossible for Christ to be touched with Therefore Christ was not afraid of unwillingnesse to die Unwillingnesse to die in Christ had been a sin he having received a command to lay down his life Damasc de fide orthod l. 3. c. 23. Joh 10.17 Heb. 4.15 Naturall fear is either pure and without vice this was in Christ or impure adverse to reason this was not in Christ So Damascene long since This spoiling of the mediatorly efficacy of this oblation is a supposition of impossibility therefore could not be an object of fear to him who was only subject to pure and reasonable fear Significat timorem rationabilem Cham. de descen l. 5. c. 5. Dialogu The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is noted to signifie a reasonable fear For he had from eternity covenanted with his father to give his soul by his own active obedience as a mediatoriall sacrifice of atonement for our sins Joh. â—0 17 18. therefore he must not die a positive death by the power of man but he must die as Mediator by the actuall and joynt concurrence of both divine and humane nature no man could force his soul out of his body by all the torments they could devise but he must separate his own soul from his body by the joint concurrence of both his natures Answ If he covenanted only to suffer a bodily death as you say you must needs think very unworthily to say no worse of him that was God whilest you put upon him so great fear of breaking covenant upon so small temptation Notwithstanding he covenanted to suffer spirituall death i. e. the wrath of God yet because he was God it was impossible that he should break his word and consequently impossible that he should fear an impossibility He laid down his life as a surety whicâ— none could have taken away against his will but he took not away his life as an executioner If he had covenanted to take away his own life as an executioner neither then could he have broken his word because he was God nor had so covenanting opposed but engaged him to the suffering of the wrath of God his death being the cursed death of the crosse Dialogu Christ made his oblation an exact obedience unto Gods will both for matter manner and time and this mediatorial action of his was the highest degree of obedience that the father required or that the son could perform for mans atonement and redemption Answ True But in our sense not yours of which afterwards Dialog His obedience in his death was not Legall but mediatoriall Answ It was both mediatorly and legall It was the obedience of the Mediatour as such unto the Law Such a person obeying and such obedience from that person were both requisite for the meritorious procuring of our atonement and redemption Dialog 2. He prayed also to be delivered from the dominion of death after he had made his oblation and God heard him and delivered him by his resurrection on the third day Act. 2.24 27. Answ By death then here we are not only to understand the fear of death which elsewhere you seem to say He prayed to be delivered
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
yet Christ Jesus himself and all judicious Christians cannot but take it very ill Dialogu Thus have I shewed unto you the dependance of the first part of this Psalm by which you may see how the scope of this Psalm doth set out the sufferings of Christ to proceed not from Gods wrath but from mans only Neither do I finde any thing of Gods wrath either in this or in any other Psalm and yet Christ doth make as dolefull complaint to God of his sufferings both in this Psalm and Psal 69. as any can be found in all the Bible Answ What you have said upon the first part of this Psalm of any weight against the sufferings of Christ as proceeding from Gods wrath hath been considered and its insufficiency to that end sufficiently manifested It hath also been proved out of part of the first part of this Psalm viz. ver 1.2.11 that Christ suffered the wrath of God yet because notwithstanding you cannot be ignorant of much that is spoken to that purpose you do as much as say that neither here or elsewhere you can finde this truth in the Scripture that the Reader may here see for proofs from other places are to be expected elsewhere how Christs suffering the wrath of God is argued from his dolefull complaints in his passion I shall close this discourse presenting him with a brief yet sad and serious view of the passion of our Lord Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It intends all the suffering of afflicting and conflicting affections under the sight and sense of great and eminent peril impending 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anima Christi fuit tristis usque ad mortem extensivè intensivè Gerharm in ◠a subject which the Angels themselves how much more should all beleevers desire throughly and narrowly to look into 1 Pet. 1.12 by considering 1. The nature 2. The effects 3. The adjuncts 4. The subject of these sufferings Luke expresseth the nature of his passion in generall by an Agony Chap. 22.44 it signifieth the sorrows of combaters entring the lists with the sense of the utmost danger of life a metaphor taken from the passion of conflicting affections in the greatest eminentest and most sensible perils and so holding forth the sharpest of the fears of men The parts of this Agony are 1. Extreme sorrow and he began to be sorrowfull and very heavy then saith he unto them My soul is exceeding sorrowfull even unto death Mat. 26.36 37. His sorrow was lethal and deadly both extensively and intensively extensively continuing unto the last gasp intensively killing of it self in time had there been no other causes resolving and melting the soul gradually as wax is melted with the heat My heart is like wax it is melted in the midst of my bowels Psa 22.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Amazement and he began to be sore amazed Mar. 14 33. which signifieth an universall cessation of all the faculties of the soul from their severall functions Physitians call it an Horripilation we usually a Consternation Like a clock in kelter yet stopped for the while from going by some hand laid upon it That such intermission of the operations of the soul the effect of this formidable concussion might be without sin is evident to him that remembers Christ slept Sleep ordinarily implying a cessation of the exercise of the intellectuall faculties for the time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Expavefaction He began not meerly to be amazed but also to be very heavy the word notes expavefaction which was such a motion of his minde superadded unto his Consternation whereby for the time he was disenabled as concerning the minding of any thing else being wholly taken up with the dreadfull sense of the righteous wrath of God as the eye intensly fixed upon some object taketh no notice of any other object before it for the while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. Fear Who in the daies of his flesh i.e. of his infirm flesh before his death and resurrection when he offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death and was heard in that which he feared Heb. 5.7 his fear was an afflicting affection arising from the sight and sense of the greatest morall evil namely the fearfull wrath of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5. Desertion or being forsaken of God that is left helplesse and succourless in his extremity Mat. 27.46 The effects of his passion were 1. Fervent prayer Mat. 26.36 earnest prayer Luk 22.44 being fallen upon his face ver 39. with strong crying and tears Heb. 5.7 three times saying the same words My Father if it be possible let this cup passe from me Mat. 26.44 2. Bloudy sweat and being in an agony he praied more earnestly and his sweat was as it were great drops of bloud falling down to the ground Luke 22.44 Nam ter humi strato contritio cordis ille Sanguineus sudor crux fuit ante crucem 3. That dolefull loud and lamentable cry and about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying Eli Eli lamasabachthani that is to say My God My God why hast thou forsaken me Mat. 27.46 The Adjuncts of his passion were 1. An Angel comforting him And there appeared an Angel to him from Heaven strengthening him 2. A miraculous Eclipse continuing three hours Aut Deus naturae patitur aut mundi machina dissolvitur so contrary to the course of nature as that an understanding Heathen at the sight of it cried out Either the God of nature suffereth or the frame of this world is dissolved Lastly The subject of all these sufferings namely Jesus Christ God-man Now sum up all these in order An Agony wherein were lethall sorrow consternation expavefaction fear desertion fervent praier bloudy sweat dolefull and loud cry need of strengthening from an Angel put all these together in a person who was not a meer creature but God-man having a perfect soul and body free from all morall infirmity of sound health and exact temper who not only was God but knew that God was his Mat. 27.46 fully understood the glory of the blessed that his soul immediatly upon its dissolution should be in Paradise Luke 23.43 that his body after three daies should rise again Matt. 16.21 and that in the interim it should not see corruption Psa 16.10 and then I appeal to the conscience of each Christian Reader whether such a passion in such a subject argueth not greater sufferings then of a meer naturall death or could argue lesse then the sufferings of the greatest evil that could befall him that could not sin namely the wrath of God CHAP. XI The Vindication of Gal. 3.13 Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us as it is written Cursed is every one that hangs upon a tree Dialogu IN this Text the Apostle speaks of a twofold curse 1. He speaks
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
pain of losse essentially and principally Thirdly It is impertinent holding only as we saw before concerning the pain of losse accidentally but not essentially though this last be the only and very question between us This description of the Dialogue laid as a foundation of the following Discourse being overthrown what we shall finde built thereupon must needs fall with it which before we proceed unto it may be seasonable here to present the Reader with a true description of the pain of loss in stead of this erroneous description of the Authour The pain of losse taken essentially is an universall privation of the fruition of the good of the promise The pain of losse taken essentially and circumstantially is the universall privation of the fruition of the good of the promise together with the totall and finall absence of those good things which flow not from the curse as such but are effects of justice upon the damned in respect of the condition of the Patient viz. dis-union with God privation of his image in the soul and desperation Dialogu For as the favour of God through Christ is the fountain of life because it is the beginning of eternal life Psa 36.9 so on the contrary to be totally separated from Gods favour by an eternall separation must needs be the beginning of hell-torments or of death eternall Answ If the Dialogue intends the favour of God to be the beginning of eternall life only causally then this comparison is instituted between the formall beginning of eternall death and the causall beginning of eternall life so it is vain as to the purpose intended if it intends the favour of God in Christ taken properly to be the beginning of eternall life formally then it is false for the favour of God in Christ which is the fountain of life is increated and without beginning and is nothing else but Election the first cause of our good Eternall life whose beginning and continuance is of the same nature is created and hath a beginning though it be without an end and is the effect of this first cause the Dialogue therefore confounding the favour of God with the beginning of eternall life formally doth as much as say the cause is the effect and that which is increated is created If the comparison were in it self good yet it is impertinent concluding only concerning the pain of losse taken accidentally not as taken essentially which last must alwaies be remembred to be the sense of the Question Dialogu God doth not forsake the Reprobates so long as they live in this life with such a totall forsaking as he doth after this life yea the very Devils themselves as long as they live in this world being Spirits in the air are not so forsaken of God as they shall be at the day of judgement for as yet they are not in hell but in this air and therefore they have not their full torments as yet Answ Then the pain of losse consists not in the meer want of the favour or love of God for the Reprobates whether men or devils in this life or in the air are alwaies hated of God Gods love and hatred are eternall and immutable Vide Pisc in 2 Pet. 2.4 The devils being deprived of the image of God after which they were created and being under a degree of eternal death in respect of their malice final despair and present sufferings in part their condition doubtlesse is rather a condition of death then of life The Dialogue needlesly here ventureth to tell us that the devils are not in hell though Peter saith God cast them down to hell and John telleth us Rev. 20.3 that the devil was bound a thousand years and cast into the bottomlesse pit the same word with that which is used by the Legion of devils concerning the place they feared when they besought Christ that he would not command them thither Luke 8.31 Dialogu And yet this pain of losse may a little further be explained by opening the term Second death which may be in part described by comparing it with the first death which I have at large described to be our spirituall death or a losse of the life of our first pure nature I may call it a death in corrupt and sinfull qualities as I have opened Gen. 2.17 yea all other miseries which fall upon us in this life till our bodies be rotten in the grave I call them altogether the first death because they do all befall us in this world therefore on the contrary the second death must needs imply a deeper degree of sinful qualities then did befal us under the first death Answ Whether eternall death be called the second death to contra-distinguish it from the death of the body or death in sin or both as the first death As it is not materiall to the point in hand so neither need we labour about it though the Text Mat. 10.28 seemeth rather to oppose it to the death of the body by its separation from the soul as also the coherence Rev. 2.13 20.6 14. And if the first death is taken for death in sin and the full measure of sin as the Dialogue speaketh be included in the second death the opposition lieth rather between a bodily death and eternall death then between the first and second death for so far the first and second death are as two degrees of the same death not two kindes of death whereas bodily death and eternall death are two kindes of death Yea forasmuch as eternall death followeth bodily death and bodily death followeth death in sin there would then be three deaths viz. death in sin death of the body and death of the body and soul in hell and so it should be called the third not the second death Dialogu And thus this very term Second death doth plainly tell us that it is such a degree of death as surpasseth all the degrees of death in this life and that the full measure of it cannot be inflicted upon any man till this life is ended and then their end shal be without mercy Jam. 2.13 Answ The term Second being a word of order teacheth that eternal death in that it is called the second death is in Gods ordinary dispensation inflicted after the first death but it shews not the nature of eternal death The reason why eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body is partly because of the inability of the nature of man in this present state of mortality to endure the wrath of God without separation of the soul from the body but chiefly because this bodily death puts a period to our capacity of having any part in the first resurrection i.e. of regeneration whereby the second death is only prevented Though for these and other reasons the paenall wrath of God viz. eternall death be inflicted after bodily death yet it thence followeth not that the paenall wrath of God cannot be inflicted but according
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
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
therefore die because he is dead and he died because he sinned they say saith he the punishment passed without the fault and that innocent babes are punished with an unjust punishment by contracting death without the desert of death See more testimonies both of August and other Ancients to this purpose out of Grotius de satisf Christ which the Catholike faith acknowledgeth of the one alone Mediatour of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus who vouchsafed to undergo death for us that is the punishment of sin without sin for as he alone was made the Son of man that we by him might be made the sons of God so he alone undertook for us the punishment of sin without evil deserts that we by him might obtain grace without good deserts for as unto us there was no good due so unto him there was no evil due Dialogu Again it is evident that his death was miraculous because at that instant when he breathed out his soul into the hands of God the veil of the Temple which typified his humane nature rent it self in twain from the top to the bottome and at that time also the graves of the Saints did open themselves and many of the dead Saints did arise Mat. 27.51 Answ The miracles that accompanied the death of Christ were divine testimonies of the Divinity and innocency of him that died but no arguments that his death was miraculous The position that his death was miraculous is true but this probation holds not It is rather thought that the Miracle of the Resurrection of the Saints was not till after the Resurrection Many bodies of the Saints that slept arose and came out of their graves after his Resurrection Mat. 27.51 but in matters of this nature we contend not The miracles that fell out about the death of Christ whether before or at or after it were the Eclipse of the Sun causing darknesse from the sixth hour unto the ninth whilst Christ was hanging upon the Cross The rending of the vail of the Temple an Earthquake the rending or the Rocks the opening of the graves and rising of many of the Saints The conversion of the Centurion and others the coming forth of bloud and water out of Christs side all which are summed together in that memorial Distich Eclipsis velum terrae trepedatio Rupes Busta cruci astantum conversio sanguis unda The death of Christ saith D. Ames was true not feigned Mors ista Christi fuit vera non ficta c. Med. l. 1. c. 22. th 27 it was natural from causes naturally efficacious to procure it not supernatural it was voluntary not plainly constrained yet it was violent It was also in some respect supernatural and miraculous because Christ conserved his strength and life so long as he would and laid them down when he would Dialogu Hence we learn that the doctrine of the Papists and Lutherans in their transubstantiation and consubstantiation is very erroneous for they place the meritorious price of their Redemption in the grosse substance of Christs flesh and bloud and in the passive shedding of it upon the Crosse by the Romans Answ Neither the Papists nor Lutherans look at the bloud of Christ as the bloud of a meer man but as the bloud of God-man Dialogu The cleansing vertue of his bloud lies in his own Mediatorial shedding of it for though he did not break his own body and powr out his own bloud with nails and spears as the Roman souldiers did yet he brake his own body in peeces by separating his own soul from his body by the power of the Divine nature and then he did actually shed his own bloud when he did pour out his own soul to death Isa 53.12 as a Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement for the procuring of his Fathers Atonement for our full Redemption Iustification and Adoption and in this sense only the bloud of Christ doth purge us Tit. 2.14 and cleanse us 1 Joh. 1.7 and wash us from our sins Rev. 1. Answ Christ shed his blood voluntarily that is he consented obediently thereunto but he shed it not formally as the next and formal cause thereof so to say is in effect to affirm that he killed himself and that he was his own executioner Unto the cleansing vertue of his bloud there is required not only the dignity of his person but also that besides the shedding of his bloud there is required that he should suffer a supernatural death i. e. the paenal death of the curse due to the Elect for their sin which is synechdochically signified by his bloud this putting of a partial and insufficient cause for the whole cause Logicians call a fallacy of putting a not-cause for a cause and is a fundamental and perpetual errour in the Dialogue the value of the Mediatorly obedience which is figuratively signified by Bloud proceeds from the eminency of the person obeying the quality of the obedience and the acceptance of God jointly and not from any of them alone The bloud of Christ whereof 1 Joh. 1.7 and Rev. 1. was bloud shed in a way of satisfaction to divine justice Rom. 3.24 25. not by way of a price improperly so called whose acceptance is by Divines called Acceptilation That Redeeming of which Tit. 2.14 signifieth a Redemption not by way of an improper or imperfect but by way of a full and satisfactory price such as was necessarily given for sin that remission might proceed without any violation of justice These objections have been urged before and answered before That which the Authour in this former Section of the second part affirmeth is that the active bodily death of Christ only i. e. his death actuated by the divine nature separating his soul from his body which the Dialogue calleth the master-piece of his Mediatorial obedience together with certain foregoing actions performed by him as God-man was the meritorious price of our Redemption denying that Christ suffered the curse of the Law in our stead which it endeavoureth to prove by comparing the merit of Christs obedience with the demerit of Adams disobedience Rom. 5.19 by allegation of certain Scriptures both misinterpred and corrupted viz. 1 Cor. 6.20 c. By the type of the Redemption-Mony by the typicall Redemption Lev. 25.25 39 47. by placing the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ in that it was shed by his own active priestly power not by the Roman Souldiers this last Proposition it labours to clear by the consideration of his priestly power and in his Priestly action namely the sprinkling of his own bloud The efficacy of his death performed by the joint concurrence of both natures is again ascribed wholly unto the divine nature which gave the quickning power to the oblation of the humane nature for the illustration and confirmation whereof it propounds two distinctions First of Legall and Mediatoriall obedience The second of an active and passive death Or that Christ died as a Mediator and as a Malefactor
and actual obedience the particle by Gal. 2.21 notes the manner not the matter obedience unto the Law neither ceaseth nor can cease to be the matter of justification only it is the obedience performed thereunto by Christ not by us that is not our own but the obedience of another imputed to us by grace and received by faith the effect of grace We have the righteousnesse of the Law but we have it not by the Law The argumentation of the Apostle proceeds thus if we be justified by works Christ died in vain but Christ is not dead in vain therefore we are not justified by works hereby expresly concluding against justification by our own obedience and implicitly for justification by Christs obedience to the Law Dialogu Christs Legal obedience was but the work of his flesh or of his humane nature therefore it could not be the procuring cause of Gods atonement for iustification for no obedience is meritorious but that obedience which is mediatorial I never heard that the Father required the Mediator to perform Legal obedience at a proper condition of his Mediators office nay our Saviour himself doth testifie that his flesh alone considered doth not profit us to life and salvation Joh. 6.63 therefore not his Legal obedience for that was but the work of his flesh or humane nature Answ To say Christs Legal obedience was the work of his humane nature only besides the absonousnesse of it in Divinity will hardly escape an implicat I mean a contradiction in reason as the humane nature of Christ did not subsist alone so neither doth it perform any humane operations alone dependance in respect of subsistance inferreth a dependance in respect of operations action includes being as essential to it we may as well affirm nothing to be something as to affirm that to act of it self that doth not subsist of it self From the personall union it comes to passe saith Ames that all the actions and passions of Christ are referred partly unto his person as unto the proper term of them Med. lib. 1. cap. 18. although some of them are to be referred to one nature and some unto another as unto the next principles To be incarnate was an act of Legal obedience God sent forth his son made of a woman made under the Law Gal. 4.4 a body hast thou prepared me In the Volume of thy Book it is written of me that I should do thy will and then said I Lo I come Heb. 10.5 But the Father required of the Mediatour to be incarnate as a proper condition of his Mediatorly office Gal. 4.5 to redeem such as be under the Law to fullfill the Law is Legal obedience but the Father required of the Mediatour to fulfil the Law Mat. 5.17 I came to fulfil it and that as a proper condition of his Mediators office as he came so he was sent but he was sent as Mediator for the Mediator to suffer death as our surety in a way of justice is an act of Legal obedience but the Father required of the Mediator as a proper condition of the Mediators office to suffer death for us in a way of justice if his soul shall set it self a sacrifice for sin he shall see his seed c. Isa 53. therefore the Father required of the Mediatour Legal obedience as a condition of his Mediators office to suffer death for us in a way of justice Dialogu There is great iarring among Divines about the right stating of the doctrine of imputation 1. Some affirm that God the Father doth impute Christs Legal obedience to sinners as their obedience for their full and perfect iustification 2. Others do affirm that Christs Legal obedience imputed is not sufficient to make sinners righteous and so they do affirm that God doth impute another kinde of Christs righteousnesse to sinners for their full iustification viz. the purity of his nature to iustifie us from original sin 3. Others go further in the point of imputation for they affirm that God imputes another kinde of righteousnesse to sinners for their full justification viz. the passive obedience and so by necessary consequence they do make sinners to be their own Mediators because they do make Christs Mediatorial obedience to be a sinners obedience by Gods imputation Answ The whole course of the active and passive obedience of Christ together with his habitual conformity to the Law is the matter of our justification the purity of Christs nature and his active and passive righteousnesse are not two but one and the same kinde of Legal obedience expressed by both its parts viz. habitual and actual The asserters of the last expresly are to be understood as asserting the former implicitly the act presupposing the habit then spake not heretofore exclusively the reason why later Writers speak more expresly is because opposers have acted more subtilly The inference of sinners being their own Mediators from the imputation of passive obedience ariseth from your misunderstanding our doctrine which imputeth the obedience of Christ in respect of its efficacy not in respect of its formality M. Forbes acknowledgeth no such great jarring with our imputation which he testifieth to be without impiety and any matter of strife in it self were this jarring not only great but greater then it is the Gospel remains the Gospel notwithstanding through mans corruption it becometh an occasion of contention Dialogu The actions of Christs obedience neither active nor passive can be made ours by Gods imputation no more then our sinful actions can be made his by Gods imputation but our sinful actions cannot be made his by Gods imputation as I have at large expressed in the opening Gen. 2.17 Answ Your supposed large proof is sufficiently disproved as I hope in the place and the contrary proved both there and in the vindication of 1 Cor. 5.21 Dialogu If God do make sinners righteous by the active obedience of Christ imputed then Christ must perform all manner of obedience for us that God doth require of us or else God cannot in iustice make us perfectly righteous by the active obedience of Christ imputed but Christ did not perform all manner of acts of obedience for us that God requireth of us because he was never married c. and yet we have as much need to be made righteous in such like actions as in any therefore God cannot in iustice make us perfectly righteous by the actions of Christs active obedience imputed Answ The matter of our justification is not an actual and formal performance of all duties commanded in the Decalogue but an obedience to that which is commanded as it is commanded viz. actually unto such duties as it calleth to the exercise of and habitually unto the rest otherwise it was impossible for man to be justified by the Law neither Adam himself nor any man sustaining all relations Christ being an infinite person and our surety in performing all that was required of him he performed more then not only
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
and brings salvation though it self be invisible and in the heart For with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Dialogu And in this sense all Sacrifices of Atonement are called Sacrifices of Righteousnesse not only as they are the procuring cause of the Fathers Atonement for a sinners righteousnesse but also because they must be offered in righteousnesse Mal. 3.3 that is to say in faith because poor beleeving sinners do by faith receive the Fathers atonement for their full and perfect righteousnesse Answ This is in effect but what was objected and answered before Dialogu And it is further evident that faith doth no otherwise justifie a sinner but as it is that grace or instrument of the Spirit whereby a sinner is enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers atonement by the Apostles discourse in Rom. 3.21 22 23 24 25. all which Verses I will br efly expound unto you First The Apostle in these words doth teach us the true nature of a sinners justification he cals it the righteousnesse of God He doth not call it the righteousnesse of Christ but the righteousnesse of God the Father because the formall cause and finishing act of a sinners righteousnesse or justification doth come down from God the Father upon all beleeving sinners A sinner cannot be made righteous by the works of the Law as the former verse doth conclude For by the Law men come to know themselves to be sinners and they that are sinners are ever sinners in themselves therefore if ever sinners can be made righteous they must be made righteous by such a kinde of righteousnesse as it pleaseth God the Father to bestow upon them and that can be no other righteousnesse then a passive righteousnesse proceeding from Gods mercifull atonement pardon and forgivenesse Answ The righteousnesse whereby a sinner is justified is called the righteousnesse of God because he is the authour of it it is as much as called the righteousnesse of Christ Rom. 5.18 where it is called the rigteousnesse of one which one is Christ The imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ is the formall cause of our justification and is the act of God the Father The word Father not being taken personally for the first person in the Trinity but essentially for all the three persons God the Father Son and holy Ghost Because all works wrought upon the creature are the works of the three persons equally A sinner is not justified by the works of the Law namely by works that we have done Tit. 3.5 For to such a work four things are requisite viz. that it be wrought 1. By vertue of the grace of the first Covenant 2. By our own persons 3 With exact obedience to the Law 4. Under the promise of justification unto continuance therein But yet a sinner is justified by the works that Christ hath wrought though not by the works that we have wrought If that Proposition be absolutely true that they that are once sinners are ever sinners then either the Saints in glory were never sinners or they are and ever shall be sinners and consequently neither are nor ever shall be perfectly blessed See Ephes 5.27 Neither the justified persons continuance to be a sinner which is the condition of all in this life nor the dependance of justification upon Gods free pleasure nor the passivenesse of the soul in receiving justification do at all inferre atonement much lesse the atonement of the Dialogue to be our righteousnesse The good pleasure of God is the cause why the righteousnesse of Christ imputed and not atonement is our righteousnesse Dialogu But yet the Apostle doth further describe this righteousnesse of God ver 21. by two other circumstances 1. Negatively 2. Affirmatively 1. Negatively he saith that this righteousnesse is without the works of the Law He doth plainly affirm that the works of the Law have no influence at all in the point of a sinners justice or justification Answ We are justified without the works of the Law that is without the works of the Law done by us but not without the works of the Law done by Christ We are justified freely it costeth us nothing Buchan loc 31. q. 16. yet we are justified justly it cost Christ the laying down of a full price Dialogu He doth affirm that this righteousnesse of God whereby sinners are made righteous is such a reghteousnesse as is witnessed by the Law and by the Prophett It is witnessed by the Law namely by that part of the Law which did teach and typifie unto sinners how they might be sinlesse by Gods atonement through their sacrifice of atonement as the procuring cause thereof as I have opened the matter more at large already Answ Willet in loc q. 27. The Apostle in those words by the Law Rom. 3.21 doth not intend the Law of works nor the Ceremoniall Law only but the Law of Moses Moses wrote of me Joh. 5.46 The ceremoniall Law did not typifie our being made righteous by atonement much lesse by the atonement of the Dialogue as it is to be seen in the answer of the places you referre unto Dialogu Faith it self is not a sinners righteousnesse and therefore it cannot be accounted as a sinners righteousnesse in stead of the righteousnesse of the Law as some would have it For if faith were a sinners righteousnesse no otherwise but in the place or stead of the righteousnesse of the Law then faith could not justifie a sinner any further then the Law would do if it could be supposed that a sinner could by any means attain to the righteousnesse of the Law and then truly faith would be but a poor righteousnesse to cover a sinners nakednesse For if a sinner could keep the whole Law in every circumstance of it from his birth unto his death yet it would not be sufficient to justifie him from his originall sin Answ It doth not follow though faith is not therefore atonement is a sinners righteousnesse None of us say that faith is a sinners righteousnesse otherwise then relatively for the sake of the object apprehended by faith and so the Apostle saith expresly Abrahams faith was accounted to him for righteousnesse Yea the Dialogue if atonement might passe for righteousnesse acknowledgeth that faith for the atonements sake received by it is accounted for righteousnesse No marvell though the Dialogue denieth faith to be accounted a sinners righteousnesse in stead of the righteousnesse of the Law the righteousnesse of the Law being righteousnesse properly and truly so called which the Dialogue simply denieth to have any influence into the matter of justification There is no need unto meer justification that faith should justifie a sinner further then the Law requireth yet faith doth not onely justifie a sinner which the Law could not Rom. 8.3 4. but also justifieth him in some respects in a more excellent manner then the Law could have justified an innocent person Dialogu If any
are justified viz. the active and passive obedience of Christ and the matter taken passively i. e. the Subjects which are justified viz. beleeeving sinners In the last you follow them in the first you leave them Your leaving out one of the essentiall causes both renders and leaveth your justification a non-ens a nullity there being no created being but consists at least of a logicall matter and form Atonement or pardon and forgivenesse i. e. the judiciall declaration of a beleever to be discharged from the guilt and condemnation of sin is an effect of a sinners righteousnesse which also hath been shewed before so far is it from being the formall cause thereof The meritorious procuring cause not only of our atonement but also of our righteousnesse is Christs Mediatorly Sacrifice but not in the sense of the Dialogue for there is no such Mediatorly obedience as it imagines Faith apprehends the righteousnesse of Christ as the matter of our righteousness and atonement or pardon as the effect thereof You leave out part of the final cause viz. the glory of his justice But because it is not sufficient for the edification of the Reader that errour be discovered except the truth be also manifested I shall shut up this fourth and last head of controversie between the Dialogue and us with an enumeration of the causes of justification according to the doctrine of the Orthodox The efficient cause The efficient cause is the gracious good pleasure of God the Father Son and holy Ghost Tit. 3.4 Rom. 3.22 Psal 3.9 He is God Lord Law-giver and Judge his will is the Rule of Righteousness All reason in one reason and the reason of all reasons to whom it was free to justifie man in whether way he pleased either legally by our own works or evangelically by the works of another The meritorious cause The meritorious cause is the whole Legall obedience of Christ consisting of his habituall conformity together with his active and passive obedience from the instant of his incarnation unto his passion inclusively performed by him as God-man our Mediatout and Surety in way of Covenant to the fullfilling whereof the application of all the good of election consequently justification as a part thereof was due unto the Elect according to the order of justice though as concerning themselves purposed purchased and perfected altogether in way of meer grace Four things to be attended for the clearing of the meritorious cause Four things attended to will help to clear the meritorious cause 1. The Person 2. The Office 3. The Service 4. The merit whereupon debt ariseth according to order of justice 1 The Person The Person obeying is God-man the eminency of the person is requisite to the value of the Service 2 Office By Office he was Mediatour which he took not upon him but was called thereunto an essentiall part whereof was to stand as our surety and pay our debt even unto the death during which space only Christs Mediatorship is to be looked at as having influence into the meritorious cause of our justification Notwithstanding Christ still continueth a Mediatour and Surety yet no more to pay our debt that being already discharged death had no more dominion over him Heb. 7.27.9.28 1 Pet. 3.18 He was offered once he suffered once 3 Service His service or his perfect obedience consists of his originall conformity and his active and passive obedience unto the Law His originall righteousnesse is that gracious inherent disposition in Christ from the first instant of his conception whereby he was habitually conformable to the Law Luk. 1.35 there was more habituall grace in Christ then there is duty in the Law or then there is or shall be habituall grace in the Elect both Angels and men because Christ was God-man and received the Spirit out of measure as much as was possible to be in a creature This originall righteousnesse of Christ answered for our originall unrighteousnesse Concerning his active and passive obedience to the Law observe these three propositions Prop. 1 All his obedience to the Law proceeded from him as God-man Mediatour See this proved Cha. part 2. Prop. 2 Both active and passive obedience were requisite unto the work of the Mediatour That passive obedience was requisite is unquestionable That active obedience was requisite is thus proved There was no part of Christs obedience which was not active As there was no part of Christs active obedience that was so active as that it was no way passive so there was no part of his passive obedience which was so passive as that it was not also active The Law requireth not only death in case of sin Gen. 2.17 but also doing of the Legall obedience unto the command Deut. 27.26 Gal. 3.10 otherwise there is no life The command then must be obeyed in our selves or in our Surety It cannot be obeyed in our selves Obedience of the Saints whether in grace or glory is not Legall viz. such as is 1. Performed in our own persons 2. From a concreated principle of grace received in the first Covenant 3. In way of merit 4. Perfect Therefore in our Surety Because this double satisfaction answereth to our double misery viz. the guilt of punishment or condemnation and defect of righteousnesse Because righteousnesse properly and truly so called consisteth in actuall obedience Prop. 3 All his active and passive obedience concurres to compleat the work or service of the Mediator He was born for us Luk. 2.10 11. he was made subject to the Law for us Gal. 4.4 for our sakes he sanctified himself Joh. 17.19 and that from the womb unto his last oblation of himself upon the crosse He obeyed the Law for our sakes I come to do thy will O God Heb. 10.7 by the which will we are sanctified cap. 10. that is that will whereby he was appointed to this office and by doing his will in that office according as he was appointed What Christ did in way of discharging his office he did for us Christ fulfilled the Law Mat. 5.17 in way of discharging his office Therefore he fullfilled the Law for us He came to fullfill all the Law As he came so he was sent and his sending or mission was nothing else but his actuall entring upon his Office according to the pleasure and command of the Father Briefly He came as he was sent He was sent as Mediatour Ergo. Either all Christs active obedience was for us Obedientia Christi est una copulativa Alste Theo. Sect. 3. loc 22. Med. l. 1. c. 21. 23 24. Wolleb l. 1. c. 18. or some of it only for himself but there can no reason be given why any of it should be only for himself If it should be granted which the Protestant Writers do generally deny that Christ merited for himself yet the Proposition stands if that Christ merited not only for himself but for us also Every action of Christs obedience was an integrall part of
not viz. Exo. 8.18 which the diligent Reader may easily perceive and Numb 14.40 where the words are better read by Learned Translators And they rose up early in the morning that they might ascend c. A third viz. Exo. 17.16 is expounded with as good reason against you That also Esth. 8.7 might be troubled if not taken from you the true meaning of places is to be attended Your number of instances if need were I doubt not may be made up elsewhere 'T is true the will is in diverse places put for the deed but not therefore in every place nor consequently in this So to argue were a non-consequence proceeding from particulars to an universal Where in Scripture the will is put for the deed there it is also manifest that though there was the will yet there was not the deed as in your instances of Abraham Saul and Haman if yet the last will hold as here alledged But you cannot produce any Scripture where the will is put for the deed when there was a sufficient physical cause exerted to produce that effect and also the effect followed it were indeed an implicate i.e. a contradiction yet such is the case here 'T is true no torments though in themselves killing could kill Christ until he pleased and 't is also true that torments killing in themselvs could kill him when he pleased If because the life of Christ could not be taken away until the time appointed nor without his consent it therefore followeth that the Jews and Romans did not take away his life by the same reason it may be said of the bloud that was shed at the scourging crucifying the piercing of his side with the Lance that they did not take away that bloud from him only endeavoured to take away his bloud for that bloud was not shed until the time appointed not until Christ pleased it being in the power of the Divine nature to have retained it Nay why may it not be said by the same reason of all the sufferings inflicted upon him by men that they did but endeavour to afflict him but they did not afflict him since all the evils that men inflicted upon him were inflicted according to his consent and in the time and manner as was written Luk. 22.37 Act. 3.18 This reasoning too much favoureth Socinians and other hereticks who deny the sufferings of Christ to be real affirming them only to be Metaphoricall It is a daring assertion when there is not one text nor I beleeve one Classicall Authour who affirmeth that Christ as the next and formall cause shed his bloud but on the contrary plentifull Texts and Testimonies that he was put to death kil'd and slain and that by the Jews Luke 18.33 1 Pet. 3.18 Mar. 12.8 Act. 3.15 1 Thes 3.15 Jam. 5.6 Act. 2.23 Rev. 5.6 9 12. 6.9 to contradict not only the godly whether learned or unlearned both of the present and all past generations since the Passion of our Lord Jesus but also the Scriptures themselves in saying the Jews did not actually put Christ to death Nor let the Jews Romans or Pilate rejoyce at this in vain doth the Dialogue discharge whom God hath charged After all this give me leave again to minde the Reader that though this untruth were true yet it is impertinent to the question for what though the Jews did not put Christ to a natural death what though Christ shed his own bloud what though he were his own Executioner yea killed himself which last though the Dialogue in words somewhere rejects yet in consequence asserts at the writing of which my pen trembleth doth it therefore follow that God did not inflict upon him his paenall wrath Dialogu He laid down his life by the same power by which he raised it up again Joh. 10.17 18. Answ The power was the same but the manner of putting it forth was not the same In laying down his life Christ acted as a voluntary and solitary cause that is by way of consent and alone but in taking up his life again he acted as an efficient sociall cause the Father and the holy Ghost cooperating with him Dialogu Yea his Mediatoriall death may well be called a miraculous death Answ His death was miraculous many waies the Personall union of soul and body with the Divine nature during the space of their physicall disunion one from another was miraculous such strength of nature remaining under the extreme pangs and at the instant of death was miraculous as was the strength of Moses Deut. 34.7 and of Caleb Josh 14.11 in the time of old age that Christ as man should die whilest the Manhood was in personal union with the Godhead is miraculous but that the Divine nature suspending its assistance a man should die under deadly pains was not miraculous Christs death was in some respect miraculous and supernatural and in some respect not miraculous but natural as Christs natural so his supernatural death was miracalous but it doth not follow it was miraculous therefore it was not the contrary followeth his supernatural death was miraculous therefore it was Dialogu Christ died not by degrees saith M. Nichols in his Day-Starre as his Saints do his senses do not decay c. Answ Others say the same who notwithstanding teach the doctrine of imputation and Christs suffering of the wrath of God the one opposeth not the other Whether Christs pains were so ended when he said It was finished as that his death was without pain which yet I beleeve not is not the question but whether Christ suffered the wrath of God Dialogu Austin saith thus Who can sleep saith he when he will as Christ died when he would who can lay aside his garment so as Christ laid aside his flesh Who can leave his place as Christ left his life his life was not forced from him by any imposed punishment but he did voluntarily render it up to God as a Mediatorial sacrifice in his life time he was often touched with the fear of death but by his strong crying unto God with daily praiers and tears he obtained power against his natural fear of death before he came to make his oblation as I have expounded Heb. 5.7 Answ Augustine in his 119 Tractate upon Iohn speaks as you recite until those words who can leave his place so as Christ left his life so far are his words but no further in that place nor I beleeve any where else The rest seem to be your own and if so ought to have been accordingly distinguished by the character Your Exposition of Heb. 5.7 Sed Pelagiani quo modo dicunt solum mortem nos transisse c. August contra duas Epistolas Pelag. l. 4. cap. 4. hath received its answer If Augustines judgement in this Controversie be of weight with you you may learn it out of these his ensuing words But saith he after what manner do the Pelagians say that death passed unto us by Adam For we