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
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