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
intimation to premise briefly certain Propositions four Questions five Distinctions with some few Arguments The Distinctions serving to Answer some chief Objections The Propositions Questions and Arguments tending to clear and confirm the Truth Prop. I The Lord Jesus Christ as God-man Mediator according to the will of the Father and his own voluntary consent fully obeyed the Law doing the command in a way of works and suffering the essential punishment of the curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto Divine justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant which active and passive obedience of his together with his original righteousness as a Surety God of his rich grace actually imputeth unto Beleevers whom upon the receipt thereof by the grace of Faith he declareth and accepteth as perfectly righteous and acknowledgeth them to have right unto eternal Life More fully and particularly Prop. II God in the first Covenant the substance whereof is Do this and thou shalt live Lev. 18.5 But in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Gen. 2.17 proceeded with man in a way of justice Prop. III Justice in God is either Essential whence God can do no wrong Or Relative in respect of the creature viz. Gods constant will of rendring to man what is his due this is the free constitution of Gods good pleasure whose will is the first and absolute rule of Righteousness Prop. IV Relative justice supposeth somewhat due from God to man in a way of debt so as if God should not perform it he should be unjust That which thus obligeth God in a way of Reward is called Merit in a way of Punishment Demerit yet so as the word Merit is ordinarily used promiscuously Prop. V Merit is either Absolute so God cannot be a Debtor to the creature no not to Christ himself or By Way of free Covenant so God hath in case made himself a Debtor to man Justice then consisting in rendring to every one their due and Gods will being the rule of Justice it followeth that and only that to be the due desert merit or demerit of man which God hath willed concerning him The Moral Law it self that eternal rule of manners The recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience The punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience are all the effects of Gods good pleasure Merit by vertue of free Covenant notes such an obedience whereunto God by his free Promise hath made himself a debtor according to order of Justice Demerit notes such disobedience whereunto by force of the Commination death is due according to the order of Justice Merit or Demerit is a just debt whether in way of reward or punishment the genus of merit is debt i. e. To indebt or make due its form in a way of Justice Prop. VI The demerit or desert of man by reason of sin being death according to Relative justice the rule of proceeding between God and him Justice now requireth that man should dye As God with reverence be it spoken of him who cannot be unjust in case man had continued in obedience had been unjust if he had denied him life so in case of disobedience he should be unjust in case he should not inflict death Prop. VII The elect then having sinned the elect must diâ—â— if they die in their own persons Election is frustrate God is unfaithfull if they die not at all God is unjust the Commination is untrue If elect men die in their own persons the Gospel is void if man doth not die the Law is void they die therefore in the man Christ Jesus who satisfied Justice as their Surety and so fulfilled both Law and Gospel As Gods will is the rule of righteousness so Gods will is the rule of the temperature of righteousness Prop. VIII Though God by his absolute power might have saved man without a Surety yet having constituted that inviolable rule of relative justice In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die he could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this rule but man having sinned man must die and satisfie the Law that man may live Justice requireth that the Surety should die thâ—â— the Debtor may live That he might be just and the Justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Rom. 3.26 God suffereth multitudes of sins to be unpardoned but he suffereth not one sin to be unpunished Quaere 1 What is Vindicative justice strictly taken Answ It is an execution of relative justice rewarding sin with the punishment due thereunto according to the Law Justice in God as was said before is either essential which is in him necessarily hence he can do no wrong Or relative which is in him freely that is it hath no necessary connexion with the Being of God This Relative or Moral justice is an act of Gods good pleasure whence flows his proceeding with men according to the Law of righteousness freely constituted between him and them Quaere 2 What is the supream and first cause why justice requireth that sin should be rewarded with the punishment due thereunto according to the Law Answ The free constitution of God The principal and whole reason of this mystery depends upon the good pleasure of God Nam hujus mysterii summum imo tota ratio independit quis negat potuisse Deum alio quovis modo providere saluti hominuÌ„ sed hoc voluit nec nisi hoc Cham. de Descensu To. 2. l. 5 cap. 12. for who can deny that God could have saved man in another way but he would save him thus and no otherwise then thus This great principle is all along to be kept in minde and occasionally to be applied serving not as a sword to cut but as a leading truth to loose many knots of carnal reason The good pleasure of God is the first rule of Righteousness the Cause of all Causes the Reason of all Reasons and in one word all Reason in one Reason Quaere 3 Wherein consists the sufficiency and value of the obedience of Christ as our Surety Answ In three things 1. In the dignity of the person obeying 2. In the quality or kinde of his obedience 3. In the acceptation of this obedience The person obeying was God-man The first Adam was by Gods institution a publick person hence in him sinning the world sinned The second Adam is not only by Gods institution a publick person but also an infinite person because God This publick and infinite person doing and suffering was as much as if the world of the Elect had suffered If the first Adam a finite person was by Gods institution in that act of disobedience A world of men why should it seem strange that the second Adam being an infinite person should be by Gods institution in the course of his obedience As the world of the Elect He being an infinite person there needed no more then Gods pleasure to have made him The world of men yea
our righteousnesse and justification This the Reader is desired to take full notice of it in the Dialogues corrupt sense being that Helena in defence whereof a good part of the ensuing discourse spends it self and the just confutation whereof here given and kept in minde may serve as an answer to the after frequent repetitions of the same thing That Atonement or pardon of sin only especially such as denieth the Legal Obedience of Christ imputed cannot be the righteousnesse of a sinner is proved thus The difference of the nature of justice and pardon of sin manifests that pardon of sin only is not justice or righteousnesse Pardon and sinlessenesse take away deformity in respect of the Law but righteousnesse consists in a conformity unto the Law Pardon of sin is an effect of that which is the sinners righteousnesse For the clearing whereof three distinct notions in the justification of a sinner are to be attended to 1. Righteousnesse it self i. e. the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed called by some justification taken actively or the application thereof on Gods part 2. The receiving of this gift of righteousnesse by faith Rom. 5.17 whereby we are just called by some justification taken passively or the application thereof on our part 3. Vid. Buch. loc 31 q. 6. Remissio peccatorum est pars nostrae justificationis sed non est pars nostrae justitiae Polan syntag p. 1493. The judicial pronouncing of the beleever in the Court of conscience hereupon to be just by the vertue of the promise of the Gospel for the merit sake of Christ this Divines call our justification because we are now declared to be just and are judicially just that is the Beleever now made righteous by faith is judicially discharged and declared to be discharged from the condemning guilt and punishment of sin and accepted as righteous unto eternall life The first is our righteousnesse or justice it self The second is our being justified The third is the judiciall pronunciation that we are justified so that pardon of sin is not a part of righteousnesse it self but a part of the judiciall sentence concerning one that is righteous and because he is righteous To say pardon of sin is righteousnesse is self is to confound the effect with the cause Whence the reason is plain why notwithstanding both righteousnesse or justice and the pardon of sins be by Divines frequently made ingredients into the definition of justification yet righteousnesse and pardon of sins are not to be looked at as the same thing Such definitions are not nor is it by the Authour thereof so intended perfect definitions adequate to thing defined but they are descriptions or imperfect definitions so expressed as best seems to communicate the truth unto the capacity of the reader Again Justification is an accident now Logicians teach us such definitions of accidents to be oftentimes helpful to the understanding that make use of other terms besides those which are essentiall If pardon of sin were a part of a sinners righteousnesse yet being but a part it could not be the whole Pardon of sin cannot compleat righteousnesse because righteousnesse doth not only consist in being sinlesse but also in being just the heavens are sinlesse yet they are not just the Law is not satisfied with negative obedience Not only he that doth do what the Law forbiddeth shall die Gen. 2.17 but he that continueth not in the things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 Being sinlesse acquits from obnoxiousnesse unto hell but being just giveth a right unto heaven There is an observable difference between being unjust Injustus non-injustus non-justus justus not-unjust not-just just The sinner yet not a beleever is unjust the unreasonable creature is not-unjust Adam in innocency was more then not-unjust yet was not just The Beleever is just There is no such pardon of sin as the Dialogue affirms namely such a pardon of sin as doth not only disown the Legal obedience of Christ imputed as its cause but also disclaims the very being of it The being of the Dialogues pardon is the not being of Christs active and passive mediatorly obedience to the Law It is such a fiction as the Authour of it and that at his conclusion undertaking to shew its being from the causes thereof Dial. p. 133. telleth us the formal cause is the fathers atonement pardon and forgivenesse but the subject matter is beleeving sinners of all sorts the subject matter are the persons receiving justification which some Divines call the matter of justification taken passively yet adding therewith the Legall obedience of Christ which they call the matter of justification taken actively namely that which is the matter whereby a person elect and called is justified but if you enquire after the essential matter of justification amongst the causes enumerated by the Authour behold the Dialogue is speechlesse and presents you with a form without a matter such a being as is neither created nor increated If Christs Legal obedience was the expiation of sin that is if Christ in way of obedient fulfilling the Law was a person accursed the sacrificing of whom in way of satisfaction to divine justice was necessary to the taking away of sin Then there is no pardon of sin without Christs Legal obedience so fulfilled and imputed But Christs Legal obedience was the expiation of sin which appeareth thus The Legal offerings of atonement were typical expiations of sin Exod. 29.36 ch 36. Lev. 16. therefore Christ was the reall expiation of sin He in way of obedient fulfilling of the Law Heb. 10 9. Psa 40.8 Mat. 5.7 was a person accursed and that with a paenal and eternal curse Gal. 3.13 which is already proved in the fore-going vindication of the Text. The sacrificing of whom in way of satisfaction to divine justice was necessary to the taking away of sin Isa 53.10 Rom. 3.26 Heb. 9.22 where bloud is understood synechdochically part of his suffering put for the whole his bloud was shed together with the wrath of God because it was shed as the bloud of a person accursed And he went a little further c. fell on his face c. praied saying O my Father if it be possible Let this cup passe from me to the same effect he praied the second time and the third time Mat. 26.39 42 44. If it be possible If it be possible If it be possible hereby the definitive way of God being set concerning the salvation of the Elect Christ abundantly sheweth there was no other possible way of redemption but by his drinking up the cup of his Fathers wrath for us whatsoever the Dialogue saith to the contrary God doubtlesse will not own those pardons for disobedience unto his Law which will not own Christs meritorious obedience to that Law and that as the cause of pardon If our very pardons minister matter of condemnation how great is that condemnation Who can lay
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
signifying that it put on the nature of the Antitype or thing signified whereas the type as the type can no more put on the nature of the Anti-type then the adjunct can put on the nature of the subject Adam as a publike person disobeying and communicating guilt and punishment to his seed was a type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 5.14 of Christ obeying and communicating righteousnesse and life unto his seed Did then the first Adam put on the nature of the second and so become a mediator or did obedience put on the nature of disobedience Moses the Minister of the Law dying before he came into Canaan as M. Ainsworth observeth on Numb 20.12 signified the impotency of the Law to save was therefore Moses no instrument of salvation unto any Cyrus was a type of Christ must therefore Cyrus not only be saved but also put on the nature of a Mediator who neither then Isa 45.4.5 nor afterwards for ought that appeared beleeved Who ever reasoned thus before that in any measure understood the nature of a type Dialogu But if the circumstances of the Text be well marked they will tell you plainly that this hanging upon a tree cannot be a type of the eternall curse for 1. This Law of Moses must not be understood of putting any man to death by hanging but of hanging of a dead body upon a tree after it was first put to death by stoning but Christ was crucified whilest he was alive 2. This hanging in Moses time was done by the judiciall Law and civil Magistrates and not by the ceremoniall Law nor the Priests 3. This hanging in Moses was commanded to be practised by the Magistrates of the Iews Common-wealth but the death which Christ suffered was a Roman kinde of death Answ Yet Paul who well marked and understood also the Circumstances of the Text telleth us plainly Gal. 3.13 that Christ hanging upon the Crosse though by the Romane power and also after a Romane manner was intended in and proved out of Deut. 21.23 The ceremoniall curse therefore was laid upon every one that was judicially hanged upon a tree in Judea from the time of the giving of this Law until the time of the passion of Christ by what lawfull authority soever or after what manner soever The principall scope of this Text is not to command putting to death by hanging upon a tree the ground whereof is had elsewhere but to give a Law concerning him that is hanged namely that he should in any wise be buried that day with the reasons thereof annexed Dialogu When the Romans did put Christ to that kinde of death which they used to inflict upon their base fugitive slaves they made him cursed in his death in the highest degree they could and yet at the self-same time Christ did redeem us from the curse of the Law even from the eternall curse because Christ died not only as a Malefactor by the power of Roman souldiers but he died also as a Mediator by his own Mediatoriall obedience Answ If he that only granteth Christ died as a Malefactor in the Romans and Jews account but denieth that he died a Malefactor in Gods account should not put in that yet Christ died as a Mediator he could expect no other but utmost abhorrence from every Christian man for such a tenet as did not secretly steal away by subtle sophisms but openly and before the Sun spoil them of their Mediator The curse laid upon Christ hanging upon a tree was not the curse of the Romans or a humane but a divine curse Gal. 3.13 Deut. 21.23 for he that is hanged is accursed of God Christs death as a Malefactor in the Jews and Romans account unjustly was a part though but a small part of the just punishment of God inflicted upon him as the great Malefactor imputatively in Gods account Christ died both as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor in Gods account Of his dying as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor in the sense of the Dialogue See before Ch. 10. Dialogu This act of Christ was an everlasting act of Mediatoriall obedience it was no legall obedience nor was it any humane act of obedience as all legall obedience must be but it was a supernaturall act of obedience it was no lesse then a Mediatoriall oblation and therefore it was the meritorious procuring cause of our Redemption from the curse of the Law even at that very same time when Christ was made a curse for us by hanging as a Malefactor upon a tree Answ Christ acted in his death not as his own Executioner but as our Priest and faithfull Surety yeelding up his life according to his voluntary pre-consent This act of Christ in laying down his life was an act of legall obedience because it was done in obedience to the Law This commandment have I received from my Father Joh. 10.18 He was obedient to the death he humbled himself and became obedient to the death even the death of the Crosse Phil. 2.8 He was made under that is subject to the Law Gal. 4.4 and fullfilled the Law Mat. 5.17 this act of laying down his life was supernaturall but not only supernaturall it was both divine and humane according to both natures for it was the act and obedience of him who was God-man as God-man-Mediator otherwise it could not have been effectuall This reasoning is as full of perill as empty of sound reason Dialogu Therefore the Tree on which Christ was crucified as a Malefactor cannot be the Altar neither were the Roman Souldiers the Priests by whom this mediatorial sacrifice was offered up to God but it was his own Godhead that was the Priest and his own Godhead was the Altar by which he offered up his soul to God a mediatorial sacrifice for the procuring of our redemption from the curse of the Law Answ Who saith the Tree was the Altar or that the Souldiers were the Priests when the crosse is sometimes in Writers resembled unto the Altar it is an illustration by way of allusion unto the type that is the Altar whereon the beast was laid but not unto the Antitype Christ was both Priest Sacrifice and Altar which yet is not to be understood as excluding either of his natures in any of these considerations He was a Sacrifice in respect of his humane nature yet he who was the Sacrifice was both God and Man He was the Altar in respect of his divine nature yet he that was the Altar was both God and Man He was Priest as God-man CHAP. XII Christ redeemed us not from the curse of the Law by his soul-sufferings only And of the meaning of Haides Dialogu GOod Divines do affirm that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law not by his bodily but by his soul-sufferings only which God inflicted upon his soul when his body was crucified upon the Tree Answ I do not finde that any Orthodox Divine so affirmeth Willet cen 5. err 3. par 3.
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
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