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-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
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.
for the whole and compleat cause The valour and preciousnesse of the obedience of Christ though it depends principally yet it depends not wholly upon the eminency of his person but also upon the quality of his obedience and Gods gracious acceptation thereof the absence of any of these would render Christ an insufficient Redeemer Had not he been such a person his obedience could not have been satisfactory and though there were such a person yet without such obedience unto the Law there can be no satisfaction The immutable truth of God Gen. 2 17. and his inviolable justice Rom. 1.32 require obedience in the Mediatour the Law requireth obedience both active Lev. 18.5 and passive Gal. 3.10 else there can be no life The Dialogues frequent reiteration of the same objections forceth the reiteration of the same answers The firstling of the Asse must either be redeemed or destroyed Exod. 34 20. Christ was appointed of God to be a common and more effectuall principle of Redemption then Adam was of destruction Rom. 5.14 16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 15.22 Dialogu Christ at one and the same time died both as a Mediatour actively and as a Malefactor passively as I have explained the matter Gal. 3.13 and in other places also Answ Christ both was and died such a Mediatour as was also a Malefactor imputatively in his death he was both active and passive how we shall soon see in due place The errour of this distinction in the sense of the Dialogu hath been already shown in the place mentioned Dialogu But for your better understanding of the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ consider 2. things 1. Consider what was the Priestly nature of Christ and 2. Consider what was his Priestly action 1. His Priestly nature was his Divine nature for he is said to be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck of whom it is witnessed that he liveth or that he ever liveth Heb. 7.8 Answ None that beleeveth the Scriptures doubts of Christs being in respect of his Divine nature a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck but that Christs Priestly nature was his Divine nature only that is that Christ was only a Priest according to his Divine nature which the language of the Dialogue seemeth to hold forth is a great errour the common principles of Religion tell us that the Priesthood is a part of the Mediatorly office Christ as Mediator is God man therefore as Priest he is God-man Parts are of the same nature with the whole Necessary it is say the Catechisms that the Mediatour should be both God and Man he must be man else he could not be a meet sacrifice he must be God or else his sacrifice could not have been effectuall Christ was both Priest Sacrifice and Altar The humane nature only suffered therefore most properly was the sacrifice yet so as in Personal union with the Godhead the Divine nature was that which upheld the humane The person consisting of both natures was the Priest Christ offered up himself before his humane nature was dissolved by death which consideration might have prevented that objection in this place though the union of the body with the soul was dissolved by death Dawascen de fide orthodox l. 3. cap. 7. yet the union both of soul and body with the second Person continued undissolved the separation of the soul from the body loosed not the union of both with the Divine nature Tho. par 3. qu. 5. ar 4. Gerh. suppl 104. they were locally separated the one from the other but both united hypostatically i. e. personally with the Deity Neither the soul nor the body of Christ ever had any subsistence but in the Word The word He in the Scriptures alledged signifieth not either Nature apart but the person consisting of both Natures as the Mediator was not nor is not God alone nor man alone but God-man so he merited not as God alone or man alone but as God-man and as Christ merited the application of the good of Redemption so God applieth it not for the sake of the Divine nature alone nor the humane nature alone but for the sake of God-man Mediatour The Scripture so attributes the infinite value and efficacy of the works of the Mediatour unto the Divine nature denoted by the word Spirit as it also ascribes those works unto the Person i. e. whole Christ consisting of both natures signified by the word Who How much more shall the bloud of Christ who through the eternall Spirit offered himself without spot to God Synops pur Theol. disp 26. Thes 18 19. purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God Heb. 9.14 Because the actions of the Mediatour were the actions of Christ who is God-man in them the Divine nature was the principal the humane nature the lesse principal and instrumental cause If upon a supposition this untruth were a truth yet 't is impertinent to the question being neither beneficial to the tenet of the Authour nor prejudiciall to the tenet of the Orthodox Dialogu But yet withall take notice that the term He Gen. 3.15 doth comprehend under it his humane nature as well as his divine yea it doth also comprehend under it the Personal union of both his Natures Answ Then the term He Gen. 3.15 notes the Person consisting of both natures therefore not the Divine nature onely but the person consisting of both natures was the Priest The Term He in the other Scriptures being by your own acknowledgement of the same sense with the term He Gen. 3.15 you hereby unsay what you just now said or otherwise what was said was nothing to the purpose Dialogu Consider what was his Priestly action and that was the sprinkling of his own bloud by his own Priestly nature that is to say by his divine nature Isa 53.12 namely by the active power of his own divine Priestly nature Heb. 9.14 that is to say he separated his soul from his body by the power of his Godhead when he made his soul a trespasse-offering for our sin Isa 53.10 and the manner of sprinkling of bloud by the Priests upon the Altar must be done with a large and liberall quantity and therefore it is called pouring out and this sprinkling with pouring out did typifie the death of the Mediatour a large quantity of bloudshed must needs be a true evidence of death Answ Christ considered as a Priest was obliged in the state of his humiliation to fullfill the Law in our stead and consequently the sacrifice that he offered as our Priest was the whole work of his active and passive obedience the Priests who were a type of Christ stood severally charged with the custody of the Ark wherein the Decalogue distinguished into two Tables was laid up Duties of active as well as passive obedience are ordinarily called Sacrifices Heb. 13.16 The Priest that offered this Sacrifice was not the Divine nature alone but the Person of Christ consisting
of both natures with the needlesse repetition of which it is full time to cease troubling the Reader any further So to attribute the Mediatorly obedience of his death unto the divine nature as to exclude the humane nature from its influence thereunto is not only to derogate from the humane nature but indeed not to attribute such mediatorly obedience unto Christ for Christ is a person consisting of both Natures Christs shedding of his bloud in such a large manner as we reade in the Scripture is a truth worthy of all attention and acknowledgement but understood in the sense of the Dialogue for the shedding of his materiall bloud only it is comparatively but a small part of his obedience for Christ suffered not only a naturall death Job 19.30 but also a spiritual death Mat. 26.46 Heb. 2.9 not only a bodily but also a spiritual death he shed his blood together with the sense of the wrath of God here his death is not called a death simply but a suffering wherein the iniquities of us all gathered together as in an heap were laid upon him Isa 53.6 and a curse but this is already largely spoken to The death or shedding of the bloud of Christ in Scripture is often put for the whole satisfactory obedience which he performed in the state of his humiliation Rom. 3.25 Eph. 1.7 Col. 1.20 because it was the compleating and consummation of all or synechdochically taking a part for the whole namely the visible part of his sufferings for both visible and invisible Med. lib. 1. c. 22. th 5. Polan Pis 2 Pet. 2.4 like as in the relating the moral acts of his obedience the external part is oftentimes only mentioned the internal understood and in setting down the works of the Creation the visible creatures are named the invisible included Dialogu And secondly In this respect the bloud of Christ is called the bloud of God Act. 20 28. not only because his humane nature was united to his Divine nature for by the communication of properties that may be attributed to the Person which is proper to one nature only but secondly 't is called the bloud of God in another respect namely because he shed his bloud by his own Priestly nature that is to say by the actuall power of his divine nature for he offered himself by his eternall Spirit Heb. 9.14 Answ As it was the bloud of him that was God-man so it was shed by him that was God-man Christs offering up of himself unto God was a free and a willing act otherwise his offering had not been effectual it could not have been obedience if it had not been done freely In respect of God He had done none any wrong if the second Person had continued only in that subsistence wherein he was equal unto God without admitting any subsistence in personal union with the Manhood in which respect he is inferiour unto God by voluntary dispensation He laid down his life of his own accord otherwise there was no one could have taken it away Ioh. 10.18 Christ had power of right authority and Majesty and might dispose of his own life yet having received commandment of the Father to lay down his life he put not forth his Divine power to rescue the manhood from deadly sufferings but cooperating with subordinate instruments according to the concourse of the first cause with the second gave way to the course of nature and patiently suffered a violent death That which the Dialogue is to prove is that the Mediatorly obedience of Christ whereby we are redeemed is by way of price only not by way of Suretiship and just satisfaction unto the Law but that which it here saith is that the bloud of Christ was shed with a large and liberal quantity that his bloud was shed for the atonement of mens souls that the bloud that was shed was the bloud of him that was God all which are true but conclude not the question he shed his bloud most true but he did not only shed his bloud but so as the sense of the wrath of God was mixed with it he suffered both a naturall and a supernatural death Separation of the soul from the body is either by the first and universal efficient so the Divine nature considered in it self separated one from the other or by an universal subordinate efficient acting by way of consent so the Divine nature subsisting in Personal union acted together with the humane in the separation of his soul from his body or else by the next formal cause so the executioners separated his soul from his body Dialogu In like sort he is called Jehovah our Righteousnesse Jer. 20.3 because his Mediatorial obedience whereof his oblation was the masterpiece was actuated by Iehovah that is to say by his divine nature as well as by his humane Answ He is called Iehovah our righteousnesse because he merited our justification by obeying and because he obedience imputed is the matter of our righteousnesse You now plainly acknowledging that his Mediatorly obedience was actuated by Iehovah that is to say by his divine nature as well as by his humane acknowledge therewithall that it was performed by the joint concurrence of both natures as elsewhere you say And so shew that your Reader is troubled in vain to finde out the meaning of those novell propositions viz. He poured out his soul to death by the active power of his own Divine Priestly nature He separated his soul from his body by the power of his God-head without mentioning the humane nature We must needs look at that as a piece of the mystery of darknesse which hath no other strength but in imagination and that only whilest it is not understood but when understood becomes just nothing The Father of Popery proveth a known Impostor if men once speak in the mother tongue Popery liveth no longer then it speaks Latine to plain people Dialogu So then I may well conclude that the death of Christ was a Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement because it was the act of the Mediatour in both his natures in his humane nature he was the Lamb of God without spot and in his Divine nature he was the Priest to offer up his humane nature to God as a Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement for the full Redemption of all the Elect. Answ It is an inviolable rule in disputation that the conclusion should run in the formall terms of the question The question therefore being whether the natural death of Christ without his suffering the wrath of God was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement other inferiour acts done by him as God-man included the Conclusion should have proceeded thus The natural death of Christ without his suffering of the wrath of God was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement The weaknesse and fallaciousnesse of which conclusion deduced from the annexed reason viz. because it was the act of the Mediatour in both natures immediatly discovereth it self unto him who
in them or no. Answ The Dialogue here takes off it self from further acting the part of an opponent against the imputation of Christs Legall obedience both active and passive unto justification and now proceeds to act the part of a Respondent unto certain Arguments of M. Forbes alledged to prove that sinners are justified by the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in his death This it doth not as adhering to us wherein M. Forbes dissents for it agreeth with him wherein he disagreeth but as opposing him wherein he consents with us in the doctrine of imputation That the answer therefore may be as full in the Vindication as the Dialogue pretends to be in the refutation of the Doctrine of the Orthodox we shall examine the Dialogues examination and impertinences omitted consider all that and only that which herein concerns the Question Dialogu Nothing saith M. Forbes is made of God to be a sinners righteousnesse but Jesus Christ alone and his righteousnesse and this he proves by 1 Cor. 1.30 Jer. 23.26 with other places The Apostle saith that Christ was made of God unto us righteousnesse but how not as the doctrine of imputation speaketh but thus God made him to be our righteousnesse in a Mediatoriall way by ordaining him to be the only meritorious procuring cause of his atonement which is a sinners onely righteousnesse Christ is not a sinners righteousnesse any otherwise but in a Mediatoriall way only as I have oft warned Christ is called Jehovah our righteousnesse but still it must be understood in a Mediatoriall way and no otherwise We have seen already that Atonement is not righteousnesse it cannot then be a sinners only righteousnesse That which the Dialogue cals a Mediatorial way is indeed no way but is destructive unto the true way and consequently an hereticall way denying of and inconsisting with the Mediatorly obedience of Christ unto the Law The Legall obedience of Christ is to be considered formally and virtually as considered formally it is an ingredient into the meritorious cause of our justification as considered virtually it is the materiall cause thereof Of which before Dialogu And thus Christ is our Righteousnesse in one respect the Father in another and the holy Ghost in another Each person is a sinners righteousnesse in severall respects The manner how Christ should justifie the many was by bearing their iniquities and how else did he bear their iniquities but by his sacrifice of Atonement and in this sense Christ is said to justifie us with his bloud Rom. 5.9 that is to say by his Sacrifice of Atonement therefore his righteousnesse cannot be the formall cause of a sinners righteousnesse it is but the procuring cause of the Fathers atonement which is the only formall cause of a sinners righteousnesse Answ That Proposition Christ bare our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement is an equivocal proposition capable of diverse construct ons in the sense of the Orthodox 't is true in the sense of the Dialogue false both which senses are sufficiently known by the foregoing discourse The Apostle Rom. 5.9 speaketh of the meritoritorious cause part thereof being put for the whole Synechdochically Upon this occasion let us observe both the intent and consent of such Scriptures as speak diversly of the cause of justification We are said to be justified by grace Rom. 3.24 i. e. as the efficient cause By his bloud Rom. 5 9. i. e. as the meritorious cause By his obedience Rom. 5.19 i. e. as the materiall cause By imputation viz. of his obedience Rom. 4.6 i. e. as the formall cause By faith Rom. 5.1 i. e. as the instrument Your inference Christ bare our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement therefore his righteousnesse cannot be the formall cause of a sinners righteousness is impertinent and argues that you understand not our doctrine We say not that the obedience of Christ is the formall but the materiall cause of a sinners righteousnesse and that imputation is the formall cause thereof Dialogu The Father is a sinners righteousnesse 1. Efficiently 2. Formally His Atonement so procured must needs be the formall cause of a sinners full and perfect righteousnesse Answ To say the Father is a sinners righteousnesse formally sounds too near Osianders errour who held that we were justified by the essentiall righteousnesse of God But the following words shew you mistake or at least inconveniently use the term formally and intend no other then your former error The efficient cause of a sinners righteousnesse is the Father Father taken not personally but essentially for God the Father Son and holy Ghost Dialogu The holy Ghost also doth make sinners righteous instrumentally by fitting preparing and qualifying sinners for the Fathers Atonement by quickening their souls with the lively grace of faith by which grace sinners are enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers Atonement Answ Faith is the instrument or instrumentall cause of justification 'T is also true that the grace of faith as the application of all other benefits of redemption unto the Elect is the effect of the holy Ghost and because a finishing work it is ascribed to the third Person yet according to that received Rule All the works of God upon the creature are wrought in common by all the three persons notwithstanding the work be principally ascribed unto that person whose manner of existence doth most eminently appear in it 'T is a great errour both in Divinity and Logick to say the holy Ghost who is God and onely God is an instrumental cause which alwaies notes inferiority Dialogu It is well that your Authour will grant remission of sins to be righteousnesse in effect if remission of sins be a sinners righteousnesse then I pray consider whose act it is to forgive sins formally I have already proved it to be the Fathers act to forgive sin formally and not Christs he doth forgive sin no otherwise but as a Mediatour by procuring his Fathers pardon and forgivensse Answ Righteousnesse is taken strictly for the matter and form of justification only or largely for justification as consisting of its causes Rom. 10.10 remission of sins is an immediate and inseparable effect of the former but a part of the latter Imputation which is the formall cause of justification is a transient act and is the effect of the Father taken essentially Our Question is not concerning the formall but the materiall cause of justification Dialogu M. Forbes is put to his shifts to declare that Christs passive Obedience is the matter of a sinners righteousnesse by a distinction between Christ as he was our Lamb for Sacrifice in his humane nature and as he was our Priest in his divine nature for else he did foresee that he should run into an exceeding grosse absurdity if he had made any action of Christs God-head or Priestly nature to have been a sinners righteousnesse by imputation Therefore to avoid that absurdity he doth place a sinners righteousnesse in his passive
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