Trinity is to be considered according to his subsistence in the Divine nature only or as he subsists in personall union with the man-hood In the first consideration He together with the Father and the holy Ghost did inflict the torments of hell upon the humane nature All the works of the Trinity upon the creature whereof this is one Isa 53.10 Mat. 26.31 are undivided that is they are wrought by all the persons jointly In this consideration also the divine nature was angry not only with the humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him and forsook him with a temporall and partiall desertion But hence in no waies followeth the dissolution of the personall union as the body and soul of Christ separated one from the other continued in personall union so the soul and body separated from all participation of the good of the promise for the while were without dissolution of the Personall Union The execution of the evil of the curse denieth communion but not union with God The evil of the commination denounced and incurred as touching our legall obnoxiousnesse thereunto dissolveth not the union of the Elect with God in the everlasting covenant of grace nor doth the denouncing incurring the danger and undergoing of the punishment dissolve the union of the election of Christ Isa 42.1 much lesse doth it dissolve the personal union The Second Person considered as subsisting in personall union with the manhood Mediatio propriè analogicè Wolleb and as Mediatour is properly Christ and so though the manhood only suffered yet the Person that suffered being God-man the person of the Mediatour and consequently the Divine nature by way of voluntary dispensation was subject to the Divine nature considered absolutely and in it self Dialogu These and such like grosse absurdities the common doctrine of imputation will often fall into Answ That the received and common doctrine of imputation standeth firm and upright upon the Scriptures of truth without falling or leaning to into or unto any absurdities or inconveniences hath we hope been sufficiently cleared That such and the like unworthy aspersions wherewith the great doctrine of imputation through the grace of Christ generally received amongst all that are worthy to be called Christians and therefore truly though not without appearance of too much irreverence by this discorse called Common is frequently and ignorantly blasphemed in the Dialogue may be shook off as Paul shook off the viper so as the Common doctrine of imputation may hereby shine more gloriously as a part of the Common faith Tit. 1.4 is the further blessing of God That the Authour of this Treatise may arise not only out of those absurdities but also out of those heresies into which the Dialogue sheweth him to be fallen is and shall be our praiers and the rather are we encouraged that God will have mercy upon him herein because we hope he did it ignorantly and through an erring conscience Dialogu Christ could not suffer any part of the Torments of hell as long as he lived in this world because the very devils as long as they live in this air do not suffer the torments of hell as it is evident by the fearfull crying out to Christ Mat. 8.29 Answ The full torments of hell are not inflicted upon the devils before the day of Judgement Mat. 8.29 yet how can he that reades Jam. 2.19 2 Pet 3.4 Jude 6. deny the torments of hell to be inflicted in part upon them before the day of judgement the cause why the devils suffer not the torments of hell fully or in part is not because they are in the air but from the wise dispensation of God But why the Authour of the Dialogue who thinks the place of hell to be on high before the Throne of the Lamb yea so near to the place of the blessed as that the blessed and damned may talk together should look at the air as a priviledged place from torment or as uncapable to become a place of torment I see no colour of reason The rest is but a repetition of what hath been said before and answerd before Dialogu M Broughton in a Manuscript saith thus No words in all the Bible do expresse any thing that Christ suffered the wrath of God for our sins therefore it is no small impiety for men from generall metaphoricall terms to gather such a strange particular none that ever spake Greek Spirit or man gathered hell torments for the just from Haides or from any other Greek or Hebrew Text. Again the same Authour affirmeth in Rev. 11.7 that hell-place and torments are not in this life Answ That Christs suffering of the wrath of God is by just and manifest consequence plentifully held forth in the Scriptures is to us undoubted and I hope fully and clearly evinced the deniall whereof is not only no small but a great impiety Though the place of the damned who suffer the wrath of God be included in Haides taken in its largest signification both by divine and secular authors as any that know not already may soon if they please inform themselves yet that ever any Orthodox indifferently-learned writer thence gathered hell torments for the just I do not beleeve is any where extant except in that Manuscript or the Dialogue We acknowledge readily the gifts of God in M. Broughton and that he was an excellent Linguist yet we do not beleeve that Greek and Hebrew dwelt with him Isaiah speaking Hebrew by the Spirit of God telleth us that Christ suffered the wrath of God Chap. 53. the like doth Paul speaking Greek from the same spirit 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 Doubtlesse Isaiah could speak Hebrew and Paul who spake with tongues more then they all could speak Greek as well and the Spirit of God by which they both spake could speak both Hebrew and Greek better then M. Broughton Sure the Authour is not of his minde whom Erasmus observeth to have said openly that Paul was ignorant of the Greek Grammar Dialogu And truly it seems to me that the holy Scriptures do confine hell-torments to the proper place of hell it self which is seated on high before the Throne of the Lamb Rev. 14.10 and Solomon doth tell us that all mens souls both good and bad do ascend Eccl. 3.21 and the Hebrew Doctors hold generally that hell is above as well as heaven and Learned M. Richardson doth probably conjecture in his Philosophical Annotations on Gen. 1. that hellplace is seated in the Element of fire and why may it not be so seeing its place is next before the Throne of the Lamb where John doth place it Rev. 14.10 And it is certain by Lukes Parable that hell is seated near unto heaven or else the comparisons that Luke useth to describe their neernesse were absurd 1. He describes their neernesse by two persons talking together the one in heavenplace and the other in hellplace 2. He describes their neernesse by seeing each others
lesse attentive Reader before we proceed to examine the arguments for this new Mediatorly obedience what the rules of disputation required of the Authour namely that he should first have given us some such definition or description thereof whence we might have understood what it is that he so much contends for for to be willing to dispute say the Logicians before we undrstand certainly what is the Question is to be willing to lose our time and that serious and affectionate counsell of Keckerman is here seasonable Kec Log. Sact. Post cap. 1. Let us not saith he dispute of any thing in Divinity before the various signification of that whereof we dispute is diligently distinguished that I shall endeavour to supply namely to acquaint the Reader with what the Dialogue intends by its new Mediatorly obedience according to what is to be collected out of it self comparing one place with another whereto I shall also subjoyn a description of Mediatorly obedience according to the received doctrine of the Orthodox that so the Reader conferring both together may the better judge both of the question and disputation Truth loves the light and errour lurks in ambiguities The minde of the Dialogue concerning Mediatorly obedience is to be gathered 1. By its dictinction 2. By putting together what in severall places it speaks concerning it It is necessary saith the Dialogue to distinguish between Legall and Mediatoriall obedience Legall or naturall obedience is no more but humane obedience performed by Christ as a godly Jew unto the Law of works all the actions of Christ from his birth until he was thirty years of age must be considered but as natural or but as legall acts of obedience I cannot see saith the Dialogue how any of these actions which yet it somewhat corrects as we shall finde in due place can properly be called Mediatoriall obedience Pag. 111. 112. The Mediatorial obedience of Christ Mediatorial obedience of the Dialogue what Largely according to the Dialogue consists of those acts of his obedience which he did actuate by the joynt concurrence of both his natures some whereof viz. many mediatoriall praiers of his intercession though they were acted by him before 30 years of age yet the far greater part of the acts thereof and all the publike actions were performed after he was thirty years of age viz. after his publique installing into the office of Mediatorship Mat. 3. See pag. 112. 113. amongst the which mediatorial acts of his obedience is his giving up his Manhood by the power of his Divine nature to suffer a natural death such and no other as the sons of Zebedee suffered Mar. 10.39 Pag. 46. without suffering any degree of Gods wrath at all either in soul or body pag. 2. yet so as the Divine nature separated his soul from his body which was the master-piece and was accepted of God the Father as the price and meritorious procuring cause of our Redemption pag. 86. for that was the most precious thing that either God the Father could require or that the Mediatour could perform for our atonement or redemption pag. 87. The sum whereof take thus Briefly Christs Mediatorly obedience according to the Dialogue are certain actions performed by him not in way of obedience to the moral Law for all such actions he performed as a godly Jew and as man only but as God-man Mediatour unto the Law of Mediatorship especially after 30 years of age the Master-piece whereof was his yielding himself to suffer a bodily death Mediatorly obedience according to the Orthodox what Mediatorly obedience according to the received doctrine of the Orthodox is the inherent conformity and whole course of the active and passive obedience of Christ from his conception to his passion inclusively performed by him as God-man Mediatour unto the Law in way of Covenant whereunto the whole good of Redemption was due unto the Elect for Christs sake according to order of justice though conferred upon them in a way of meer grace Touching the Dialogues Mediatorly obedience here are divers things which the Reader is desired to take distinct and seasonable notice of 1. Concerning the distinction Mediatorly and Legal obedience are not two kindes of obedience in Christ but one and the same obedience called Mediatorly from the office of the person obeying Legall from the Rule which was obeyed 2. Concerning the nature of Mediatorly obedience we have First a new Law given which is called the Law of the Mediatour excluding from it wholly the Law of works Secondly we have a new Mediatorly obedience conformable to that new Law and excluding expresly the essential obedience of the Mediatour which consists in obedience to the Law of works That obedience which the Creditor according to the Law demands and the Debtor owes that the Surety is to pay but the obedience unto the Command i.e. the Law of works Lev. 18.5 Gal. 3.10 and suffering of the punishment due to sin Gen. 2.17 is that which God according to Law demands and the Debtor namely the sinner oweth therefore obedience unto the Law of works is that which the Surety ought to pay It is a fiction not only unwarrantable and from beginning of time as I beleeve unheard from any Classical authour but above measure presumptuous expresly to deny about or neer 30 years of the obedience of Christ to be Mediatorly obedience and upon point to acknowledge only an uncertain little part of his life to be spent in that service it is also an ignorant and snaring contradiction to affirm that to be meritorious which is not done in a way of justice Justice is of the form of merit Merit is a debt according to order of justice it is a just debt Christs mediatorly obedience was an act of a far higher nature then is the fictitious obedience of the Dialogue It is an untruth of perillous consequence to corrupt the Faith of the Reader by asserting Gods high acceptance of such a Mediatorly obedience which is not Mediatorly obedience nor will be so owned of God That Christ in giving up his life in respect of the Divine nature as considered in Personall union with the humane nature acted in way of consent but not as his own executioner hath been oft seen CHAP. II. Of the divers waies of Redemption Dialogu IF so then there is no need that our blessed Mediator should pay both the price of his Mediatoriall obedience and also bear the Curse of the Law really for our Redemption Answ Even so it was viz. that the obedience of the second countervailed yea far transcended the disobedience of the first Adam because our blessed Mediatour paid the price of his Mediatorly obedience by beating the curse of the Law really for our Redemption the Meritorious obedience of Christ not the fictitious obedience of the Dialogue was the cause of Gods actual acceptation thereof not of his volition to accept and not Gods actual acceptation the cause of his meritorious obedience
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
not viz. Exo. 8.18 which the diligent Reader may easily perceive and Numb 14.40 where the words are better read by Learned Translators And they rose up early in the morning that they might ascend c. A third viz. Exo. 17.16 is expounded with as good reason against you That also Esth. 8.7 might be troubled if not taken from you the true meaning of places is to be attended Your number of instances if need were I doubt not may be made up elsewhere 'T is true the will is in diverse places put for the deed but not therefore in every place nor consequently in this So to argue were a non-consequence proceeding from particulars to an universal Where in Scripture the will is put for the deed there it is also manifest that though there was the will yet there was not the deed as in your instances of Abraham Saul and Haman if yet the last will hold as here alledged But you cannot produce any Scripture where the will is put for the deed when there was a sufficient physical cause exerted to produce that effect and also the effect followed it were indeed an implicate i.e. a contradiction yet such is the case here 'T is true no torments though in themselves killing could kill Christ until he pleased and 't is also true that torments killing in themselvs could kill him when he pleased If because the life of Christ could not be taken away until the time appointed nor without his consent it therefore followeth that the Jews and Romans did not take away his life by the same reason it may be said of the bloud that was shed at the scourging crucifying the piercing of his side with the Lance that they did not take away that bloud from him only endeavoured to take away his bloud for that bloud was not shed until the time appointed not until Christ pleased it being in the power of the Divine nature to have retained it Nay why may it not be said by the same reason of all the sufferings inflicted upon him by men that they did but endeavour to afflict him but they did not afflict him since all the evils that men inflicted upon him were inflicted according to his consent and in the time and manner as was written Luk. 22.37 Act. 3.18 This reasoning too much favoureth Socinians and other hereticks who deny the sufferings of Christ to be real affirming them only to be Metaphoricall It is a daring assertion when there is not one text nor I beleeve one Classicall Authour who affirmeth that Christ as the next and formall cause shed his bloud but on the contrary plentifull Texts and Testimonies that he was put to death kil'd and slain and that by the Jews Luke 18.33 1 Pet. 3.18 Mar. 12.8 Act. 3.15 1 Thes 3.15 Jam. 5.6 Act. 2.23 Rev. 5.6 9 12. 6.9 to contradict not only the godly whether learned or unlearned both of the present and all past generations since the Passion of our Lord Jesus but also the Scriptures themselves in saying the Jews did not actually put Christ to death Nor let the Jews Romans or Pilate rejoyce at this in vain doth the Dialogue discharge whom God hath charged After all this give me leave again to minde the Reader that though this untruth were true yet it is impertinent to the question for what though the Jews did not put Christ to a natural death what though Christ shed his own bloud what though he were his own Executioner yea killed himself which last though the Dialogue in words somewhere rejects yet in consequence asserts at the writing of which my pen trembleth doth it therefore follow that God did not inflict upon him his paenall wrath Dialogu He laid down his life by the same power by which he raised it up again Joh. 10.17 18. Answ The power was the same but the manner of putting it forth was not the same In laying down his life Christ acted as a voluntary and solitary cause that is by way of consent and alone but in taking up his life again he acted as an efficient sociall cause the Father and the holy Ghost cooperating with him Dialogu Yea his Mediatoriall death may well be called a miraculous death Answ His death was miraculous many waies the Personall union of soul and body with the Divine nature during the space of their physicall disunion one from another was miraculous such strength of nature remaining under the extreme pangs and at the instant of death was miraculous as was the strength of Moses Deut. 34.7 and of Caleb Josh 14.11 in the time of old age that Christ as man should die whilest the Manhood was in personal union with the Godhead is miraculous but that the Divine nature suspending its assistance a man should die under deadly pains was not miraculous Christs death was in some respect miraculous and supernatural and in some respect not miraculous but natural as Christs natural so his supernatural death was miracalous but it doth not follow it was miraculous therefore it was not the contrary followeth his supernatural death was miraculous therefore it was Dialogu Christ died not by degrees saith M. Nichols in his Day-Starre as his Saints do his senses do not decay c. Answ Others say the same who notwithstanding teach the doctrine of imputation and Christs suffering of the wrath of God the one opposeth not the other Whether Christs pains were so ended when he said It was finished as that his death was without pain which yet I beleeve not is not the question but whether Christ suffered the wrath of God Dialogu Austin saith thus Who can sleep saith he when he will as Christ died when he would who can lay aside his garment so as Christ laid aside his flesh Who can leave his place as Christ left his life his life was not forced from him by any imposed punishment but he did voluntarily render it up to God as a Mediatorial sacrifice in his life time he was often touched with the fear of death but by his strong crying unto God with daily praiers and tears he obtained power against his natural fear of death before he came to make his oblation as I have expounded Heb. 5.7 Answ Augustine in his 119 Tractate upon Iohn speaks as you recite until those words who can leave his place so as Christ left his life so far are his words but no further in that place nor I beleeve any where else The rest seem to be your own and if so ought to have been accordingly distinguished by the character Your Exposition of Heb. 5.7 Sed Pelagiani quo modo dicunt solum mortem nos transisse c. August contra duas Epistolas Pelag. l. 4. cap. 4. hath received its answer If Augustines judgement in this Controversie be of weight with you you may learn it out of these his ensuing words But saith he after what manner do the Pelagians say that death passed unto us by Adam For we
formally and individually yet all suffer the wrath of God Eternall death is an evill not in kinde but in value not formally but virtually As the enjoyment of blessednesse doth not presuppose all temporall good things enjoyed in kinde so neither doth the suffering of the wrath of God suppose the suffering of all temporall evils in kinde Duration of punishment for ever is not of the substance of punishment but is an adjunct following upon the inability of the Patient to satisfie justice as continuance in prison is no part of the debt but the consequent of the debtors inability to pay the debt the punishment of the damned continueth for ever because they can never satisfie divine justice The punishment of Christ endured but a time because he satisfied justice The sufferings of Christ were eternall in value though temporall in duration Mors aeterna duratione pondere Paraeus in Rom. 3. Willet Synops cen 5. gen cont 28. par 4. qu. 3. had they been eternall in duration he had been overcome by the curse had they not been eternall in value he had not overcome the curse Christ suffered death as inflicted upon him by the justice of the curse Gal. 3.13 1 Pet. 2.24 hanging on the tree was a type therefore a divine testimony of a cursed death The curse notes the execution of justice and that executed upon sin in our stead Rom. 5.25 Who was delivered for our offences The bodily death of Christ alone did not redeem our bodies nor the spirituall death of Christ alone redeem our souls but the whole suffering of that person who was God In respect of his humane nature both body and soul from the instant of his incarnation to the instant of his death redeemed our whole persons both bodies and souls Those places of Scripture which attribute our redemption unto his bloud are to be understood synechdochically mentioning a more visible part of his sufferings for the whole Dialogu My reasons why Christ could not suffer eternall death for our redemption therefrom are first Then he must have suffered all other curses of the Law to redeem us from them but I have shewed that utterly impossible immediatly before 2. Then he did descend locally into hell it self to suffer it there for no man can suffer death eternall in this life no man can suffer the second death till after this Life is ended Answ Your first reason is in effect satisfied in the foregoing answer where we saw that Christ suffered the eternall wrath of God and consequently eternall death in value equivalent unto yea exceeding of eternall death in kinde it doth not follow that he must suffer all the other curses of the Law in kinde but the contrary followeth he hath satisfied the debt therfore there can be no more required Sufferings for sin as we have divers times said before are such as are poenall essentially viz. in respect of the punishment considered in it self namely the privation of the present fruition of the good of the promise and inflicting of the sinlesse misery of the curse or consequentially viz. not in respect of the punishment it self but in respect of the condition of the Patient such are called detestable consequents namely sins imperfections c. And evils that are proper to the reprobate 3. Innumerable common sorrows of this life 4. The duration of the punishment for ever As the eternall vertue of Christs sufferings redeemed us from the eternity of suffering formally so Christ in suffering the wrath of God formally suffered virtually whatsoever was due to the Elect for their sin and so by suffering redeemed us from all the properly-poenall curses of the Law whatsoever 'T is true Heb. 2.17 and 4.15 Omnis poena damnatorū his duobus continetur generibus ut aliae pertineant ad corpus aliae ad animam Cham. 1.2 l. 5. c. 19. s 14. in all points he was like unto us sin only excepted in All generically not individually that is in All in respect of the generall kindes of temptation namely both bodily and spiritually but not in All in respect of each particular passion and malady As concerning your second Reason The place of punishment is not of the essence of punishment Malefactors may and oft do suffer out of the ordinary place of execution The devil alwaies suffers hellish pains in some degree yet is many times out of the place of hell Souls in this life feel the wrath of God in some degree 't is not impossible then in respect of the thing it self but that it may be felt in its full degree Christ felt the joys of heaven out of heaven in his transfiguration and after his Resurrection so he both might and did feel the pains of hell out of hell There is a poenall hell and a locall hell a poenall hell may be where there is not a locall hell 'T is from the free dispensation of God not from the nature of the things themselves that the full measure of the wrath of God is not ordinarily executed in this life As Enoch and Eliah entred into the joys of heaven without death So if God please may a person enter into the pains of hell without death The Reprobate alive at the last day shall not die and yet shall suffer the pains of eternall death The distinction of the first and second Death in respect of the order of the execution holds only concerning the Reprobate Christ suffered the essentiall poenall wrath of God which answers the suffering of the second death due to the elect for their sin before he suffered his naturall death Dialogu If Christ bare Adams sin by Gods imputation and his curse really then you make Christ to be dead in sinne Answ We distinguish between the imputation of the Commission of sin and the imputation of the guilt i.e. the obligation of the punishment God imputed not unto Christ the guilt of Commission of sin but the guilt of obligation unto punishment for sin committed and because so the contrary followeth from our doctrine viz. that Christ is not dead in sin As it is not the inherent righteousnesse of or actuall working of Righteousnesse by Christ Willet Synops but the vertue power and efficacy which is imputed to the beleever so it is not the inherence or commission of sin but the guilt and punishment of sin that is imputed to a Beleever Dialogu Consider the true force of the Word Impute in the naturall signification thereof and then I beleeve you will acknowledge that it cannot stand with the justice of God to impute our sins to our innocent Saviour for to impute sin to any is to account them for guilty sinners and to impute the guilt of other mens sins to any is to account them guilty of other mens sins by participation Answ To impute in Court-language is judicially to reckon unto a person either that which is his properly and not only as a Legall Surety so sin is imputed to the
essentiall part of our punishment due to us for our sin From your own words I inferre then Christ bare our punishment and our sins either in the account of the Jews or in the account of God Not in the account of the Jews they charged them as his proper crimes without any regard to the sins of the elect therefore he bare our punishment and our sins in the account of God In that then Christ suffered punishment Paraus in Heb. 10. and bare our sin in the account of God it followeth Christ bare guilt in the account of God because guilt and punishment are relates Punishment doth not only signifie a suffering but such a suffering that is suffering for offence in way of justice Had Christ suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment thus whilest you acknowledge Christ to have born punishment and born sin and that by just consequeoce at least in the account of God and yet deny the imputation of sinne you run your self into a contradiction He bare our sins in his body but not only in his body Body is here taken synechdochically both for body and soul a part of the humane nature for the whole he bare them upon the tree that is he bare the curse due to sin Gal 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree he bare the morall curse which was the truth signified by the Ceremoniall curse Deut. 21.23 the morall curse extendeth both to soul and body Dialogu I will shew you how Christ did bear our sins divers waies in several senses 1. When he bare away our diseases as I have expounded Isa 53 4. 2. As our Priest and sacrifice as I have expounded Isa 53.5 3. As a Porter bears a burden as I have expounded 1 Pet 2.24 4. When he did patiently bear our sinful imputations and false accusations and imputations of the malignant Iews Psa 40.12 Psa 69.5 In these words Christ doth not complain or grudge against his father for his imputing of our sins unto him as the common doctrine of Imputation doth make the stream of Interpreters to speak Answ How the Dialogue hath not only not expounded nor only mis-interpreted but corrupted the three former texts viz. Isa 53.4 5. 1 Pet. 2.24 We have seen before 'T is very true that Christ bare our sins as our Priest and sacrifice and as a porter bears a burden yea as a surety but very false that he bare them only in your sense Scripture is in sense and not in sound only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Your calling of the Jews unjust criminations of Christ sometimes our sinful imputations sometimes the false accusations of the Jews sounds too harsh without a distinction 'T is true that Psal 40.12 and Psal 69.5 hold forth a type of Christ complaining under the injuries of the Jews from which their false imputations are not excluded though neither of them only nor chiefly To complain unto God is blamelesse and no grudging To cemplaln against God is a sin and sheweth grudging M. Ainsworth whom you oft make use of in his notes on Psal 69.5 is amongst those who acknowledge sin to be in Christ by imputation yet your conscience herein appealed unto where did you ever reade in him or any other orthodox Interpreter that Christ complained against God as say you the common doctrine of Imputation doth make the stream of Interpreters to speak CHAP. V. The Vindication of Isa 53.6 Isa 53.6 All we like sheep have gone astray we have turned every one to his own way and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all Dialogu THe Lord laid not the sin of the Elect upon Christ by imputation The true manner how the Lord laid all our iniquities upon Christ was the very same manner as the Lord laid the sinnes of Israel upon the Priest and sacrifice and no other Answ If he laid them no otherwise on the Antitype then upon the type then sin was laid typically only and not in truth upon Christ consequently the type and the antitype are confounded and those types are so many untruths yea we are yet in our sins But whatsoever your words are we presume your meaning is The types instanced in did not typically hold forth any imputation of sin unto Christ the antitype How then did the Lord lay the sins of Israel upon the Priest and upon the sacrifice Dialogu The Priest bare the iniquity of the holy things by his Priestly appearing before Iehovah with his priestly apparrell especially with the golden plate Exo. 28.38 he bare the iniquity of the Congregatton by eating the peoples sin-offering in the holy place to make atonement Lev. 10.17 The Lord laid all our sins upon Christ as upon our sacrifice Isa 53.12 where dying bearing sin intercession are Synonima's He bare the sins of men namely by his Mediatoriall sacrifice God laid all our sins upon Christ as our sacrifice of atonement In this sense Paul explaineth the Levitical bearing of sin Heb. 9.26 28. Answ It is not requisite to the nature of a type in all respects to answer the Antitype Similitudo non currit quatuor pedibus Paraeus Log. 122. Figura non habet quodcunque habet veritas but to testifie and according to the pleasure of the Authour to exemplifie the thing typified Logick refers types to similitudes and you know the Proverb Similitudes run not on four feet there is alwaies some dislikenesse between the parts of the comparison Ionah was a type of Christ lying dead in the grave yet Ionah though he lay in the Whales belly did not lye dead there Put case you produce a type which holdeth not forth bearing of sin by imputation in the Antitype except it may appear that the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended you conclude nothing Aaron the High-Priest wearing the golden plate upon his forehead having engraven therupon HOLINESSE TO THE LORD typified rhe perfect holinesse in Christ by reason of the Divine nature whereby he was able effectually to bear and bear away sin What is here against Imputation nay it is implied in the Priesthood of Aaron The Priests Lev. 10.17 by eating the peoples sin-offering declared by that act together with the fore-mentioned appearing in their stead confessing of their sin and offering sacrifice for them that by divine institution they took upon them typically to make atonement for their sin Hereby it is more plainly figured that Christ should bear away our sin by bearing it in our stead This Text maketh against you It is very true God laid our sins upon Christ as our sacrifice Isa 53.12 therefore say we by imputation for Christs sacrifice is his voluntary and obedient yeelding himself unto death according to the Covenant of God in a way of satisfaction to divine justice for sin and meritorious expiation of sin
exceeded the bounds of naturall fear Answ His confidenee that he should not be moved by his sufferings either from his hope state or the good hoped for but that it should be with him as ver 10. sheweth us his certainty of victory which doth not oppose but rather suppose the matter of his sufferings which the Scripture manifests to be the wrath of God Neither can we apprehend that Christs fear exceeded the bounds of naturall fear understanding by natural fear regular fear in which sense this distinction is used by Divines after Damascene who distinguished fear into a fear according to nature this was in Christ and a fear besides nature adverse to reason this was not in Christ Dialogu These sentences of M. Calvin may advise us how we do attribute such a kinde of fear to Christ as might disorder his pure naturall affections which doubtlesse would have fallen upon him if he had undergone the pain of losse for our sins such as the damned do feel in hell as the common Doctrine of Imputation doth teach Answ It is vain labour to write so much out of Calvin to prove against us that the fear which was in Christ was pure and not impure it being the professed and known judgement of all the inference of impure and vicious fear in Christ from his undergoing of the pain of losse for our sins is your own Institution lib. 2. c. 16. s 10. See Willet synops and an errour nor have you any greater adversary then Calvin therein who not only affirms the fear and affections in Christ to be pure according to your citations but also that in his soul he suffered the terrible torment of the damned and forsaken men Yet because the sufferings of the damned differ in some things from the sufferings of Christ later Writers choose rather upon just reason to say he suffered the punishment of the elect who deserved to be damned then that he suffered the punishment of the damned Dialogu And if he had died without manifesting fear of death it would have occasianed wofull heresie yea notwithstanding the evident proof given of his humane nature sundry hereticks have denied the truth of his humane nature it was necessary therefore that he should be pinched with the fear of death as much as his true humane nature could bear without sin as Calvin well observeth Answ There 's difference between manifest fear and excessive fear to have feared naturall death with excessive fear and that such as never man or woman manifested was to have manifested something lesse then man It was a sufficient manifestation of Christ to be man that he was touched with the feeling of our infirmities that he was in all points tempted like to us His words are these speaking on Matt. 26.39 Sed quantū ferri potuit sana integra natura hominis metu percussus anxietate constructus fuit Dialogu yet without sin So far as I can finde in Calvin for you have not pointed to the place you put in the word Therefore and so force both it and the whole sentence to confirm your own premises contrary to his minde which is directly against you See Calv. Comment on Ver. 2.28 of the chapter mentioned If the fear of death which he expressed to his Disciples in the night before his death had risen on the sense of his fathers wrath inflicted upon him for our sinne then you must also say that he suffered his fathers wrath for our sins six daies before this for six daies before this he spake those words Luk. 12.50 where our Saviour doth expresse as much distresse of minde as here yet I know no expositor that ever gathered so much from this place of Luke Answ Expositors do generally agree that as in Mathew and Mark so also Luke 12.50 Christ speaks of his passion as likewise that the wrath of God was the principal matter thereof in Luke he 's troubled at the remembrance of his future passion of his fathers wrath the sense of that wrath had at present in great degree taken hold upon him Christ doth not expresse so much distresse of minde in Luke as here he saith he was straightned but here he professeth his sorrowfullnesse unto death together with consternation and expavefaction of which straightway Dialogu Our Saviour tells the two sons of Zebedee they must drink of his cup and be baptized with his baptism by these two expressions which are Synonima's or equivalent our Saviour doth inform the two sons of Zebedee what the true nature of his sufferings should be viz. no other but such only as they should one day suffer from the hands of tyrants Answ Herein is a fallacy confounding such things as should be divided this Text saith Piscator is to be understood with an exception of that passion in which Christ felt the wrath of God for the Elect Quod tamen intelligendum est cum exceptione passionis illius quâ Dominus pro electis sensit iram Dei Pisc in loc Dialogu Christ suffered both as a Mattyr and as a satisfier the sons of Zebedee drank of the cup of Martyrdom not of the cup of satisfaction or redemption James and John the sons of Zebedee were asleep whilest Christ was drinking of that cup. His son was not touched with any sufferings from Gods wrath at all except by way of sympathy from his bodily sufferings only Answ If his soul was touched with Gods wrath by way of sympathy then his body was touched with the suffering of his wrath properly then Christ suffered the wrath of God by your concession These sufferings in the soul were not by way of sympathy his soul suffered properly and immediatly Isa 53.10 Mat. 26.37 the cause of his sufferings required that his soul should suffer as well as his body we sinned in soul properly therefore our surety must suffer in soul properly The greatest of the sufferings of Christ were spirituall and such as immediatly seized on his soul As his active obedience was as properly spirituall as bodily so his passive obedience was as properly spirituall as bodily Much rather is their judgement to be embraced who say The body suffered by way of sympathy because the soul is sensible of sufferings without the body but not the body without the soul Dialogu If the circumstances of his agony be well weighed it will appear that it did not proceed from his fathers wrath but from his naturall fear of death only because he must be stricken with the fear of death as much at his true humane nature could bear he must be touched with the fear of death in a great measure as the Prophets did foretell Adde to these pains of his minde his earnest prayers to be delivered from his naturall fear of death the fear of death doth often cause men to sweat and earnestly pray as he was man he must be touched with the fear of death as he was Mediatour he must fully and wholly overcome his naturall
fear of death by prayers therefore there was a necessity for him to pray and to strive in prayer untill he had overcome it as I shall further explain the matter by and by in Heb. 5.7 Answ There can no reason be given why the fear of naturall death should be as much as the humane nature of Christ could bear without sin because the object of that fear may be and is much exceeded paenal-spiritual death is a greater object of fear incomparably Dialogu Again Because the humane nature of Christ whatever had been inflicted upon it could not have sinned there can no sufficient reason be given why Christ should fear naturall death either more or so much as other men there being therefore not such a measure of fear in Christ of naturall death as the Dialogue affirmeth there was no such fear foretold nor was his earnest prayer to be delivered from that fear which could not be what it was and what he praied to be delivered from we shall see where you promise us to explain Heb. 5.7 We must observe the due time of every action the manner the place and the persons and all other circumstances to fullfill every circumstance just as the Prophets had foretold nothing must fail if he had failed in the least circumstance he had failed in all and his humane nature could not be exact in these circumstances without the concurrence of the divine nature in all these respects his naturall fear of death could not chuse but be very often in his minde and as often to put him unto pain till he had overcome it Answ As things were foretold by the Prophets concerning Christ so he fullfilled them Act. 3.18 Luke 22.37 that there might be a ready concurrence of the divine nature with the humane for the enabling of it unto the fullfilling of them he was both God and man Heb. 9.14 Rom. 1.4 there could not therefore be in Christ any fear as concerning his failing to fullfill his office to the utmost Your mentioning other causes though false of Christs fear besides his naturall death is a secret acknowledgement that his conflict with the fear of naturall death only was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows felt before his death Dialogu Scanderbeg was in such an agony when he was fighting against the Turks that the bloud hath been seen to burst out of his lips with very eagernesse of spirit only I have heard also from credible persont that Alexander the great did sweat bloud in the couragious defence of himself and others The sweaeting sicknesse caused many to sweat out of their bodies a bloudy humour and yet many did recover and live many years after but if their sweating bloud had been a sign of Gods wrath upon their souls as you say it was in Christ then I think they could not have lived any longer by the strength of nature Answ The effusion of certain drops of bloud at Scanderbergs lips through the commotion of his spirits was no sweat Your information concerning Alexander in all probability is a mistake there being no such matter reported of him by the ordinary Historiographers of his life It was but a bloudy humour if so and in a time of sicknesse not bloud Arist l. 3. depart animal c. 5. l. 3. De Historia anim c. 9. Fernelius lib. 6. that you mention at the sweating sicknesse Aristotle reports of one that sometimes sweat a kinde of bloudy excrement which yet he looked at proceeding from an evil disposition of the body Theophrastus confirmeth the same Fernelius writes that he saw bloud effused out of the extremity of the veins through infirmity of the Liver and the Retentive faculty Lib. de dignosc morb c. 11. 8. Vid. Gerh. Herm. in Luc. 22.43 Rondelettius tels us that he saw in the year 1547. a kinde of bloudy sweat in a certain Student occasioned by some defects of the veins bones and thinness of bloud Maldonat upon Mat. 26. makes mention of a man at Paris strong and in health who having received the sentence of death was bedewed with a bloudy sweat But this bloudy sweat of Christ properly so flowing from such a person and free from all distemper either of body or minde and in such a manner and plenty as Luke reports differed much from all these Whether the sweat of Christ were naturall or miraculous we leave it to them that have leisure and skill to enquire though the Evangelist mentioneth it as an effect proceeding from a greater cause then the fear of a meet naturall death all which notwithstanding yet is not our doctrine built only or chiefly upon this Argument Dialogu Do but consider a little more seriously what an horrid thing to nature the approach of death is see in how many horrid expressions David doth describe it Psa 116.3 18.4 55.4 5. Answ There were many times many causes why David was much afraid of death none of which are to be found in Christ yet you make Christ much more afraid of death then David was Though death be horrid unto nature yet not so to faith much lesse so horrid as to cause affections of fear above the nature of the evil feared that is erring affections in an unerring subject Dialogu Suppose Adam in innocency had grapled with the fear of death like enough it would have caused a violent sweat over all his body Answ Adam being a sinner did grapple with death Genes 5.5 without any such sweat mentioned doubtlesse Adam innocent would not have been inferiour to Adam a sinner Christ was much superiour to Adam innocent though you make him inferiour in this matter to Adam a sinner Dialogu It 's no strange new doctrine to make the naturall fear of death to be the cause of Christs agony seeing other learned men do affirm it Christopher Carlile in his Treatise of Christs desceut into hell p. 46. saith thus Was not Christ extreamly afflicted when he for fear of death sweat drops in quantity as thick as drops of bloud John Fryth a godly Martyr saith thus in his answer to Sir Thomas Moor B. 2. Christ did not only weep but he feared so sore that he sweat drops like drops of bloud running down upon the earth which was more then to weep Now saith he if I should ask you why Christ feared and sweat so sore what would you answer me was it for fear of the pains of purgatory he that shall so answer is worthy to be laughed to scorn wherefore then was it Verily even for the fear of death as it appeareth plainly by his prayer for he prayed to his Father saying If it be possible let this cup passe from me Answ These Authours I not having by me cannot examine the quotations their words therefore rather better bearing the sense of the Orthodox then the sense of the Dialogue charity untill the contrary appeareth construeth in the best sense M. Fryth's other writings call to have it so But though
God though some acknowledge not this word to afford an argument thereof K. James Translators as they reade piety in the margent which you mention so they reade fear in the Text which you mention not M. Tyndall and M. Overdale though they translate the Greek as you say yet how far that translation is from helping your cause or prejudicing ours will fully appear in the sequel of this chapter If the Greek word be translated Godly Fear Heb. 5.7 it may only thence be inferred that this word affords not an argument but it no way weakens the cause which hath Arguments enough beside Dialogu The Greek word doth properly signifie such a fear as makes a man exceeding wary and heedfull how he toucheth any thing that may hurt him Answ Cartwright in Rh. Test Heb. 5.7 Your explication is too generall to give the property of the word the word signifieth both Reverence and fear but the proper signification of this word being saith Cartwright never severed from fear and yet sometimes disjoyned from reverence It followeth that the property of the Greek word serveth better for to note fear then reverence Dialogu I come now to explain the very thing it self from which Christ prayed to be saved which was that he might be delivered from death and this petition was the masterpeece of all his prayers Answ He prayed that he might be delivered from death Good but this death was the death of the crosse for unto it his strong cries refer Mar. 14.37 the principall matter whereof was the curse viz. the wrath of God wherefore also out of this verse from the word Death if not from the word translated Fear it is truly argued that Christ suffered the wrath of God Not Christs salvation out of his sufferings but the glory of God in the salvation of the Elect was the master-piece of his prayers Joh. 17. Dialogu But for the better understanding the very thing it self that he did so often and so earnestly pray to be delivered from we must consider him with a twofold respect 1. As he was true man so he prayed to be saved from death conditionally Mat. 26.39 2. We must consider him in this Text as he was our Mediatour and so he prayed to be saved from death absolutely namely to be saved from his natural fear of death when he came to make his oblation for he knew well enough that if there had remained in him but the least naturall unwillingnesse to die when he came to make his oblation it would have spoiled the mediatorial efficacy of his oblation Answ To consider Christ as man distinct from the consideration of Christ as Mediatour is to consider the Mediatour without the consideration of him as man that is to consider the Mediatour as not a Mediatour for it is essentiall to Christ as Mediatour to be Godman That praier of Christ Mat. 26.39 was as much the praier of the Mediatour as this Heb. 5.7 neither was the manhood more concerned in that then in this To understand by death Heb. 5.7 his naturall fear of death and by that his fear of offending God by his naturall unwillingnesse to die for so you expound your self beside the manifest and fearlesse violence offered thereby unto the text is that you may wave the true cause of his fear namely the wrath of God together with your silencing the wonted cause asserted by you namely the fear of bodily death to devise a new cause of the fear of Christ viz. lest he should offend God i. e. lest he should sin choosing rather to say that Christ was afraid of the evil of sin then of the evil of punishment for sin That which it was impossible for Christ to be touched with that Christ was not afraid of But to offend God by his unwillingnesse to die was impossible for Christ to be touched with Therefore Christ was not afraid of unwillingnesse to die Unwillingnesse to die in Christ had been a sin he having received a command to lay down his life Damasc de fide orthod l. 3. c. 23. Joh 10.17 Heb. 4.15 Naturall fear is either pure and without vice this was in Christ or impure adverse to reason this was not in Christ So Damascene long since This spoiling of the mediatorly efficacy of this oblation is a supposition of impossibility therefore could not be an object of fear to him who was only subject to pure and reasonable fear Significat timorem rationabilem Cham. de descen l. 5. c. 5. Dialogu The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is noted to signifie a reasonable fear For he had from eternity covenanted with his father to give his soul by his own active obedience as a mediatoriall sacrifice of atonement for our sins Joh. â—0 17 18. therefore he must not die a positive death by the power of man but he must die as Mediator by the actuall and joynt concurrence of both divine and humane nature no man could force his soul out of his body by all the torments they could devise but he must separate his own soul from his body by the joint concurrence of both his natures Answ If he covenanted only to suffer a bodily death as you say you must needs think very unworthily to say no worse of him that was God whilest you put upon him so great fear of breaking covenant upon so small temptation Notwithstanding he covenanted to suffer spirituall death i. e. the wrath of God yet because he was God it was impossible that he should break his word and consequently impossible that he should fear an impossibility He laid down his life as a surety whicâ— none could have taken away against his will but he took not away his life as an executioner If he had covenanted to take away his own life as an executioner neither then could he have broken his word because he was God nor had so covenanting opposed but engaged him to the suffering of the wrath of God his death being the cursed death of the crosse Dialogu Christ made his oblation an exact obedience unto Gods will both for matter manner and time and this mediatorial action of his was the highest degree of obedience that the father required or that the son could perform for mans atonement and redemption Answ True But in our sense not yours of which afterwards Dialog His obedience in his death was not Legall but mediatoriall Answ It was both mediatorly and legall It was the obedience of the Mediatour as such unto the Law Such a person obeying and such obedience from that person were both requisite for the meritorious procuring of our atonement and redemption Dialog 2. He prayed also to be delivered from the dominion of death after he had made his oblation and God heard him and delivered him by his resurrection on the third day Act. 2.24 27. Answ By death then here we are not only to understand the fear of death which elsewhere you seem to say He prayed to be delivered
your Exposition were good and full yet it is impertinent unto the argument taken from the first verse The cause of the fainting of his spirit illustrated from a comparison of melting wax was neither only nor chiefly his suffering from the wrath of men but from the wrath of God Dialogu Thou hast brought me unto the dust of death vers 15. God doth not so bring Christ unto the dust of death as he doth other men namely not so as death is laid upon man for sin Gen. 3.19 Answ The Scripture mentioneth no other death then what is inflicted justly for sinne and M. Ainsworth whom the Dialogue often cites seemeth to understand death to be laid upon Christ according to the sense of Gen. 3.19 expresly quoting that Text in his Commentary upon this Verse But do you shew the difference between the death of Christ and the death of other men whence it may appear that death was not laid upon Christ for sin Dialogu But for the better understanding of the true difference I will distinguish upon the death of Christ for God appointed him to die a double kinde of death 1. As a Malefactor and 2. As a Mediatour and all this at one and the same time 1. He died as a Malefactor by Gods determinate counsell and decree he gave the devil leave to enter into Judas to betray him and into the Scribes and Pharisees and Pontius Pilate to condemn him and to do what they could to put him to death and in that respect God may be truly said to bring him into the dust of death Gen 3.19 2. Notwithstanding all this Christ died as a Mediator and therefore his death was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor for as he was our Mediatour he separated his own soul from his body by the power of his God-head All the Tyrants in the world could not separate his soul from his body Joh. 19.11 no not by all the torments they could devise till himself pleased to actuate his own death by the joint concurrence of both his natures Joh. 10.18 Answ The plain meaning of the Authour in this distinction is Christ died as a Malefactor only though unjustly in the Jews account but not as a Mediatour As a Mediatour only in Gods account but not as a Malefactor This distinction in name but in truth a Sophism is used as a crutch to support the halting doctrine of the non-imputation of sin unto Christ Christs death as a Mediatour saith the distinction was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor the Jews are said to put Christ to death because they endeavoured to put him to death but did not separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death so is the distinction expresly interpreted pag. 100. If Christs death was a suffering then the formall cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body so often mentioned by the Dialogue otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter yea and in this case his own Executioner which last the Dialogue it self expresly rejecteth But the Dialogue resuming and insisting further upon this distinction elsewhere let the fuller speaking thereunto be referred till then Though Haman according to the true sense of that Text Est 8.7 be said to lay his hand upon the Jews yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman Abraham is said to have offered up Isaac yet Isaac is no where said to be slain by Abraham as Abraham did sacrifice Isaac so was Isaac sacrificed that is interpretatively or virtually not actually But how often do we reade in Scripture that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews Act. 2.37 4.10 1 Cor. 2.8 By this reason it may be said that the Jews only endeavoured to offer violence unto Christ and put him to smart but did not actually and really because they could do neither without the permission of the Divine nature nor did either without both his Mediatorly permission and consent The Jews accounting of Christ as of a Malefactor or Transgressor was that the Scripture might be fullfilled Mat. 15.28 and was just in respect of God though unjust in respect of them Christ in Gods account suffered not only as a Mediator but also as a malefactor or transgressor i. e. a sinner imputatively in respect of the guilt and punishment of sin he was such a Mediator to whom it was essentiall for the time to be a Malefactor that is to suffer the guilt and punishment of sin The Priesthood was essentiall to the Mediatour To be a sacrifice for sin was essentiall to the Priesthood Isa 53.10 Therefore to be a sacrifice for sinne was essentiall to the office of a Mediatour As Christ was by office so he died Christ died not only as a Mediatour Heb. 8.6 but also as a surety Heb. 7.22 He shall bear their iniquity Isa 53.11 Bajulabit as a Porter bears a burthen and that upon the Tree 1 Pet. 2.24 He was made sin 2 Cor. 5.21 Christ separated his soul from his body as a subordinate cause not as a principall efficient that is as a surety by voluntary yeelding and offering up his life Heb. 9.24 but not as an executioner We reade Joh. 10.18 that Christ laid down his life but not that he took it away by violence the same word that is here used concerning Christ Peter hath concerning himself I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13.37 and John hath concerning Christ and the Saints because he laid down his life for us we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren 1 Joh. 3.16 But it was not lawfull for Peter or the Saints to take away their own lives Though Christ by his absolute power could have preserved his life against all created adversary power none taketh it from me namely against my consent whether I will or not Joh. 10.18 yet by his limited power he could not but as our surety he was bound to permit the course of physicall causes and prevailing of the power of darknesse for the fullfilling of what was written concerning him This is your hour and the power of darknesse Luke 22.53 The Jews therefore doing that which according to the order of second causes not only might but also through his voluntary and obliged permission did take away his life did not only endeavour but also actually kill him Yet suppose the Jews were not instrumentall in the actuall taking away of his bodily life it is a meer non-consequence thence to inferre the non-imputation of sin unto Christ Briefly as this distinction is a meer sophisme and groundlesse so the discourse concerning the Jews endeavouring to put Christ to death but not really putting him to death making Christ to take away his own life and consequently to be his own Executioner is false and impertinent For which though the Jews may owe the Authour some thanks
q. 3. Cyril de rectâ fide ad Theod. Calv. insti l. 2. c. 16. sect 10 11 12. We saith Dr Willet in the name of the Orthodox say then that though in the use and application of Christs sacrifice we speak distinctly that Christs soul was given for our souls his flesh for our flesh as Cyril saith thereby to set forth the proportion of Gods justice which must be satisfied with the price both of body and soul for the redemption of our body and soul yet we do not sever nor divide the power and vertue of Christs sacrifice but ascribe the Redemption of our body and soul jointly and equally to the sacrifice of his body and soul Dialogu This kinde of reasoning is very absurd for as Mr. Broughton well observeth if Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only to redeem our souls and not in his body to redeem our bodies then our bodies are not redeemed Answ The Dialogues kinde of reasoning is worse then very absurd that first puts untruly upon Divines the affirmation of an errour and then censureth them as if that errour were theirs making them first guilty by an untruth and then censuring them as truly guilty Dialogu If Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul to redeem our souls from the eternall curse he must also suffer the wrath of God in his body to redeem our bodies from the eternall curse or else our bodies must still continue under the eternal curse though our souls be redeemed by his soul-sufferings Is not this to make Christ an imperfect Redeemer and to leave a doubting conscience in a Labyrinth of doubts and querg's Answ Whilest you say If Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul what is this but to deceive your lesse attentive Reader into a better opinion of your errour by a scoffing inference for you beleeve not that Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul added to an untruth immediatly fore-going Perkins on the Creed Such weapons discovered will turn upon the Authour We beleeve and have already affirmed that Christ suffered the full wrath of God even the pangs of hell both in soul and body it concerns therefore the Reader to beware of that Dialogue and the Authour thereof to look to himself that whilst it saith To make Christ to suffer the wrath of God only in his soul and not in his body is to make him an imperfect Redeemer and to leave a doubting conscience in a labyrinth of doubts and quere's doth it self deny Christ to have suffered the wrath of God either in soul or body Is not this to make Christ no redeemer and to leave a doubting conscience in a labyrinth not of doubts and quere's but of despair it self Dialogu The truth is I finde much uncertainty amongst Divines what to affirm in this point for first some affirm that Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only Secondly Others affirm that he suffered the wrath of God as well in his body as in his soul to redeem our bodies from Gods wrath as well as our souls Answ That the latter is affirmed by Divines we have already seen we expect to hear from you who are those Divines which affirm that Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only Dialogu Vrsinus doth plainly deny that Christ suffered the pains of the damned in his body in Catech. pa. 487. Printed 1611. These pains saith he he suffered not in his body for the sufferings of his body were only externall therefore saith he he suffered those pains in his soul And yet in the same Catechisme pag. 487. he affirmeth That Christ suffered thè wrath of God both in his body and in his soul to deliver our souls and bodies from eternall damnation Answ There is much difference between a contradiction and a deniall If he denieth that Christ suffered the pains of the damned either in body or soul Christus corpore animâ sentit totalem Dei iram explicat Catechis part 2. qu. 37. q. 1. pag. 256. Idem ibid. qu. 44. pag. 277. as you affirm in so saying he saith the truth with divers others who distinguish between the pains of those who deserved to be damned namely the Elect and the pains of the damned and judiciously resolve that it is better to say Christ suffered the pains of those who were to be damned according to their deserts that is the essentiall punishment due unto the Elect for their sins then that he suffered the punishment of the damned part whereof though not the substantiall but circumstantial is their totall and finall separation from God sinne despair duration of the torments for ever c. none of which Christ suffered Those Divines that thus interpret the Articles of Christs descent into hell concerning soul-sufferings of Gods wrath distinguish the sufferings of Christ into outward intended by them in those words he was crucified dead and buried and inward Nempe omnes poeuae damnatorum his duobus continentur geueribus ut aliae pertincant ad corpus alia ad animam intended in those words he descended into hell which is a distribution in respect of the subject and not of the adjunct as you mistake and is as if they should say The paenall wrath of God or hell-pains which Christ suffered were either outward viz. such as he suffered in body or inward viz. such as he suffered in soul and this article of his descent into hell signifieth his inward pains namely those which he suffered in soul and not in his body Vrsin thus intends and is and ought to be so understood and so agreeth both with the truth and with himself Dialogu The like contradiction may be shewed in sundry other Authours Polanus divides the sufferings of Christ into outward and inward and he applieth his sufferings of hell-torments to his inward soul sufferings only See his Substance of Religion pag. 141.144 Answ As you mistook Vrsin so you mistake Polanus the same answer is to be repeated in the same case Polanus in opposition to Bellarmine and some other late Popish Writers who teach that Christ suffered not the wrath of God in his soul propounds this question v. Whether the alone passion and death of the body of Christ was sufficient punishment for us and the satisfaction of an infinite price and resolveth it negatively proving the satisfactory passion of Christ to be both outward and inward of both body aad soul as is plain to the Reader though the nature of the dispute so requiring he applieth himself principally to prove the soul-sufferings of Christ You have not yet produced an Orthodox Authour that saith Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only Dialogu We see but in part and know but in part God hath some truth to bring to light in every age the common doctrine of imputation hath much obscured the meritorious price of our redemption and justification Answ We doubt not but God doth clear
pain of losse essentially and principally Thirdly It is impertinent holding only as we saw before concerning the pain of losse accidentally but not essentially though this last be the only and very question between us This description of the Dialogue laid as a foundation of the following Discourse being overthrown what we shall finde built thereupon must needs fall with it which before we proceed unto it may be seasonable here to present the Reader with a true description of the pain of loss in stead of this erroneous description of the Authour The pain of losse taken essentially is an universall privation of the fruition of the good of the promise The pain of losse taken essentially and circumstantially is the universall privation of the fruition of the good of the promise together with the totall and finall absence of those good things which flow not from the curse as such but are effects of justice upon the damned in respect of the condition of the Patient viz. dis-union with God privation of his image in the soul and desperation Dialogu For as the favour of God through Christ is the fountain of life because it is the beginning of eternal life Psa 36.9 so on the contrary to be totally separated from Gods favour by an eternall separation must needs be the beginning of hell-torments or of death eternall Answ If the Dialogue intends the favour of God to be the beginning of eternall life only causally then this comparison is instituted between the formall beginning of eternall death and the causall beginning of eternall life so it is vain as to the purpose intended if it intends the favour of God in Christ taken properly to be the beginning of eternall life formally then it is false for the favour of God in Christ which is the fountain of life is increated and without beginning and is nothing else but Election the first cause of our good Eternall life whose beginning and continuance is of the same nature is created and hath a beginning though it be without an end and is the effect of this first cause the Dialogue therefore confounding the favour of God with the beginning of eternall life formally doth as much as say the cause is the effect and that which is increated is created If the comparison were in it self good yet it is impertinent concluding only concerning the pain of losse taken accidentally not as taken essentially which last must alwaies be remembred to be the sense of the Question Dialogu God doth not forsake the Reprobates so long as they live in this life with such a totall forsaking as he doth after this life yea the very Devils themselves as long as they live in this world being Spirits in the air are not so forsaken of God as they shall be at the day of judgement for as yet they are not in hell but in this air and therefore they have not their full torments as yet Answ Then the pain of losse consists not in the meer want of the favour or love of God for the Reprobates whether men or devils in this life or in the air are alwaies hated of God Gods love and hatred are eternall and immutable Vide Pisc in 2 Pet. 2.4 The devils being deprived of the image of God after which they were created and being under a degree of eternal death in respect of their malice final despair and present sufferings in part their condition doubtlesse is rather a condition of death then of life The Dialogue needlesly here ventureth to tell us that the devils are not in hell though Peter saith God cast them down to hell and John telleth us Rev. 20.3 that the devil was bound a thousand years and cast into the bottomlesse pit the same word with that which is used by the Legion of devils concerning the place they feared when they besought Christ that he would not command them thither Luke 8.31 Dialogu And yet this pain of losse may a little further be explained by opening the term Second death which may be in part described by comparing it with the first death which I have at large described to be our spirituall death or a losse of the life of our first pure nature I may call it a death in corrupt and sinfull qualities as I have opened Gen. 2.17 yea all other miseries which fall upon us in this life till our bodies be rotten in the grave I call them altogether the first death because they do all befall us in this world therefore on the contrary the second death must needs imply a deeper degree of sinful qualities then did befal us under the first death Answ Whether eternall death be called the second death to contra-distinguish it from the death of the body or death in sin or both as the first death As it is not materiall to the point in hand so neither need we labour about it though the Text Mat. 10.28 seemeth rather to oppose it to the death of the body by its separation from the soul as also the coherence Rev. 2.13 20.6 14. And if the first death is taken for death in sin and the full measure of sin as the Dialogue speaketh be included in the second death the opposition lieth rather between a bodily death and eternall death then between the first and second death for so far the first and second death are as two degrees of the same death not two kindes of death whereas bodily death and eternall death are two kindes of death Yea forasmuch as eternall death followeth bodily death and bodily death followeth death in sin there would then be three deaths viz. death in sin death of the body and death of the body and soul in hell and so it should be called the third not the second death Dialogu And thus this very term Second death doth plainly tell us that it is such a degree of death as surpasseth all the degrees of death in this life and that the full measure of it cannot be inflicted upon any man till this life is ended and then their end shal be without mercy Jam. 2.13 Answ The term Second being a word of order teacheth that eternal death in that it is called the second death is in Gods ordinary dispensation inflicted after the first death but it shews not the nature of eternal death The reason why eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body is partly because of the inability of the nature of man in this present state of mortality to endure the wrath of God without separation of the soul from the body but chiefly because this bodily death puts a period to our capacity of having any part in the first resurrection i.e. of regeneration whereby the second death is only prevented Though for these and other reasons the paenall wrath of God viz. eternall death be inflicted after bodily death yet it thence followeth not that the paenall wrath of God cannot be inflicted but according
seeth herein the Dialogues usuall fallacy of putting that which is not a cause for a cause since not onely the eminency of the Person but also the kinde of obedience and acceptation of God are required as essential to Mediatorly obedience But the Dialogues conclusion expressing it self in ambiguous terms capable both vf the sense of the Orthodox and Heterodox doth by this unseasonable and irregular equivocation betray the weaknesse of its cause and arguments both at once Dialogu It was the holinesse of his Divine nature that gave the quickning power to the oblation of his humane nature Joh. 6.63 Answ 'T is true the sacrifice of the humane nature could not have profited any thing but by reason of the Person whereunto it was united which notwithstanding the Person was not the sole cause of the efficacy of the oblation had the eminency of the Person been sufficient alone then one drop of his bloud might have been as effectual as his life-bloud and so your reasoning would be against your self Dialogu In this answer Joh. 6.63 our Saviour declareth two things 1. That the grosse and carnall substance of his flesh and bloud considered by it self alone had no meritorious efficacy and therefore his legal obedience cannot profit us 2. Our Saviour in his answer declared wherein the true force and efficacy of his sacrifice did lie namely in these two things 1. In the Personal union of his humane nature with his divine nature 2. It lies in his Priestly offering up of his humane nature by his divine nature Answ Though neither the flesh nor the actions of his flesh considered alone can profit us it doth not thereupon follow that his legall obedience cannot profit us the consequent is as false as the antecedent is true for the legall obedience of Christ is not only humane obedience as the Dialogue speaks but the obedience of God-man of the errour of this distinction of legal and mediatorial obedience hath been spoken before The efficacy of it lay in the eminency of the Person offering that is the Person who offered up himself was such a man who was also God Joh. 6.63 Act. 20.28 Heb. 9.14 but not in that only this is but the same in more words which is usually expressed in fewer viz. the value and efficacy of the Sacrifice depends yet not wholly upon the dignity of the Person Godman offered properly Godman was offered but not without the limitation of communication of properties The humane nature suffered properly but the divine nature suffered not Whole Christ suffered but not the whole of Christ i.e. though the God-head did not suffer yet he that did suffer was God CHAP. IV. Whether the Iews and Romans put Christ to death Dialogu NEither did he die a passive death by the power of the Roman souldiers as the Iews thought and as the Papists and other carnal Protestants do think All the men and devils in the world could not put him to death by their power I mean they could not separate his soul from his body till himself pleased to do it by his own Priestly power Joh. 10.17 18. his soul was not separated from his body by the sense of those pains which the Romane souldiers inflisted upon him as the souls of the two theeves were that were crucified with him for Christ died not sooner nor later then the very punctual hour in which God had appointed him to make his oblation Answ The Dialogue unable to prove the meer naturall death of Christ to be meritorious that is to be a sufficient price of our Redemption from the meer eminency of the person that died what it cannot do by argument it attempts by amazement beguiling the lesse attentive Reader into a credulity of the conclusion not by any reason alledged but by asserting some wonders concerning his natural death and first that his death was active only i.e. he separated his soul from his body shed his own bloud actuated his own death but the Jews and Romans put him not to death Suppose it were true that men did not instrumentally inflict upon Christ a naturall death and that they kil'd him not which yet is against the expresse letter of the Scripture Act. 2.23 it doth not therefore follow God did not inflict upon him a spirituall death As they killed their own Prophets so they killed Christ 1 Thes 2.15 but they killed their own Prophets not only in appearance but effectually Neither Christs being active as concerning his death sc as voluntarily permitting or giving way and consenting unto it neither the inability of man to take away his life till himself pleased neither his not dying either sooner or later then the very punctual hour in which God had appointed deny the sense of those pains which the Romane Souldiers inflicted upon him to have instrumentally and as next externall causes separated his soul fron his body when he pleased by suspending the assistance of the Divinity to give way unto the course of nature in the appointed hour By the last reason no man dieth a violent death because no man dieth sooner or later then his appointed time Dialogu The Centurion did plainly see a manifest difference between the manner of Christs death and the death of the two theeves that were crucified with him for as yet they did still continue alive in their torments till after the time that Joseph of Arimathea had begged our Saviours dead body of Pilate at the Sun-set Evening for Joseph did not go to Pilate to beg our Saviours body until the Evening was come Mat. 27.57 Mar. 15.52 53. and that was at Sun-set it could not be when the first Evening was come but Christ was dead long before this for he gave up the ghost at the ninth hour which was about three hours before the two theeves were killed and yet by the course of his nature he might have lived in his torments as long as the two thieves did for the Romane Souldiers did crucifie all three alike Answ Put case Ioseph of Arimathea begged not the body of Christ until Sunset-Evening and that he died three hours before the theeves this disproveth not the Jews as procurers Pilate as a Commander and the Roman souldiers as Executioners to have effectually put Christ to death neither doth all being granted touch the question mans not putting Christ to his natural death no way disproving Gods putting of him to a supernatural death so impertinent are these new assertions though true 'T is true the latter Evening began not until Sun-set but 't is not true that Ioseph came not to beg the body of Christ until Sun-set for he came as the Evening was coming as the Greek hath it therefore before it was actually come Besides otherwise he could not have taken down the body and buried it the same day for it was before Sun-set even after the exposition of the Dialogue it self on Gal. 3.13 according to the Law Deut. 22.23 which Iohn testifieth they were careful and mindeful
therefore die because he is dead and he died because he sinned they say saith he the punishment passed without the fault and that innocent babes are punished with an unjust punishment by contracting death without the desert of death See more testimonies both of August and other Ancients to this purpose out of Grotius de satisf Christ which the Catholike faith acknowledgeth of the one alone Mediatour of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus who vouchsafed to undergo death for us that is the punishment of sin without sin for as he alone was made the Son of man that we by him might be made the sons of God so he alone undertook for us the punishment of sin without evil deserts that we by him might obtain grace without good deserts for as unto us there was no good due so unto him there was no evil due Dialogu Again it is evident that his death was miraculous because at that instant when he breathed out his soul into the hands of God the veil of the Temple which typified his humane nature rent it self in twain from the top to the bottome and at that time also the graves of the Saints did open themselves and many of the dead Saints did arise Mat. 27.51 Answ The miracles that accompanied the death of Christ were divine testimonies of the Divinity and innocency of him that died but no arguments that his death was miraculous The position that his death was miraculous is true but this probation holds not It is rather thought that the Miracle of the Resurrection of the Saints was not till after the Resurrection Many bodies of the Saints that slept arose and came out of their graves after his Resurrection Mat. 27.51 but in matters of this nature we contend not The miracles that fell out about the death of Christ whether before or at or after it were the Eclipse of the Sun causing darknesse from the sixth hour unto the ninth whilst Christ was hanging upon the Cross The rending of the vail of the Temple an Earthquake the rending or the Rocks the opening of the graves and rising of many of the Saints The conversion of the Centurion and others the coming forth of bloud and water out of Christs side all which are summed together in that memorial Distich Eclipsis velum terrae trepedatio Rupes Busta cruci astantum conversio sanguis unda The death of Christ saith D. Ames was true not feigned Mors ista Christi fuit vera non ficta c. Med. l. 1. c. 22. th 27 it was natural from causes naturally efficacious to procure it not supernatural it was voluntary not plainly constrained yet it was violent It was also in some respect supernatural and miraculous because Christ conserved his strength and life so long as he would and laid them down when he would Dialogu Hence we learn that the doctrine of the Papists and Lutherans in their transubstantiation and consubstantiation is very erroneous for they place the meritorious price of their Redemption in the grosse substance of Christs flesh and bloud and in the passive shedding of it upon the Crosse by the Romans Answ Neither the Papists nor Lutherans look at the bloud of Christ as the bloud of a meer man but as the bloud of God-man Dialogu The cleansing vertue of his bloud lies in his own Mediatorial shedding of it for though he did not break his own body and powr out his own bloud with nails and spears as the Roman souldiers did yet he brake his own body in peeces by separating his own soul from his body by the power of the Divine nature and then he did actually shed his own bloud when he did pour out his own soul to death Isa 53.12 as a Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement for the procuring of his Fathers Atonement for our full Redemption Iustification and Adoption and in this sense only the bloud of Christ doth purge us Tit. 2.14 and cleanse us 1 Joh. 1.7 and wash us from our sins Rev. 1. Answ Christ shed his blood voluntarily that is he consented obediently thereunto but he shed it not formally as the next and formal cause thereof so to say is in effect to affirm that he killed himself and that he was his own executioner Unto the cleansing vertue of his bloud there is required not only the dignity of his person but also that besides the shedding of his bloud there is required that he should suffer a supernatural death i. e. the paenal death of the curse due to the Elect for their sin which is synechdochically signified by his bloud this putting of a partial and insufficient cause for the whole cause Logicians call a fallacy of putting a not-cause for a cause and is a fundamental and perpetual errour in the Dialogue the value of the Mediatorly obedience which is figuratively signified by Bloud proceeds from the eminency of the person obeying the quality of the obedience and the acceptance of God jointly and not from any of them alone The bloud of Christ whereof 1 Joh. 1.7 and Rev. 1. was bloud shed in a way of satisfaction to divine justice Rom. 3.24 25. not by way of a price improperly so called whose acceptance is by Divines called Acceptilation That Redeeming of which Tit. 2.14 signifieth a Redemption not by way of an improper or imperfect but by way of a full and satisfactory price such as was necessarily given for sin that remission might proceed without any violation of justice These objections have been urged before and answered before That which the Authour in this former Section of the second part affirmeth is that the active bodily death of Christ only i. e. his death actuated by the divine nature separating his soul from his body which the Dialogue calleth the master-piece of his Mediatorial obedience together with certain foregoing actions performed by him as God-man was the meritorious price of our Redemption denying that Christ suffered the curse of the Law in our stead which it endeavoureth to prove by comparing the merit of Christs obedience with the demerit of Adams disobedience Rom. 5.19 by allegation of certain Scriptures both misinterpred and corrupted viz. 1 Cor. 6.20 c. By the type of the Redemption-Mony by the typicall Redemption Lev. 25.25 39 47. by placing the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ in that it was shed by his own active priestly power not by the Roman Souldiers this last Proposition it labours to clear by the consideration of his priestly power and in his Priestly action namely the sprinkling of his own bloud The efficacy of his death performed by the joint concurrence of both natures is again ascribed wholly unto the divine nature which gave the quickning power to the oblation of the humane nature for the illustration and confirmation whereof it propounds two distinctions First of Legall and Mediatoriall obedience The second of an active and passive death Or that Christ died as a Mediator and as a Malefactor
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
from the words cited by him out of Maimony or yours out of him the Atonement rightly understood is so farre from opposing that it presupposeth satisfaction to divine justice by the surety of the meritorious cause thereof Dialogu If Gods imputing of the sins of the Elect to Christ was the cause of Gods extreme wrath upon him then by the same reason Christ doth still bear the wrath of God for Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much as ever be bare them upon earth Answ Christ on earth suffered the wrath of God that is the execution of divine justice because then he stood as a surety to satisfie the curse due for sin Isa 53.10 But having satisfied it Joh. 19.30 Col 2.14 the same justice that before punished him now acquits him Rom. 8.34 If the debtor be discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the surety is free the same justice that holds the surety obliged to the creditor whilest the debt is unpayed acquits him when the debt is payed CHAP. VII The Vindication of 2 Cor. 5.21 2 Cor. 5.21 God made him to be sin for us which knew no sin Dialogu THe meaning of these words is not that he was made sin for us by Gods imputation but that he was made sin for us that is to say a sacrifice for our sin sin is often used for a sin-offering sacrifices for sin are often called sin the word Made is a word of Election and Ordination Answ He was made sin for us as we were made righteousnesse that is by judiciall imputation without the violation yea with the establishing of justice he was made sin as he was made a curse Gal. 3.13 the Greek used here and there are the same But he was made a curse by judiciall imputation Because he was the sin-offering in truth therefore he was made sin by reall imputation as the legall sin-offering was made sinne by typical Imputation The summe of what you say touching the word Made to be a word of Election or Ordination how improperly soever concluding that God ordained concerning Christ so as he might make his soul a sin-offering concludes not against but consequently for us and against you from the typicall nature of a sin-offering Of which in the fore-going Chapter Dialogu The Apostle doth explain the word Sin Psal 40.6 thus for sin Heb. 10.6 therefore seeing the Apostle doth explain the word Sin by the particle for I may well conclude that Christ was not made sin by Gods Imputation Answ What David expresseth by Sin Psal 40.6 is expressed by For sin Heb. 10.6 both places intend the sin-offering therefore you still argue against your self and for us it is called a sin-offering because sin was typically imputed to it it is said to be for sin because it was offered for the expiation of sin the same offering is said to be a sin-offering in respect of its nature and said to be for sin that is for the expiation of sin in respect of its use the use of a thing destroyeth not the nature of it The particle For besides the taking away of sin notes the manner of its taking away viz. by way of expiation Dialogu The water of purification from sin is called sinne Numb 19.9 the money employed to buy the publique sacrifice for sinne is called trespasse-money 2 King 12.16 and in this sense God made Christ to be sinne Answ The water that did typically purifie from sin is metonymically called sin Numb 19.9 the money that was to buy the sin-offering 2 King 12.16 is also figuratively called sin and Christ who is the tru◠sin-offering is said to be made sin 2 Cor. 5.21 true Therefore For Christ to be made sin is not to have sinne imputed to him Vide Bezam in Gal. 3.13 is a meer non sequitur If Christ be made sin for us in the same sense that the water of purification and trespasse-money are called sinne then Christ is made sinne only figuratively consequently suffered for sin figuratively not properly the elect also are saved figuratively and not properly To say God made Christ to be sin not by imputing their sin to him but by ordaining him to be a sin-offering is as if you should say God made Christ sin not by imputing sin to him but by ordaining him to have sin imputed to him If sin was imputed to him consequently the guilt of sin was imputed which we here affirm and you deny Dialogu Isaiah tells that Christ made himself a trespass or a guilt for us Isa 53.10 and if Christ made himself a trespasse for us by imputing all our trespasses to himself then he must likewise inflict upon himself all the curses of the Law that are due to us for our trespasses Answ If Isaiah tels us Christ made himself a guilt for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubtlesse it is a truth The Hebrew word is not made himself but if his soul shall set it self God chargeth Christ with sin as the supream Law-giver and Judge Christ accepts the charge as a surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of justice which is the part of a surety but doth not execute that justice which is the part of a Judge so Isaiah and Paul do not only sweetly agree with the Leviticall phrase but Isaiah Paul and Moses jointly agree with us against you Paul saith Christ was made sin that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him Rom. 3.26 that is that we might be justified The same Paul saith That the Beleever in Christ is so justified as that God is just which cannot be without a judiciall imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety So when Paul saith Christ is made sin he means by judiciall Imputation of the guilt and punishment of sinne Doubtlesse Paul to the Corinthians agreeth with Paul to the Romans CHAP. VIII The Vindication of Mat. 26.37 Mar. 14.33 Luke 22.53 Dialogu MAthew saith that Christ was sorrowfull and grievously troubled chap. 26.37 Mark saith that he was sore afraid and amazed chap. 14.33 Luke saith that Christ was in an agony chap. 22.53 Christ made all this adoe about a bodily death only Answ If words have their taste as Elihu implieth Job 34.4 then your expression of the dolorous passion and lamentation of the Lord Jesus by that phrase of making this ado for I beleeve it 's not the language of any Orthodox writer ordinarily used by way of diminution and rebuke argueth a minde not affected as becomes a Christian with the sufferings of his Saviour Dialogu But how do you prove this sorrow and complaint to have proceeded ftom the fear of a bodily death only Answ Only do but consider what a horrid thing to humane nature the death of the body is then consider that Christ had a true humane nature and therefore why should be not be troubled with the fear of death as much as his humane nature could be without sin Because Regular affections such
to the cause Answ Guilt is either taken for the personal commission of sin or for a personall obligation unto punishment upon our voluntary taking thereof for the sin committed by another in the last sense only Christ was guilty of sin that is he was guilty imputatively not inherently as Christ was guilty of sin so also he was sensible of an accusing Conscience If Christ saith D Willet truly bare our sins he sustained also the grief of conscience for them which is the inseparable companion of our sin The question is not Whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently but only whether he may be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively Desperation is not of the essence but accidental in paenal wrath The rest is but a repetition of what was said and also answered a little before Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in the proper place of hell seeing none can suffer the torments of hell as long as they live in this world none can suffer the second death till after this life is ended Answ The place of punishment is not of the essence of punishment as the place of the third heaven is not of the essence of blessednesse so neither is the place of the damned of the essence of misery As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joys of heaven out of the place of heaven if not at other times as Luk 9.28 yet after the Resurrection so might it suffer the pains of hell out of the place of hell The prison is no part of the essentiall debt The most Popish enemies of Christs soul-sufferings of the wrath of God whilest though in their erroneous asserting the locall descent they affirm an actuality concerning Christs being in the place of hell without the pains of hell cannot with any reason deny a possibility of being in the pains of hell without the place of hell Vide Rivet â—athol orth â—o 1. tract â— q. 60. Christ was in a paenall hell not in a locall hell the distinction between a paenall hell and a locall hell is nor only acknowledged unto this day by the Orthodox but was long ago taught by sundry of the Learned and sounder Schoolmen The dispensation of God is either extraordinary or ordinary according to the ordinary dispensation of God the full pains of hell are not suffered in this life but according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not only could but did suffer the pains of hell in this life Many Reprobate suffer the pains of hell here in a degree The Reprobate as was said before that shall be found alive 1 Cor. 15.51 shall passe into the pains of hell without any separation of the soul from the body Dialogu Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his body as well as in his soul to redeem our bodies as well as our souls from the torments of hell Answ We have already seen that Christ suffered the torments of hell in his body as well as in his soul as it is evident that Christ suffered the torments of hell for kinde in his soul so who can deny but he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of hell though not inflicted after the same manner August de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 10. All the flames of hell are not corporeall and materiall witnesse that fire wherein the rich man was tormented such as his eyes and tongue were such was the flame Luk. 16.23 24. Willet syn 20. gen cont qu. 3. par 4. Those flames of hell which torment the bodies of the damned though justly acknowledged to be materiall are materiall after a spirituall manner They therefore are not to be heard who object against Christs suffering hell-pains in his body because there was no visible instrument of such bodily pain If any say his bodily pains were not equall to the bodily pains of them that are in hell that being granted to them therein which they are unable to prove it is sufficient to integrate and make up the execution of the full measure of wrath upon Christ that if his bodily torments were not equall to the bodily torments of the damned yet what was not executed upon his body was executed upon his soul The measure of hell-pains is made up without bodily pains in the Angels that fell and if haply some mindes labour concerning the capacity of the soul of a meer man to hold such a measure of torment they may remember that the soul of Christ who is both God and Man is above that objection exceeding the capacity of all Men and Angels by reason of his personall union Dialogu How long did he suffer the torments of hell was it for ever or how long did he suffer them and when did the torments of hell first seize on him and when was be found freed from them or did he suffer the torments of hell at severall times or in severall places or but at one time or place only Answ His sufferings though temporall in respect of duration were eternall in efficacy in respect of the eminency of the Person it was more for an infinite person to suffer for a time then for all finite persons to suffer for ever Christ suffered the torments of hell upon the Crosse where he bare the moral curse Gal. 3.13 and in the garden Mat. 26. though his sufferings in the garden and upon the Crosse are the principal and therefore called the Passion emphatically yet the rest of his sufferings from his conception unto his passion are integral parts thereof that is such without which his passive obedience is not compleated He was freed from them at his death Job 19.30 he was freed from the sensible part of his sufferings at his death from sufferings simply at his Resurrection That Christ suffered the torments of hell is revealed which is the question though many circumstances of time and place are not revealed These are impertinent and captious quere's Dialogu Was he tormented without any forgivenesse or did Abraham deny him the least drop of water to cool his tongue Answ Christ was tormented without any forgivenesse God spared him nothing of the due debt Rom. 8.32 Mat. 26.39 but God gave him a discharge when the debt was paid Isa 53.10 Col. 2.14 He had not then so much as the least drop of water to ease him of the least particle of suffering due unto him according to justice but was wholly forsaken in respect of any participation of the sense of the good of the promise for the time Mat. 27.46 Dialogu Did Christ inflict the torments of hell upon his own humane nature was his Divine nature angry with his humane nature or did his Divine nature forsake his humane nature in anger as it must have done if it had suffered the torments of hell if so then he destroyed the personall union of his two natures and then he made himself no Mediatour but a cursed damned sinner Answ The second Person of the
of Ch. 19.31 There being therefore so much reason to conclude the theeves were buried before Sun-set it is very inconsiderately affirmed that they were alive at Sun-set It is also very inconfiderately affirmed that the theeves did continue alive in their torments till after the time that Ioseph of Arimathea had begged our Saviours dead body of Pilate when Iohn telleth us that the Jews besought Pilate that their legges might be broken and that they might be taken away and after that their legges were broken and Christs side was pierced with a spear Ioseph of Arimathea besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus Ioh. 19.31 34 38. but much more unadvised is it to say that the theeves were alive at Sun-set there being so much reason to conclude they were buried before Sunset The Margine note concerneth not us who acknowledge but two Evenings nor oppose the Hebrews or Jews beginning the first with the sensible declining of the Sun after its being in its altitude at midday the latter at Sunset between which two evenings that is in the space after the beginning of the first and before the beginning of the second the Lamb was slain Exo. 12.6 Christ died after three of the clock Mat. 27.45 50. the theeves were taken down and buried out of the way before Sunset and 't is probable Christ and they were taken down together whose body being wound up in linnen clothes with the spices and carried into Iosephs own sepulchre in a garden upon the same mount must necessarily take up some time neither is there reason to think they would put themselves upon any danget of entrenching upon the Sabbath The case thus standing and it being not set down what space there was between the death of Christ and of the theeves the Dialogue ventures too far in saying Christ died not only long but three hours before them But be it what it was let us see what the Dialogue infers from thence Dialogu What then was the true reason why Christ died three hours before the theeves had he lesse strength of nature to bear his torments then they or did the Roman souldiers adde more torment upon his body then upon the two theeves or did the Fathers wrath kill him sooner then the two theeves as some think surely none of all these things did hasten his death before the two theeves but the only true reason was because he did actuate his own death as a mediatorial sacrifice of atonement at the just hour appointed by his Father by the joint concurrence of both his natures Answ That Christ was dead a notable space before the theeves is manifest and Pilate marvelled if he were already dead Mar. 14 4◠But that he died three hours before them cannot appear Christ had lesse strength of nature left to bear his torments then the theeves had therefore they compelled a man of Cyrene Simon by name to bear his Crosse that is to help him bear it Illusio conspuitio Christi post latam in eum mortis sententiam a ministris a mediâ nocte usque ad horas matutinas fuit producta Gerh. harm 73. He is a very negligent Reader of the History of the Passion that observeth not many sufferings inflicted upon Christ by men more then were upon the thieves His restlesse vexation the night before by their carrying of him first before Annas Joh. 18. then to Caiaphas ver 24. where they spit in his face and buffeted him others smote him with the palms of their hands Mat. 27.67 Again they cover his face and buffet and say unto him Prophesie Mar. 14.65 and thence they carry him to Pilate early in the morning Mat. 27.1 2. thence to Herod Luk. 23.7 and Herod with his men of war set him at naught and mocked him and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe and sent him again to Pilate where the souldiers of the Governour took Jesus into the Common Hall and gathered unto him the whole Band of souldiers and they stripped him and put upon him a scarlet Robe and when they had platted a Crown of thorns they put it upon his head and a reed in his right hand and they bowed themselves before him Thom. part 3. qu. 46. vid. Gerh. harm in loc saying Hail King of the Jews and spit upon him and took the reed and smote him on the head Mat. 27.27 28 29 30. adde hereunto their casting lots upon his vesture reviling of him wagging their heads at him and mocking of him as well by the better as by the meaner sort whilest he was hanging upon the Crosse and all this besides what was extraordinary in his scourging you forget his sorrow unto death mortall of it self in time his agony in the garden besides the full sense of the wrath of God upon the Crosse no wonder if all these exhausted the spirits of the Manhood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold the man and if these things still seem lesse to the authour of the Dialogue yet know they seemed great both to David that spake of them and to Christ that felt them Reproach hath broken my heart Psa 69.20 My heart is like wax it is melted in the midst of my bowels my strength is dried up like a potsherd Psa 22.14 15. Dialogu Surely none of all these things did hasten his death before the two theeves but the only true reason was because he did actuate his own death as a mediatoriall sacrifice of atonement at the just hour appointed by his Father by the joint concurrence of both his natures Answ Of Christs fear hath been spoken particularly and I hope sufficiently upon Heb. 5.7 In regard of the Personal union and unction of Christ whereby he received all possible created fitnesse for the execution of his office it is inconsisting with his perfection to suppose the least unreadinesse either in respect of fear or whatsoever else to perform any Mediatorly service in the time thereof Iohn telleth us the true reason why Christ died then and not before nor after because then and not untill then his work of Mediatorly obedience both active and passive was finished and whatsoever was written concerning him was fullfilled When Iesus therefore had received the Vinegar he said It is finished and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost CHAP. V. Of the Dialogues distinction of Christs dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor Dialogu I Have already shewed you that Christ dyed a twofold death for he died both as a Malefactor and as a Mediatour at one and the same time as a Malefactor he died a passive death but as a Mediatour he died an active death and the Scripture doth often speak of both these deaths sometimes iointly and sometimes severally when the Scripture doth mention his passive death then it saith that he was put to death killed and slain But secondly the Scripture doth sometime speak iointly of his passive death and of his Mediatorly death together in one sentence as
any efficiency of it self Non-subsistence saith nothing nothing cannot act of it self but of this I spake before That Law which faith in Christ a Saviour establisheth that Law Christ as God-man Mediator establisheth but the Law of works is that Law which faith in Christ a Saviour establisheth Rom. 3.2 therefore the Law of works was established and consequently obeyed by Christ as God-man Mediator for the establishing of the Law includes Legall obedience He who as God-man Mediator is the perfecting end i.e. is he in whom the Law hath its perfecting end of the Law performed obedience to the Law but Christ i.e. God-man Mediator as such is the perfecting end of the Law so is the plain and acknowledged sense of the Greek word Rom. 10.4 therefore Christ as God-man Mediator performed obedience to the Law The Law is fullfilled as concerning them that are saved Gal. 3.10 either by the obedience of Christ God-man Mediator or by the personal obedience of the Beleever not by the personal obedience of the Beleever Rom. 3.3 Gal. 3.10 therefore by the personal obedience of Christ God-man Mediatour Dialogu The suffrage of the Godly Learned hereunto is known and acknowledged Polan l. 6. c. 14. Park de desc l. 3 n. 52 53. Rivet in Psa 40. Consideratio deitatis alia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polan syntag lib. 6. c. 12. Inequalitas officiorum non tollit aequalitatem naturae aut personarū Ursin expl catech par 2. qu. 33. q. 6. Christ Jesus saith Polanus from the time whereat he took upon himself the form of a servant began to pay the price of our redemption Christ is such a Mediator as is a debtor to keep the whole Law to that effect it was necessary saith Rivet that seeing Christ was our surety he should be made under the Law The divine nature considered absolutely in it self is not subject unto the Law as subsisting in personall union with the humane nature it is subject in respect of voluntary dispensation the humane nature is subject absolutely and properly being a creature The sum is Christ i.e. the person who is God man Mediator was subject unto the Law absolutely as touching the humane nature in respect of voluntary dispensation and office as concerning the divine nature it 's a received rule given for the understanding of this mystery that inequality of office taketh not away equality of nature and persons First God appointed the Mediatour to fulfill the Law of works I mean so much of it as fell within the compasse of his humane course of life not as a proper condition belonging to the Law of Mediatorship as Mediator but as true man only for he was bound to observe the Law of works as he was true man as much as any other Jew by a native right Gal. 4.4 Answ That God appointed the Mediator to fullfill the Law of works as a proper condition belonging to the Law of Mediatorship as Mediator and not as man only is already proved Of the difference between the obligation of Christ and another Jew to Legal obedience there is no need here to speak they were both bound by native right and otherwise but not altogether upon the like grounds and for very unlike ends the obedience to the Law whereof Paul speaks Gal. 4.4 was the obedience of Christ not as man only but as Mediator which is plain in that it was to redeem us that were under the Law ver 5. Dialogu Secondly Though I make this Legall obedience to be no more but humane obedience yet I grant that he was thereby qualified and fitted to make his soul a Mediatorly sacrifice for he could not have been the Lamb of God without spot if he had not been exact in the performance of so much Legal obedience as fell within the compasse of his humane course of life Heb. 7.26 Answ Rhetorf de gra exerc 1. c. 2. Righteousnesse or obedience in Christ hath a double consideration either it is considered in him as in such a person and not our surety or as in such a person and our surety righteousnesse in his person qualified him for the service of a surety Legal Mediatorly obedience or his personall and surety-obedience are distinguished only notionally not really i. e. it is one and the same obedience considered according to two notions Dialogu Thirdly The rewards which his father did promise him for his Mediatorly obedience do far exceed the rewards which he doth promise to Legall obedience for I cannot finde that ever the Father did promise to reward any mans Legall obedience with such speciall rewards as he doth promise unto Christs Mediatoriall Obedience I will give thee the end of the earth for thy possession Psa 2. And He shall see his seed and prolong his daies when he shall make his soul a trespasse-offering Isa 53.10 Answ The terms Legal and Mediatorly intend not two kindes of obedience but one and the same obedience under two denominations called Legal in respect of the Law which is the Rule of obedience and Mediatorly in respect of the office of the person who performed this obedience unto it both the promises instanced and all other of like kinde are made Dialogu Fourthly Christ was not bound to fulfil personal obedience to every branch of the Law of works for he had not wife and children to instruct c. but he was bound to fullfill every branch and circumstance of the Law of Mediatorship he must not be wanting in the least circumstance thereof if he had been wanting in the least circumstance he had been wanting in all Answ Legal obedience consists not in performing personal obedience to every branch of the Law formally But in performing all that the Law requireth as the Law requireth actually or habitually The Law of works and the Law of the Mediator differ not as two Laws but as the whole and the part of the same Law The will of God concerning the Mediator was that he should obey the Law of works Quando igitur quaeritur qualem obedientiam Deo praestiterit Pareus in loc Rivet in Psal 40.8 and more Pareus commenting upon those words Heb. 10.8 speaks thus If it be enquired saith he what obedience Christ performed unto God we must answer both the universal obedience of the whole Law given to man and the special obedience imposed upon the Mediator alone Christ faileth not of fulfilling the least iota unto either By the Law Psa 40. saith Rivet he understands as well all the Commandments of God common to all men as the singular command of laying down his life Dialogu M. Calvin observeth rightly that some of the actions of Christ were proper to his God-head only and some of his actions were proper to his humane nature only and some of his actions were common to both his natures and this observation saith M. Calvin shall do no small service to assoyl many doubts if the Reader can but fitly apply
it Answ The same is observed by all Orthodox Writers generally The Margine telleth you the use thereof was for the avoiding as of other errours so of those wherein Nestorius and Eutyches were condemned Had you sufficiently weighed the use that Calvin makes of his observation in the words immediatly following viz. For it is marvellous how much the unskilful yea not utterly unlearned are cumbred with such forms of speech which they see spoken by Christ which do rather well agree with his Godhead then with his Manhood because they consider not that they agree with his person wherein he is shewed both God and man and with the office of a Mediator you might not only have spared this Citation but also the very distinction it self Dialogu It is absurd to affirm that all the acts of Christs obedience were Mediatory because his person consisted of both natures for then his natural Actions should be Mediatorial as well as any other You may as well say that all actions of the Son and of the holy Ghost are the actions of the Father because they are united into one Godhead as say that the acts of Christs Legal obedience were Mediatorial because his person consisted of two Natures Answ There are none of us that so affirm Not his person alone but both his Person and Office are requisite to every action of a Mediator all his naturall actions of obedience were Mediatorly Such natural actions which are so the actions of men as yet they are not humane Rationall or Morall which considered in themselves without all circumstances of good or evil are indifferent not falling within the compasse of a rule are not here considerable You have been already told that we affirm not the Legal acts of Christ to be Mediatorly acts because his person consists of both natures with the reason thereof But we say the Legal obedience of Christ were the actions of the person consisting of both natures they were not the actions of a meer man and because they were performed by such a person in way of such an office they were all Mediatorly actions The distinction of the personall actions in the Trinity arising from the natures of the Persons in the Divine essence holds proportion with our asserting the actions of Christ to proceed from his Person as the Agent Notwithstanding the two Natures are Principles respectively of such actions They that have competent knowledge in these great Mysteries of the Trinity of Persons in one essence and the two natures in one Person will soon see your inconsideratenesse in your comparing the Person Natures and Legal obedience of Christ with the Divine Nature Trinity of Persons and Personall or Essential acts Dialogu As for example all the Actions of Christ from his birth until he began to be thirty years of age must be considered as natural actions or as Legal acts of obedience for till he began te be thirty of years of age he led a private life with his parents Secondly When he began to be thirty years of age he did then begin to declare himself to be the Mediaatour for when he was baptized of John in Jordan the holy Ghost lighted upon him in visible manner before all Johns Auditory and the Father by his voice from Heaven declared that he was the Mediator Thirdly In the upshot of his life as soon as he had fullfilled all things that were written of him he sanctified himself and sacrificed his oblation by the joint concurrence of both natures and this was the masterpiece of his Mediatorial obedience Having thus distinguished the actions of the Mediatour we may and must rank his acts of obedience accordingly his obedience to the Law of works must be ranked among the actions of his humane nature and his obedience to the Law of Mediatorship must be ranked among his Mediatorial actions which he performed by the personal union of both his natures Answ The sum is Christ was not declared publikely to be the Mediator until he was about thirty years of age therefore he did no Mediatorly act before he was thirty years of age a meer non-consequence you may by the like reason say the Father had not before declared him to be his beloved Son therefore he was not his beloved Son Joseph had not declared himself to be the Brother of the Patriarchs and Benjamin therefore he was not their Brother Nor was his weeping in secret Gen. 42.24 and weeping again in secret and his soul-pouring upon his Brother Gen. 43.30 brotherly acts It hath already I hope been sufficiently proved that all the Legall actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of a Mediator Christ was a Mediatour to be incarnate before the foundation of the world from eternity Dialogu It may be you think as many others do that Christ began to pay the price of our redemption from the very first beginning of his incarnation for many affirm that he was conceived by the holy Ghost without any original sin that so he might thereby justifie us from our original sin which opinion I have confuted but the open History of the Evangelists do speak nothing at all of his Mediatoriall actions till he was publikely installed into the office of the Mediator by Johns Baptism Dialogu Yet the Apostle testifieth that Christ himself saith by the Psalmist Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me In burnt offering and sacrifice for sin thou hast had no pleasure then said I Lo I come in the Volume of thy Book it is written of me to do thy will O God Coming into the world his incarnation doing his will is the fullfilling the Law for our Redemption Whatsoever Righteousnesse the Law required unto Justification Christ performed Polan de conceptione Christi But the Law required inherent righteousnesse from the first moment of our conception and not onely active obedience Therefore it was necessary that Christ who fullfilled the Law should be inherently righteous from the first moment of his conception The Dialogue it self acknowledgeth some Mediatorly acts before thirty years of age viz many Mediatorly prayers and his incarnation though incarnation is not a Mediatorly or office-act but an act constituting the person called to that office If that his meaning be of publike actions of a Mediator Our Question is not Whether there were any publike Mediatorly acts of Christ before his Baptism but whether his Legal obedience was Mediatorly obedience Dialogu Yea when Christ began to be thirty years of age he was publikely installed into the Mediators office by the joint consent of all the Trinity and so our Saviour doth explain the matter unto John saying Thus our Desire is or thus it becometh us to fullfill all Righteousnesse Mat. 3.14 These two terms 1. our desire 2. our fulfilling all righteousnesse had need to be explainad the term us or our desire must have relation to some