Of the former distinction there will be a further and more proper place to speak hereafter The latter the Dialogue hath taken much pains in and made much use of its grounds are Scriptures misalledged its scope is to make Christ the sole actor of his own death the inference from it that the Jews did not put Christ to death but if the distinction it self be proved to be but a figment the scope thereof unsound and if true yet impertinent the inference an untruth of all which the Reader must judge then the crutch falling all that is built thereupon must needs fall together with it SECTION II. A Discourse touching the obedience of Christ to the Morall Law Whether it were done for our Justification or no by way of Imputation CHAP. I. Of the Dialogues Reasoning against the influence of Christs obedience into Iustification by way of Imputation THe Dialogue denying the imputation of sin unto Christ thereupon necessarily denieth Christs suffering of the punishment due for sin which is usually called his passive obedience and therewithall all legall obedience performed by him in our stead whether passive or active hereupon it is necessitated to deny all Legall Mediatorly obedience and consequently the legall obedience of Christ to be the meritorious price of our redemption or to be the matter of our Justification For that which is not at all cannot be either of them so fruitfull is errour one pulling on another As the denial of Christs Legal obedience to have place in the meritorious cause forced the Authour to finde out a new Mediatorly obedience as the price of our redemption which we have already examined so the denial of his Legal obedience to be the matter of our justification forceth him to invent a new way of justifying I cannot say a new matter of Justification for he doth not present any though that was excepted of which now Christ who is our righteousnesse assisting we are to consider Dialogu Before I can speak any thing touching Christs obedience to the Morall Law it must be understood what you mean by this term morall Law By the term morall Law you mean the Decalogue or ten Commandments and call it the morall Law because every one of these ten Commandments were engraven in our nature in the time of innocency but in my apprehension in this sense the term moral Law is very ill applied because it makes most men look at no further matter in the ten Commandments but at morall duties only or it makes them look no further but at sanctified walking in relation to moral duties Answ The Dialogues objecting against the Decalogues being called the morall Law is a meer impertinency It is sufficient so farre as concerns the matter in hand unto the Justification of the use of the term moral if it be applicable unto the Law as given to Adam in innocency though it were not applicable unto it under the notion of the Decalogue Suppose it be applicable to neither the Question is not whether the term Moral be aptly applied unto the Decalogue but whether Christs obedience unto the Law were done for our justification The Law in Scripture is called the image of God because by it written in the heart man resembled God Gen. 1.27 The ten words or ten Commandements from the number of the precepts therein contained Deut. 4.13 The two great Commandments Mat. 22.40 The Law of Moses Act. 28.23 because given by Moses Joh. 1.17 The Law of works Rom. 3.27 because it required personal and perfect obedience thereunto as the condition of our Justification By Divines it is called the Decalogue because it consisteth of ten Commandements The second edition of the Law of nature being first concreated with our nature Gen. 1.27 and afterwards written upon two Tables of stones Exod. 31.18 The morall Law because it is the perpetuall rule of manners teaching how we should be ordered towards God and Man and also to distinguish it from the Ceremoniall and judiciall Law But not because every one of the ten Commandments were engraven in our nature in the time of Adams innocency as the Dialogue puts upon us to make way for its burdening of us with its vain and impertinent objection against calling the Decalogue the morall Law Though the Decalogue or moral Law were written in Adams heart yet it is not therefore called the moral Law because it was written in his heart Neither is it so proper to say it was written in our Nature mans nature remained when Adam was deprived of Gods image The image of God after which Adam was created was a Divine not a Humane Nature If the term Moral extend not to the Latitude of the Law in all considerations the Law is not therefore contracted unto the term neither in it self nor in the intention of the Authours thereof who have many more names to expresse the Law by Dialogu But the truth is they are greatly deceived for the ten Commandments do require faith in Christ as well as morall duties but faith in Christ was not engraven in Adams nature in the time of his innocency he knew nothing concerning faith in Christ till after his fall therefore the ten Commandments in the full latitude of them were not given to Adam in his innocency they were not given till after Christ was published to be the seed of the woman to break the devils head-plot therefore the ten Commandments do require faith in Christ as well as morall duties Answ If the ten Commandments doe require faith in Christ as well as morall duties then the ten Commandments require moral duties as well as faith in Christ if so then they may aptly in that respect be called the morall Law Morall duties so called from the Law that universall and perpetual rule of manners teaching how man should be ordered disposed qualified conformed and if we may so speak mannered towards God and man are co-extended with the Law it self Law and Duty are Relates as therefore faith in Christ becometh a part of mans duty and orderly or regular disposition and conformity towards God what hinders but in this larger acception thereof it may be said to be a morall duty though strictly and according to the sense of that usuall distinction of faith and manners it is not so taken Adams knowing nothing concerning faith in Christ until after the fall doth not disprove a principle in him wherby he was able to beleeve in Christ The Angels knew no more of Christs being propounded to them to be beleeved in as their head and confirmer then Adam did of Christs being propounded to him to be beleeved in as his head and Redeemer Yet the Angels in their Creation received a principle whereby they were able to beleeve in Christ as their head and confirmer being commanded so to do without the inspiring of any new principle Had Christ in like manner been propounded unto Adam yet in his innocency to have been beleeved in as his Head and Confirmer which
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
of Gods dispensation Paul speaks frequently of this accidental use of the Law in order to conversion after the cessation of the judicial and ceremonial Law Christ not only being come in the flesh but also dead buried and ascended Rom. 3.20 4.15 7.8 9 10 11 13. into heaven The whole Law of Moses was a school-master to leade us unto Christ the moral Law leades us unto Christ by an accidentall direction of it self it shuts souls up into the prison of sin that it may condemn it is by accident that being shut up we seek after righteousnesse and life by faith in Jesus Christ the ceremonial Law led unto Christ by direct signification and its period of duration the judicial Law led unto Christ by his distinction of the Jews from all other people and by the the period of its duration It follows by good consequence from this School-masterly discipline of the Law that God did never intend to justifie any corrupt son of Adam by Legal obedience done by his own person but that God did not intend to justifie his Elect by our Saviours Legal obedience followeth not at all from hence except in the mistake of the Authour of the Dialogue Paul evidently enough concludes the direct contrary consequence Par. in loc Gal. 3.24 those words the Law was added for transgressors till the seed should come Gal. 3.19 are to be interpreted according hereunto in a limited not in an absolute sense Dialogu God cannot in iustice iustifie sinners by our Saviours Legal obedience imputed because Legal obedience is altogether insufficient to iustifie a corrupt son of Adam from his original sin for our corrupt and sinful nature did not fall upon us for the breach of any of Moses his Laws but for the breach of another Law of works which God gave to Adam in his innocency by way of prohibition In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death so God cannot in iustice impute our Saviours Legal obedience to any corrupt son of Adam for his full and perfect righteousnesse because it is altogether insufficient to make a sinner righteous from his original sin Answ We are to distinguish of the Law it 's taken sometimes more largely either for all the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament Luk. 16.17 Joh. 15.25 or for all the Books of Moses Matt. 7.12 sometimes more strictly for the Moral Law Rom. 7.7 So Paul opposeth the Law of works to the Law of faith and Luke the Law of Moses unto Christ Act. 13.39 because by him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses The Law of Moses taken strictly and the Law of works usually known by the name of the Decalogue or ten Commandments are the same and differ no otherwise then as two Editions of the same Book the Law of Moses being nothing else but an external pattern of the internal Law of nature printed in the hearts of our first Parents by their creation after the Image of God consisting in holiness and righteousnes Eph. 4.24 the sum of the two Tables it is called the Law of works Rom. 3.27 because it required personal obedience unto life Lev. 18.5 the Law of Moses Act. 13.39 because it was given to the people of Israel by the Ministry of Moses Joh. 1.17 In the Law strictly taken which also holds concerning the Law taken largely we must distinguish between that part of it which is moral positive Vide Wille Exod. 21. qu. 1. Jus morale positivum jus divinum positivum Weems exerc 37. in precep 8. The habitual writing whereof in our hearts by nature together with its obligation were both from the first instant of Creation this bindes perpetually and is immutable so essential is the nulling and obliging nature of the Law as that though life be not attained by obedience thereunto as it was in the Covenant of works yet is obedience thereunto unseparable from life in the Covenant of grace and that part which is divine positive which though it be habitually written in our hearts by nature yet it bindes not without a superadded command these are accessory Commandments added to the Law written and binde not by force of creation or light of nature but by force of institution both moral positive and divine positive Law are the Law of nature only that 's the primary this is the secondary Law of nature As God at Mount Sinai after the Decalogue gave the judiciall and ceremonial Laws which were accessory commands part of and reducible thereunto as conclusions to their principles so God at the creation having given the Law unto Adam by writing it in his heart Gen. 1.27 after that gave him this accessory command concerning the Tree of the knowlege of good and evil Gen. 2.17 part of and reducible thereunto and as a Conclusion of its principle The transgression then of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit was a breach of the same Law of works which was given to Adam and afterwards given by Moses and so the punishment of original sin inflicted upon man therefore did fall upon us for the breach of Moses Law which was first given to Adam and afterwards given by Moses that the imputation of the Legal obedience of Christ God so being pleased to accept thereof is sufficient to make sinners righteous from all sinnes is manifest because Christ performed perfect obedience for us unto the Law of works given to Adam which had Adam himself personally performed he had been just The Law that was given by Moses convinceth us effectually and fully of Adams sin Rom. 5.20 moreover the Law entred that sin i. e. Adams sin for of that he speaks might abound therefore Adams sin was committed against the Law of Moses to this purpose serveth the labour of Divines shewing how Adams sin was a violation of the most yea of all the Commandments if so then it was a breach of Moses Law Dialogu If Christs Legal obedience imputed were sufficient to iustifie a sinner from all kinde of sinne both originall and actuall then Christ made his oblation in vain for it had been altogether needlesse for him to give his soul as a Mediatorial sacrifice of atenement for the procuring of our iustice in Gods sight if his Legal righteousnesse performed by his life had been sufficient to iustifie us from all sin in Gods sight for if righteousnesse could have come to sinners by the Law then Christ died in vain Gal. 2.21 Answ Christs inherent righteousnesse and active obedience is an essentiall part of our justification but not all our justification Christs active and passive obedience make up our righteousnesse Original justice and active obedience was sufficient to justifie man innocent but not to justifie man fallen The law in case of innocency required only doing Lev. 18.5 but in case of sin it cannot be satisfied without suffering Gen. 2.17 and doing Gal. 3.10 that is without both passive
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