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
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
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
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
Persons upon the creature is answerable to the manner of their subsistence in the divine nature The Father worketh of himself the Son worketh from the-Father Joh. 5.19 30. and 8.28 The holy Ghost worketh from the Father and the Son Joh. 16.13 hence though all the works of God concerning the creature are wrought jointly by all the three persons yet is the work principally ascribed to that person whose manner of subsistence doth most eminently appear therein Beginning works as creation are ascribed principally to the first person the carrying works on to perfection as redemption to the second person the perfecting of them as the application of redemption under which last work the grace of justifying faith is contained unto the third person To make the first person an efficient and the third person an instrumentall cause in the working of reconciliation or faith were by consequence to affirm some inferiority of the third person in respect of the fiâ—st consequently an inequality between the persons which were to inferre an inequality in God because every person is God which leaving the consideration of more dangerous inferences to the intelligent Reader is inconsisting with the perfection of God so unsafe is it to speak unadvisedly in these mysteries The second person in the Trinity is to be considered as in himself so he is only God and not man or as subsisting in personall Union with the manhood so he is God-man The second Person in the Trinity considered in himself works together with the Father and the holy Ghost jointly and equally in all essentiall works consequently as concerning faith atonement c. as we have already seen The Mediatorly obedience of Christ i. e. of God-man consisting of the divine and humane nature in one person called by the Father unto that service is the procuring and only meritorious cause of the Fathers atonement and all other spirituall blessings that beleeving sinners do enjoy Dialogu To conclude If thou hast gotten any spirituall blessing by any thing that I have said in this Treatise Let God have all the glory Answ To conclude Herosis in capite Pol. Syn. l. 7. c. 22. Vide Par. 1. Cor. 1.11 and 11.19 Ames Cas Con. l. 4. c. 4 Val. tom 3. dis 1. q. 11. punct 1 2 3. Taking heresie for a fundamentall errour that is such as whosoever liveth and dieth in cannot be saved The Dialogue containeth three Heresies The first denying the imputation of the sin of the Elect unto Christ and his suffering the punishment due thereunto contrary to 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 Isa 53.5 6. and Other Arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative Thereby leaving the Elect to perish in their sinne 1 Cor. 15.17 18. This Heresie is maintained in the first part The second denying that Christ as God-man Mediatour obeyed the Law and therewith that he obeyed it for us as our surety contrary to Galat. 4.4 5. Matth. 5 17 18. Heb. 10.7 compared with Psa 48.7 8. Rom. 3.31 and Other arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative Thereby rendring Christ both an unfaithfull and an insufficient Saviour and spoiling the elect of salvation This Heresie is maintained in the former Section of the second part The third 1. Denying the Imputation of Christs obedience unto justification Contrary to Rom. 4. Rom. 5.19 Phil. 3.19 and the arguments in the answer proving the affirmative Thereby leaving all that be ungodly under an impossibility of being justified 2. Destroying the very being of a sinners righteousnesse by taking away the obedience of Christ unto the Law and imputation which are the matter and form that is the essentiall causes of justification 3. Placing a sinners righteousnesse in a fictitious Atonement or pardon of sin such as in effect manifestly doth not only deny it self to be the effect of but denieth yea and defieth the very being of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ to the Law for us This Heresie is maintained in the second Section of the second part The first holdeth us in all our sin and continueth the full wrath of God abiding upon us The second takes away our Saviour The third takes away our righteousnesse and our justification What need the Enemy of Jesus grace and souls adde more This threefold cord of Hereticall doctrine so directly and deeply destructive to the truth of the Gospel and salvation of man We desiring after Christs example to distinguish where there is cause between Peter and Satan reserving all charitable and compassionate thoughts according to rule touching the compiler thereof who we hope did it ignorantly do principally impute to him who is not only a lyar but also a murtherer from the beginning Now the good Spirit of Grace that great Defender and Teacher of the Truth as it is in Jesus who in his rich mercy causeth all then whom he loveth to beleeve the truth that they may be saved and in his righteous judgement giveth up such who receive not the truth in the love of it to beleeve a lie that they may be damned Grant that truth may look down from heaven in this hour and power of the spirit of errour so perilously prevailing to deceive if it were possible the very elect Preserve the Reader from every false way and leade him into all truth Magnifie his compassion in the pardon and recovery of the Authour a person in many respects to be very much tendred of us in so saving of him though as by fire as that his rising again may be much more advantageous to the truth comfortable to the people of God and honourable to himself then his fall hath been scandalous grieving or dishonourable And lastly Inspire us all with a discerning and conscientious spirit as concerning the mystery of piety working in the way of truth and the mystery of iniquity working in the way of lying so as that in these evil daies wherein errours and heresies must be we may manifest our selves approved and to be acted vigorously and efficaciously by the spirit of him who sealed that good confession before Pontius Pilate saying To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world that I should bear witnesse to the truth Christian Reader if as sometimes through grace it was with Augustine concerning the Heresie of Pelagius by occasion of this Dialogue and other perilous Treatises with which this hour of temptation abounds threatning it it were possible to deceive the very elect thou hast been stirred up more to search into and hate the unsound tenets contained therein and more to search into and love the sound doctrines contrary thereunto Remember to glorifie that God which brings Light out of Darknesse by his good Spirit leading all those whose Names are written in the Book of Life of the Lamb into all truth teaching them to abhorre the wine of deadly errours notwithstanding they are presented in a golden cup and to discern Satan though transformed into an Angel of Light Glory be to God in Jesus Christ.
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
himself layeth both his hands upon the live goat and confesseth over him the iniquity of the children of Israel Lev. 16.21 which confession of sin though it be only expressed in the case of the Scape-goat yet it is judged to have accompanied imposition of hands upon the sin-offering From the collation of the texts with Lev. 5.56 as also because there is like reason in all Calvin in Lev. 1.1 Junius in Lev. 1. Ainsworth Lev. 1.4 Willet in Lev. 1. qu. 9. 4.10 16.23 Annot. in Le. 16.21 Ita per fidem oportet nos peccata nostra imponere Christo h.e. certò staâ—uere quòd illa ei impofita sint â Deo ut ea expiaret Orthodox and judicious Expositors seem rather to understand that the rite of imposition of hands did typifie the profession of their faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for sin imputed to him and that the present sacrifice or beast slain was a type thereof then that it did typifie the Lords laying our sin upon Christ by imputation there is difference between an act typifying Gods imputation of sin unto Christ and an act testifying our faith concerning Gods imputation of sin unto Christ You should have produced your Expositors for they do not generally so speak the man saith M. Ainsworth that brought the offering was to lay or impose his hands thereby testifying his faith in Christ the true sacrifice to be slain for sin But it being granted that Expositors did so understand it how doth the Dialogue disprove their exposition A private mans imposition cannot represent Gods act the imposition of the hands of the Elders cannot for the Elders actions represent the Churches astions neither can the imposition of the Priests and High-Priests they were types of Christs Priestly nature and not of the father Answ If these Reasons were good for what they are alledged yet they are impertinent as not reaching the minde of Expositors at least generally upon the place There is nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing but that the act of a private person was capable if God so pleased to become a type of Gods act which is also true concerning the Elders Priests and High-Priests The act of an Israelite though a private person in letting his Hebrew servant go free for nothing either at the seventh year Exo. 21.2 or at the year of Jubilee Lev. 25.40 figured or represented God the Fathers gift of free redemption by Jesus Christ Cyrus as every King or Emperour which receiveth his office from the people was Persia's representative yet in letting the Jews go without price and reward he typified our free salvation which is the act of God the Father the putting of Gods name upon the children of Israel by Aaron and his sons Num. 6.27 was saith Ainsworth a sign that the name and blessing of God was imposed upon them It 's improper to say the Priests were types of Christs Priestly nature they were types of his Priestly office or if you please of the Priestly part of his office whereof the person consisting both of divine and humane nature was the subject Dialogu Imposition of hands with confession of sins upon the head of the sin offering signified the owners faith of dependance Then it signified the owners faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for our sin imputed to him for besides that this notion of faith in particular is included in the faith of dependance as the part is in the whole he that asserteth the faith of dependance asserteth therewithall the object thereof for faith and its object are Relates a part of which object and that directly intended in these texts is this truth to wit That Christ did bear and take away the guilt and punishment due to the elect for sin In your reasoning against the doctrine of Imputation from the Text alledged omitting any other you commit these two errours 1. You put upon us an interpretation which is not ours nor hath our doctrine need of it our conclusion sufficiently proceeding from these Texts according to the Exposition given The Question is not whether this rite of Imposition of hands with confession uf sin doth represent Gods laying of the sins of the Elect upon Christ but whether the sins of the elect were laid upon Chtist by God 2. In disputing for these rites to signifie faith of dependance you do not only not dispute against us but in conclusion against your self because the faith of the truth controverted is included in the faith of dependance nor do you in your whole discourse concerning it interpose a syllable to the contrary to provide against the retorting of your Argument upon your self The conclusion then you argue for being for us though we approve not your arguments we think it best to passe them by and ease the Reader of so much impertinence only minding you that your assertion so often used viz. that they imposed hands and leaned upon the sacrifice with all their might is groundlesse whatsoever you refer us to in Ainsworth out of Maimony neither the Hebrew text nor any other reason countenancing of it Dialogu If you make the act of laying on of hands on the sin-offering to signifie Gods laying our sins upon Christ by imputation then the same act of laying on of hands with confession of sins upon the Scape-goat must also signifie that God did impute our sin to Christ as well after he was escaped from death by his resurrection and ascention as when he made his oblation here upon earth and thus by this doctrine Christ is gone as a guilty sinner into heaven We have already said that we make not this act a type of Gods laying sin upon Christ the live-goat and the scape-goat were both types of Christ that of him dying this of him delivered from death sin was laid upon the scape goat not after but before its escape and signifieth that notwithstanding his bearing of sin typified by both goats yet after he had suffered which was typified by the killed goat he then should be delivered from those sufferings which were typified by the scapegoat and thus by the doctrine of the Scapegoat Christ is risen again ascended and sits at the right hand of God the Father acquitted from all sin Dialogu But the Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition of hands with confession of sins of Gods imputation but they understood it to be a typicall sign of the faith of dependance upon Christs sacrifice of Atonement and so much the prayer of the High-Priest imports See Ainsworth Lev. 16.21 Answ M. Ainsworth on this very place saith that this act shewed how our sins should be imputed unto Christ it is not likely therefore he so understood the Hebrew doctors otherwise we might well think he would either have forborn a needlesse citation contrary in his judgement to the truth or would have taken notice thereof Neither is there any reason so to interpret their meaning
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
signifying that it put on the nature of the Antitype or thing signified whereas the type as the type can no more put on the nature of the Anti-type then the adjunct can put on the nature of the subject Adam as a publike person disobeying and communicating guilt and punishment to his seed was a type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 5.14 of Christ obeying and communicating righteousnesse and life unto his seed Did then the first Adam put on the nature of the second and so become a mediator or did obedience put on the nature of disobedience Moses the Minister of the Law dying before he came into Canaan as M. Ainsworth observeth on Numb 20.12 signified the impotency of the Law to save was therefore Moses no instrument of salvation unto any Cyrus was a type of Christ must therefore Cyrus not only be saved but also put on the nature of a Mediator who neither then Isa 45.4.5 nor afterwards for ought that appeared beleeved Who ever reasoned thus before that in any measure understood the nature of a type Dialogu But if the circumstances of the Text be well marked they will tell you plainly that this hanging upon a tree cannot be a type of the eternall curse for 1. This Law of Moses must not be understood of putting any man to death by hanging but of hanging of a dead body upon a tree after it was first put to death by stoning but Christ was crucified whilest he was alive 2. This hanging in Moses time was done by the judiciall Law and civil Magistrates and not by the ceremoniall Law nor the Priests 3. This hanging in Moses was commanded to be practised by the Magistrates of the Iews Common-wealth but the death which Christ suffered was a Roman kinde of death Answ Yet Paul who well marked and understood also the Circumstances of the Text telleth us plainly Gal. 3.13 that Christ hanging upon the Crosse though by the Romane power and also after a Romane manner was intended in and proved out of Deut. 21.23 The ceremoniall curse therefore was laid upon every one that was judicially hanged upon a tree in Judea from the time of the giving of this Law until the time of the passion of Christ by what lawfull authority soever or after what manner soever The principall scope of this Text is not to command putting to death by hanging upon a tree the ground whereof is had elsewhere but to give a Law concerning him that is hanged namely that he should in any wise be buried that day with the reasons thereof annexed Dialogu When the Romans did put Christ to that kinde of death which they used to inflict upon their base fugitive slaves they made him cursed in his death in the highest degree they could and yet at the self-same time Christ did redeem us from the curse of the Law even from the eternall curse because Christ died not only as a Malefactor by the power of Roman souldiers but he died also as a Mediator by his own Mediatoriall obedience Answ If he that only granteth Christ died as a Malefactor in the Romans and Jews account but denieth that he died a Malefactor in Gods account should not put in that yet Christ died as a Mediator he could expect no other but utmost abhorrence from every Christian man for such a tenet as did not secretly steal away by subtle sophisms but openly and before the Sun spoil them of their Mediator The curse laid upon Christ hanging upon a tree was not the curse of the Romans or a humane but a divine curse Gal. 3.13 Deut. 21.23 for he that is hanged is accursed of God Christs death as a Malefactor in the Jews and Romans account unjustly was a part though but a small part of the just punishment of God inflicted upon him as the great Malefactor imputatively in Gods account Christ died both as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor in Gods account Of his dying as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor in the sense of the Dialogue See before Ch. 10. Dialogu This act of Christ was an everlasting act of Mediatoriall obedience it was no legall obedience nor was it any humane act of obedience as all legall obedience must be but it was a supernaturall act of obedience it was no lesse then a Mediatoriall oblation and therefore it was the meritorious procuring cause of our Redemption from the curse of the Law even at that very same time when Christ was made a curse for us by hanging as a Malefactor upon a tree Answ Christ acted in his death not as his own Executioner but as our Priest and faithfull Surety yeelding up his life according to his voluntary pre-consent This act of Christ in laying down his life was an act of legall obedience because it was done in obedience to the Law This commandment have I received from my Father Joh. 10.18 He was obedient to the death he humbled himself and became obedient to the death even the death of the Crosse Phil. 2.8 He was made under that is subject to the Law Gal. 4.4 and fullfilled the Law Mat. 5.17 this act of laying down his life was supernaturall but not only supernaturall it was both divine and humane according to both natures for it was the act and obedience of him who was God-man as God-man-Mediator otherwise it could not have been effectuall This reasoning is as full of perill as empty of sound reason Dialogu Therefore the Tree on which Christ was crucified as a Malefactor cannot be the Altar neither were the Roman Souldiers the Priests by whom this mediatorial sacrifice was offered up to God but it was his own Godhead that was the Priest and his own Godhead was the Altar by which he offered up his soul to God a mediatorial sacrifice for the procuring of our redemption from the curse of the Law Answ Who saith the Tree was the Altar or that the Souldiers were the Priests when the crosse is sometimes in Writers resembled unto the Altar it is an illustration by way of allusion unto the type that is the Altar whereon the beast was laid but not unto the Antitype Christ was both Priest Sacrifice and Altar which yet is not to be understood as excluding either of his natures in any of these considerations He was a Sacrifice in respect of his humane nature yet he who was the Sacrifice was both God and Man He was the Altar in respect of his divine nature yet he that was the Altar was both God and Man He was Priest as God-man CHAP. XII Christ redeemed us not from the curse of the Law by his soul-sufferings only And of the meaning of Haides Dialogu GOod Divines do affirm that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law not by his bodily but by his soul-sufferings only which God inflicted upon his soul when his body was crucified upon the Tree Answ I do not finde that any Orthodox Divine so affirmeth Willet cen 5. err 3. par 3.
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
case Luke 16. and so doth Isaiah in cha 66.24 3. Hence we may see the reason why Haides is put as a common name to both places both places are usually called Haides in sundry Greek Writers as if they were but two Regions in the same world of souls one Region for the godly and the other for the wicked where the godly and the wicked may see each others condition and talk together in their next adjacent parts Luk. 16.23 Answ Wheresoever the place of hell is is not materiall unto the Question in hand the Reader therefore might have been spared this longer discourse it is enough that Christ suffered the punishment though not in the ordinary place of punishment It hath now been oft and again said the place of punishment is not of the essence of punishment Joab suffered death though he suffered not in the common place of execution You may reade in Pemble that in Eccl. 3.21 Pemble on the place to be the speech of an Atheist against the assertion of the immortality of the soul and principally both of the felicity and immortality of the souls of good men For whereas saith the Athiest men talk of an immortal soul of man which severed from the body ascends up to heaven and that the soul of a bruit beast descends downward that it falleth and perisheth together with the body they do but speak by guesse who knows it who ever saw it what Anatomist can finde it out The opposition then herein intended by the Athiest lieth not between the spirit of a beast and the soul of man in generall but between the soul of a beast and the soul of such men which severed from their bodies ascend up to heaven that is godly men whose spirits return to God that gave them Eccles 12.7 Vide Pisc in utrumque locum If the ascending of the spirit be extended unto the souls of the wicked which upon their departure are by some thought immediatly to ascend unto the place wherein God passeth judgement upon them which done they are delivered unto the hands of evil Angels to be carried forthwith into hell which they judge to be below This helpeth not you The place appointed for the sufferings of the damned is in the Scripture called hell Mat. 5.22 a Furnace of fire Mat. 13.42 The place of torment Luke 16.38 A prison 1 Pet. 3.19 A bottomlesse pit Rev. 9.1 A Lake of fire Rev. 20.15 A Lake which burneth with fire and brimstone Rev. 21.8 some of which appellations argue that it is below not on high but the very place is not revealed I spare to recite the variety of the opinionss of the Learned concerning the place of hell with such reasons as are most probable not looking at it as pertinent to the controversie To search out the place of hell it not being revealed in the word is curiosity to labour according to what is written that we may not come in that place of torment is our duty If hell were in Aristotles Element of fire the very being of which sounder Philosophy denieth yet if you hearkened either to the learned Philosophers or Mathematicians who distinguish the heaven of the blessed and this inferiour Universe into the visible and invisible world and teach us that there is a most vast and unto the unlearned incredible distance between the supposed Element of fire and the first mover what then is the distance beeween it and the heaven of heavens you would not think that the blessed and damned could see and talk with one another Similitudo seu Parabola adaequetur principali scopo intentioni declarantis atque extra hanc non extendatur Keck log l. 1. sect post c. 4. Calv. in Lu. 16.23 Your arguing the nearnesse of heaven and hell from the conference of Abraham and Dives in the Parable argueth that the rule of interpreting Parables was not attended by you herein namely that a similitude or Parable is to be understood according to the principal scope and intention of the Authour and not to be extended beyond it The comparisons of the Scripture abused vexed and strained beyond the scope intended have been the beginning and strengthening of many errors and too many heresies Calvin telleth you That Christ by sensible figures doth here describe spiritual things Souls saith he have not fingers eye nor do they feel thirst I may adde neither have they tongues to be tormented with flames but the sum is Rest is prepared for the souls of the faithfull departed and torment for the souls of the Reprobate It cannot seem much that he who forbeareth not to charge the Evangelists comparison to be absurd except it bear his absurd Expositions doth so frequently burthen the doctrine of the generation of the godly both learned and unlearned concerning the imputation of sin unto Christ being contrary to him with absurd consequences I omit that the sentence of condemnation is passed in the sight of Christ Angels and the Saints The sight of Angels and Spirits is intellectual seeing their objects by intelligible species not sensible seeing their objects by sensible species as our bodily eyes see sensible objects The damned see Abraham Isaac and Iacob in the Kingdom of heaven Luk 13.28 not sensibly but mentally Christ in respect of his Divinity is present every where and the humane by vertue of its Personall union not only excelleth the understanding of Angels but is also capable of seeing in the Divine nature whatever is thereby presented unto it in a more excellent manner then if it saw it in its proper object The word Throne is not in the Text Rev. 14.10 but it is your addition haply to make your notion the more plausible Of Haides we have spoken sufficiently before Dialogu It is evident that Christ did not suffer the torments of hell in this world because there was no necessary use or end of such sufferings for such sufferings are no way satisfactory to the justice of God for our sins for the rule of Gods justice doth require that soul only to die which sins the soul that sins shall die one man shall not die for another mans sin Ezek 18. By this rule of justice God cannot inflict the torments of hell upon an innocent to redeem a guilty person Answ The necessary use of his sufferings was the Redemption of souls in a way of satisfaction unto justice Hence the obedience of Christ is called righteousnesse Rom. 5.18 noting an obedience satisfactory according to order of justice And we reade that he gave his life a ransome for many Mat. 20.28 a ransome for all 1 Tim. 2.6 that is a sufficient price for our deliverance from the curse He did not only suffer for our good but in our place and stead to this purpose we reade that he redeemed his people and that we have redemption through his bloud Luk. 1.68 and 2.38 Heb. 9.12 Col. 1.14 Heb. 9.15 which words note a just and satisfactoty price laid down
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
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
in Rom. 8.13 and in Gal. 3.13 which Scriptures I have opened at large in the first part Luke 22.19 compared with 1 Cor. 11.24 Luke 22.20 so Isa 12. with Rom. 4.25 The Scripture doth sometime speak of his Mediatorial death only as Isa 53.10 he gave his soul to be a trespasse-offering for our sins and he offered himself by his eternall spirit Heb. 9.14 and he laid down his own life Joh. 10.17 18 and he sanctified himself Joh. 17.19 therefore seeing the holy Scriptures do teach us to observe this distinction upon the death of Christ it is necessary that all Gods people should take notice of it and engrave it in their mindes and memories Answ In the examination of this distinction which the Authour labours much in and makes much use of consider we 1. The sense of it 2. The Scriptures alledged for the ground of it 3. The scope of it 4. The deductions from it By it the Dialogue means that the naturall death of Christ for the spirituall death it denieth is either Active actuated by the Divine nature yea the joint concurrence of both natures so he died as a Mediatour and this was reall or Passive wherein the Jews and Romans inflicted upon him the sores of death but did not put him to death though they thought they did so he died as a Malefactor This was not real but only in the Jews account Such is the minde of the distinction Those Texts wherein Christ is said to be put to death Luke 18.33 1 Pet. 3.18 killed Gal. 3.13 teach us that Christ was passive in his death but make no mention of the Dialogues twofold naturall death nor do they deny Christ to be active in that death wherein he was passive They shew plainly his bloud was shed and that by Jews but not one of them affirmeth that Christ shed it himself Isa 53.10 Heb. 9.14 Ioh. 10.17 18. and 17.19 teach expresly that Christ was active and imply him to be be passive as concerning the same oblation of himself by his death Luke 22.19 20. 1 Cor. 11.24 shew us that the body of Christ was given for us primarily by the Father who gave his Son and subordinately by Christ who by voluntary consent gave himself according to his Fathers will for us as also that the breaking of the bread in the administration of the Sacrament is to be used as significative of his sufferings What is this to the distinction Rom. 4.25 clearly intimates Christ to be passive but denieth him not be active in one and the same natural death Rom. 8.13 Isa 12. speak not of the death of Christ at all Some of these Texts alledged say that Christ was active others that he was Passive in his death that is in one and the same death whether it be naturall or supernaturall but not one saith his death was passive Divers of the Scriptures alledged hold forth manifestly both his naturall and supernaturall death the most include his supernatural death none deny it The scope of the distinction is to make Christ the formal taker away of his own life The deduction from it therefore neither Jews nor Romans put Christ to death of both which before and in the answer immediatly following This distinctions twofold death is but one for he died not a passive death as a Malefactor according to the Dialogue p. 97. and 100. It denyeth the death of Christ as Mediatour to be Passive which can hardly escape a contradiction It denieth Christ as he was Mediatour to be a Malefactor though to be imputatively a Malefactor was essential for the time unto his being a Mediatour As in your distinction of Legall and Mediatoriall obedience you understand the terms Legal and Mediatorial to signifie two kindes of obedience which are but two appellations of the same obedience so in this distinction of the active and passive death of Christ according also as you expresse your self clearer upon the margent you make these terms to signifie two kindes of death which only signifie diverse affections in the Person dying The terms Mediator and Malefactor are to be distinguished as the whole and the part of the same office To be a Malefactor imputatively was an essentiall part for the time of the office of the Mediatour The terms Active and Passive do not denote or distinguish two deaths but are to be distinguished as adjuncts or affections of the same Person and Officer as concerning one and the same death Dialogu When I speak of the death of Christ as a Malefactor then the Scribes and Pharisees must be considered as the wicked instruments thereof yet this must be remembred also that I do not mean that they by their torments did separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death himself only did separate his own soul from his body by the power of his Godhead but they put him to death because they inflicted the sores of death upon his body they did that to him which they thought sufficient to put him to death and men are often said to do that which they indeavour to do as in the example of Abraham Heb. 11.7 Haman Esth 8.7 Amalek Exod. 17.16 Saul Psal 143 3. The Magicians Exo. 8.18 The Israelites Numb 14.30 as the matter is explained in Deut. 1.41 and in this sense it is said that the Iews did kill and slay the Lord of life because they endeavoured to do it Answ In respect of the natural death of Christ God was the universal efficient The second cause cannot act without the concurse of the first Act. 17.28 The formall efficiency of the second cause consists with and is subordinate to the universal efficiency of the first cause so as the efficiency of the second cause is both ordered by and is also the effect of the first cause but the deficiency of the second cause though it be ordered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad efficientem causam indirectè refertur voluntas ipsius Christi Synops pur theol disput 27. thes 19. yet it is not the effect of the first cause Christ as Mediatour was the voluntary cause freely and readily consenting to the Fathers will Heb. 10.7 and 9.14 Gal. 2.20 Christ was Lord of his own life he had power of right concerning it Ioh 10.18 It was his own and he had done no wrong in case he had not taken upon him the form of a servant Phil. 2.6.7 He had power of might to have preserved his life no man could take it from him against his will Ioh. 10.18 All which notwithstanding he voluntarily humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Crosse Phil. 2.8 Thus Christ was active concerning his death but not as his own executioner and formall shedder of his own bloud The Executioners were the immediate external and blameable cause so are these Texts to be understood 1 Pet. 3.18 Act. 2.32 and 3.15 1 Thes 3.15 Jam. 5.6 Two of your instances hold
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
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
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
and actual obedience the particle by Gal. 2.21 notes the manner not the matter obedience unto the Law neither ceaseth nor can cease to be the matter of justification only it is the obedience performed thereunto by Christ not by us that is not our own but the obedience of another imputed to us by grace and received by faith the effect of grace We have the righteousnesse of the Law but we have it not by the Law The argumentation of the Apostle proceeds thus if we be justified by works Christ died in vain but Christ is not dead in vain therefore we are not justified by works hereby expresly concluding against justification by our own obedience and implicitly for justification by Christs obedience to the Law Dialogu Christs Legal obedience was but the work of his flesh or of his humane nature therefore it could not be the procuring cause of Gods atonement for iustification for no obedience is meritorious but that obedience which is mediatorial I never heard that the Father required the Mediator to perform Legal obedience at a proper condition of his Mediators office nay our Saviour himself doth testifie that his flesh alone considered doth not profit us to life and salvation Joh. 6.63 therefore not his Legal obedience for that was but the work of his flesh or humane nature Answ To say Christs Legal obedience was the work of his humane nature only besides the absonousnesse of it in Divinity will hardly escape an implicat I mean a contradiction in reason as the humane nature of Christ did not subsist alone so neither doth it perform any humane operations alone dependance in respect of subsistance inferreth a dependance in respect of operations action includes being as essential to it we may as well affirm nothing to be something as to affirm that to act of it self that doth not subsist of it self From the personall union it comes to passe saith Ames that all the actions and passions of Christ are referred partly unto his person as unto the proper term of them Med. lib. 1. cap. 18. although some of them are to be referred to one nature and some unto another as unto the next principles To be incarnate was an act of Legal obedience God sent forth his son made of a woman made under the Law Gal. 4.4 a body hast thou prepared me In the Volume of thy Book it is written of me that I should do thy will and then said I Lo I come Heb. 10.5 But the Father required of the Mediatour to be incarnate as a proper condition of his Mediatorly office Gal. 4.5 to redeem such as be under the Law to fullfill the Law is Legal obedience but the Father required of the Mediatour to fulfil the Law Mat. 5.17 I came to fulfil it and that as a proper condition of his Mediators office as he came so he was sent but he was sent as Mediator for the Mediator to suffer death as our surety in a way of justice is an act of Legal obedience but the Father required of the Mediator as a proper condition of the Mediators office to suffer death for us in a way of justice if his soul shall set it self a sacrifice for sin he shall see his seed c. Isa 53. therefore the Father required of the Mediatour Legal obedience as a condition of his Mediators office to suffer death for us in a way of justice Dialogu There is great iarring among Divines about the right stating of the doctrine of imputation 1. Some affirm that God the Father doth impute Christs Legal obedience to sinners as their obedience for their full and perfect iustification 2. Others do affirm that Christs Legal obedience imputed is not sufficient to make sinners righteous and so they do affirm that God doth impute another kinde of Christs righteousnesse to sinners for their full iustification viz. the purity of his nature to iustifie us from original sin 3. Others go further in the point of imputation for they affirm that God imputes another kinde of righteousnesse to sinners for their full justification viz. the passive obedience and so by necessary consequence they do make sinners to be their own Mediators because they do make Christs Mediatorial obedience to be a sinners obedience by Gods imputation Answ The whole course of the active and passive obedience of Christ together with his habitual conformity to the Law is the matter of our justification the purity of Christs nature and his active and passive righteousnesse are not two but one and the same kinde of Legal obedience expressed by both its parts viz. habitual and actual The asserters of the last expresly are to be understood as asserting the former implicitly the act presupposing the habit then spake not heretofore exclusively the reason why later Writers speak more expresly is because opposers have acted more subtilly The inference of sinners being their own Mediators from the imputation of passive obedience ariseth from your misunderstanding our doctrine which imputeth the obedience of Christ in respect of its efficacy not in respect of its formality M. Forbes acknowledgeth no such great jarring with our imputation which he testifieth to be without impiety and any matter of strife in it self were this jarring not only great but greater then it is the Gospel remains the Gospel notwithstanding through mans corruption it becometh an occasion of contention Dialogu The actions of Christs obedience neither active nor passive can be made ours by Gods imputation no more then our sinful actions can be made his by Gods imputation but our sinful actions cannot be made his by Gods imputation as I have at large expressed in the opening Gen. 2.17 Answ Your supposed large proof is sufficiently disproved as I hope in the place and the contrary proved both there and in the vindication of 1 Cor. 5.21 Dialogu If God do make sinners righteous by the active obedience of Christ imputed then Christ must perform all manner of obedience for us that God doth require of us or else God cannot in iustice make us perfectly righteous by the active obedience of Christ imputed but Christ did not perform all manner of acts of obedience for us that God requireth of us because he was never married c. and yet we have as much need to be made righteous in such like actions as in any therefore God cannot in iustice make us perfectly righteous by the actions of Christs active obedience imputed Answ The matter of our justification is not an actual and formal performance of all duties commanded in the Decalogue but an obedience to that which is commanded as it is commanded viz. actually unto such duties as it calleth to the exercise of and habitually unto the rest otherwise it was impossible for man to be justified by the Law neither Adam himself nor any man sustaining all relations Christ being an infinite person and our surety in performing all that was required of him he performed more then not only
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
in them or no. Answ The Dialogue here takes off it self from further acting the part of an opponent against the imputation of Christs Legall obedience both active and passive unto justification and now proceeds to act the part of a Respondent unto certain Arguments of M. Forbes alledged to prove that sinners are justified by the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in his death This it doth not as adhering to us wherein M. Forbes dissents for it agreeth with him wherein he disagreeth but as opposing him wherein he consents with us in the doctrine of imputation That the answer therefore may be as full in the Vindication as the Dialogue pretends to be in the refutation of the Doctrine of the Orthodox we shall examine the Dialogues examination and impertinences omitted consider all that and only that which herein concerns the Question Dialogu Nothing saith M. Forbes is made of God to be a sinners righteousnesse but Jesus Christ alone and his righteousnesse and this he proves by 1 Cor. 1.30 Jer. 23.26 with other places The Apostle saith that Christ was made of God unto us righteousnesse but how not as the doctrine of imputation speaketh but thus God made him to be our righteousnesse in a Mediatoriall way by ordaining him to be the only meritorious procuring cause of his atonement which is a sinners onely righteousnesse Christ is not a sinners righteousnesse any otherwise but in a Mediatoriall way only as I have oft warned Christ is called Jehovah our righteousnesse but still it must be understood in a Mediatoriall way and no otherwise We have seen already that Atonement is not righteousnesse it cannot then be a sinners only righteousnesse That which the Dialogue cals a Mediatorial way is indeed no way but is destructive unto the true way and consequently an hereticall way denying of and inconsisting with the Mediatorly obedience of Christ unto the Law The Legall obedience of Christ is to be considered formally and virtually as considered formally it is an ingredient into the meritorious cause of our justification as considered virtually it is the materiall cause thereof Of which before Dialogu And thus Christ is our Righteousnesse in one respect the Father in another and the holy Ghost in another Each person is a sinners righteousnesse in severall respects The manner how Christ should justifie the many was by bearing their iniquities and how else did he bear their iniquities but by his sacrifice of Atonement and in this sense Christ is said to justifie us with his bloud Rom. 5.9 that is to say by his Sacrifice of Atonement therefore his righteousnesse cannot be the formall cause of a sinners righteousnesse it is but the procuring cause of the Fathers atonement which is the only formall cause of a sinners righteousnesse Answ That Proposition Christ bare our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement is an equivocal proposition capable of diverse construct ons in the sense of the Orthodox 't is true in the sense of the Dialogue false both which senses are sufficiently known by the foregoing discourse The Apostle Rom. 5.9 speaketh of the meritoritorious cause part thereof being put for the whole Synechdochically Upon this occasion let us observe both the intent and consent of such Scriptures as speak diversly of the cause of justification We are said to be justified by grace Rom. 3.24 i. e. as the efficient cause By his bloud Rom. 5 9. i. e. as the meritorious cause By his obedience Rom. 5.19 i. e. as the materiall cause By imputation viz. of his obedience Rom. 4.6 i. e. as the formall cause By faith Rom. 5.1 i. e. as the instrument Your inference Christ bare our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement therefore his righteousnesse cannot be the formall cause of a sinners righteousness is impertinent and argues that you understand not our doctrine We say not that the obedience of Christ is the formall but the materiall cause of a sinners righteousnesse and that imputation is the formall cause thereof Dialogu The Father is a sinners righteousnesse 1. Efficiently 2. Formally His Atonement so procured must needs be the formall cause of a sinners full and perfect righteousnesse Answ To say the Father is a sinners righteousnesse formally sounds too near Osianders errour who held that we were justified by the essentiall righteousnesse of God But the following words shew you mistake or at least inconveniently use the term formally and intend no other then your former error The efficient cause of a sinners righteousnesse is the Father Father taken not personally but essentially for God the Father Son and holy Ghost Dialogu The holy Ghost also doth make sinners righteous instrumentally by fitting preparing and qualifying sinners for the Fathers Atonement by quickening their souls with the lively grace of faith by which grace sinners are enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers Atonement Answ Faith is the instrument or instrumentall cause of justification 'T is also true that the grace of faith as the application of all other benefits of redemption unto the Elect is the effect of the holy Ghost and because a finishing work it is ascribed to the third Person yet according to that received Rule All the works of God upon the creature are wrought in common by all the three persons notwithstanding the work be principally ascribed unto that person whose manner of existence doth most eminently appear in it 'T is a great errour both in Divinity and Logick to say the holy Ghost who is God and onely God is an instrumental cause which alwaies notes inferiority Dialogu It is well that your Authour will grant remission of sins to be righteousnesse in effect if remission of sins be a sinners righteousnesse then I pray consider whose act it is to forgive sins formally I have already proved it to be the Fathers act to forgive sin formally and not Christs he doth forgive sin no otherwise but as a Mediatour by procuring his Fathers pardon and forgivensse Answ Righteousnesse is taken strictly for the matter and form of justification only or largely for justification as consisting of its causes Rom. 10.10 remission of sins is an immediate and inseparable effect of the former but a part of the latter Imputation which is the formall cause of justification is a transient act and is the effect of the Father taken essentially Our Question is not concerning the formall but the materiall cause of justification Dialogu M. Forbes is put to his shifts to declare that Christs passive Obedience is the matter of a sinners righteousnesse by a distinction between Christ as he was our Lamb for Sacrifice in his humane nature and as he was our Priest in his divine nature for else he did foresee that he should run into an exceeding grosse absurdity if he had made any action of Christs God-head or Priestly nature to have been a sinners righteousnesse by imputation Therefore to avoid that absurdity he doth place a sinners righteousnesse in his passive
doubtlesse parts of Evangelicall atonement or reconciliation But whether justification precisely considered be a part or necessary antecedent and means of Reconciliation as there is no need of discussing in order to the resolution of the present question so is it freely left to the judgment of the Reader or to any after disquisition only adding that satisfaction for an offence is an antecedent and means rather then a part of the reconciliation following thereupon between such as are made friends after variance Quamvis reconciliatio potius quiddam consequens justificationis effectus sit Syn. pur Theol. dis 33. n. 6. Reconciliation say the Leiden Divines is rather a consequent and effect of justification And both that Text God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them 2 Cor. 5.19 and the Analogy of faith may as well bear an interpretation agreeable hereunto as any other thus God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself how by not imputing their trespasses unto them so as the not-imputation of sinne may seem to be an antecedent and means rather then a part of atonement or reconciliation Dialogu Therefore his forgivenesse of sin is not only a bare acquittance of the fault but it doth comprehend under it his receiving of sinners into favour And I do also grant that his receiving of sinners into favour must be distinguished as another part of Gods Atonement Answ Here you do not obscurely what before you did in effect expresly viz. make forgivenesse and receiving into favour parts of Gods atonement yet pag. 154. lin 19. you make them effects of the Fathers atonement If they be parts they cannot be effects if effects they cannot be parts because the part is before the whole i. e. it s integrum but the effect is after the cause you may as well make the same thing before and after it self as make these stand together Dialogu This also must be remembred that no other person in Trinity doth forgive sins formally but God the Father only Mar. 2.7 Col. 2.13 he of his free grace did ordain the Mediatour as the meritorious procuring cause of his forgivenesse and therefore it is said that he doth forgive us all our sins for Christs sake Ephes 4.32 sometimes Christ is said to forgive sins Col. 3.3 but still we must understand his forgivenesse to be in a Mediatoriall way not formally Answ The acts or works of God are of three sorts Essentiall whose principle is the divine essence subsisting in the relative properties of Father Sonne and holy Ghost its object the creature Personal whose both principle and object or term is one or more of the three persons or mixt the principle whereof is the divine essence the object or term one of the persons such is the Incarnation having the divine essence for its principle the second person for its term or object The externall essentiall works of God are wrought jointly immediatly and formally by all the persons because the principle of them is the divine essence Essentiae in personis non discrepat potentia Aug. in Joan. tract 20. which is common to all the three persons the Son is God of himself the holy Ghost is God of himself the deniall herof argueth no little ignorance of the nature of God The Father father being taken essentially forgiveth sinne formally and authoritatively as the Supreme Lord Christ as Mediatour formally and authoritatively by an authority derived as a subordinate Lord. When we say Christ forgiveth sin formally the meaning is he actually taketh away sin by an authoritative and judiciall discharging the sinner from the guilt and punishment thereof and doth not only declare the forgivenesse of sinne as the Ministery doth Dialogu And whereas I have oftentimes in this Treatise made Gods atonement to comprehend under it our Redemption from sin as well as our justification and adoption I would have you take notice that I do not mean that Gods atonement doth contain under it Redemption as another distinct point differing from justification but I make our redemption and freedom from sin by the Fathers atonement to be all one with our justification from sinne Answ Redemption is taken actively Luk. 2.38 for the purchasing of grace and glory for the elect by laying down of a price so Redemption is the meritorious cause and atonement is an effect Or passively for the good of Redemption applied Rom. 8.23 so redemption is the whole and atonement is the part but atonement whether it be taken for reconciliation or for freedom from sin can in neither sense be the same with redemption Forgivenesse of sin Eph. 1.7 Col. 1.14 is mentioned as a principall but neither there or elsewhere as the totall good of redemption Dialogu The Fathers Atonement or Reconciliation is the top-mercy of all mercies that makes poor sinners happy Answ The great act of mercy is the gift of Jesus Christ to be our Head and Saviour He is the Gift of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 4.10 How shall he not with him also freely give us all things Rom. 8.32 No benefit following the Gift of Christ is to be compared with Christ himself Dialogu But the truth is a sinners Atonement must be considered as it is the work of all the Trinity 1. The Father must be considered as the efficient and as the formal cause of a sinners atonement 2. The Mediatour must be considered as the only meritorious procuring cause of the Fathers Atonement Rom. 5.10 3. The holy Ghost must be considered as the principal instrumental cause of the Fathers atonement by working in sinners the grace of faith by which sinners are enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers atonement Or thus The Father must be considered as the efficient cause the Son as the Mediatoriall procuring cause and the holy Ghost as the principall instrumentall cause of all blessings that poor believing sinners do enjoy Eph. 1.3 Answ The will of God which is an immanent act is the efficient cause but a created effectuall transient motion of the Spirit the formall cause of the working a sinners Atonement By that God from Eternity willeth the infallible being of atonement By this God in time worketh atonement according to his will The Universall efficient cause of all things is uncreated but created acts of God whether permanent or transient done in time or aeviternity are the formall causes of things i. e. of giving to them their actuall being All the external essential works of God i. e. all his works concerning the creature viz whatsoever being or thing is besides God are wrought jointly immediatly equally and formally as was said before by all the three persons because essentiall works universally both internall and externall proceed from the essence it self subsisting in the three Persons Father Son and holy Ghost not from the manner of the essence i. e. the persons as persons The order and manner of the working of the three