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 Persons upon the creature is answerable to the manner of their subsistence in the divine nature The Father worketh of himself the Son worketh
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
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
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
unto God the reverence of the truth dread of so pestilent an untruth to the perill of the Reader that distinguisheth not between ostentation and reason and to the vexing and just indignation of him that doth engageth the godly in all ages from the beginning of the world the practice of all sacrifices before the Law and under the Law the doctrine of the Prophets and of the New Testament to witnesse that fiction of the Authour to be a truth which includes an impossibility in nature a contradiction in reason and an abomination in Divinity Dialogu It is evident that our first Parents were well acquainted with the doctrine of a sinners iustification by Gods Atonement for as soon as ever God had told them that the seed of the woman should break the devils head-plot he explained unto them the manner how the seed of the woman should do it namely by his Mediatoriall sacrifice of Atonement Answ It is out of doubt with us that our first Parents were acquainted with the doctrine of justification and that it was taught unto them by that first and famous publication of the doctrine of the Gospel Gen. 3.15 wherein the person office and victorious efficacy of Christ together with the victory of all Beleevers in him over Satan and all other both his and their enemies was fully held forth but we deny the doctrine of the Dialogue to be the doctrine of justification made known to Adam which was here undertaken to be proved but is onely said and not proved Dialogu After the floud when Noah offered a sacrifice of Atonement Jehovah smelled a smell of Rest Gen. 8.21 and to that resting of God in the promise the sweet smell of rest which God smelt in Noahs sacrifice did look The word Rest implieth that now Gods Spirit was quieted and that he did rest satisfied and well pleased in the sacrifice of Christ which was thereby typified confer to this Eph. 5. the fathers by faith saw Christs sacrifice Answ It is also out of doubt with us that Noahs sacrifice typified the sacrifice of Christ and that God did and doth rest satisfied and well pleased in the Antitype Your task undertaken is to prove that Noahs sacrifice witnessed Christ to be a sacrifice in the sense of the Dialogue and that Noah so understood it Dialogu By this means Noah knew and beleeved that he was made righteous or sinlesse by Gods mercifull Atonement procured by Christs Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement Answ Here indeed you implicitly say again that Atonement is our righteousnesse and confound being righteous and sinlesse but you do but say the one or the other yet you begge but prove not the Question Dialogu For the God of glory Iesus Christ appeared to him that is to Abraham whilest he dwelt at Ur of the Caldees Act. 7.2 no doubt but Iesus Christ did then tell him in what a miserable lost condition he was and how he should be that seed of the woman that should break tht devils head-plot by his sacrifice of Atonement and how he should thereby procure his Fathers Atonement to all poor broken-hearted sinners All which Abraham beleeved and so his sinnes were done away by Gods Atonement which he received by his faith and so he was made perfectly iust and righteous in Gods sight Answ Your often repeating the same thing forceth us to tell you again that your Atonement is but a fiction 2. That Scripture Atonement is an effect of our righteousnesse not a part much lesse the whole thereof That which Abraham was made perfectly just and righteous by was that which was accounted unto him for righteousnesse That which was accounted unto him for righteousnesse was that which he beleeved namely the righteousnesse of Christ his head The rest that is here said if rightly understood is true if in the sense of the Dialogue 't is false But whether true or false hitherto all is but said nothing is proved as concerning the doctrine of sinners righteousnesse in the sense of the Dialogue Dialogu The doctrine of a sinners iustification or righteousnesse was abundantly taught under the Law by their sacrifices of atonement namely by their burnt-offerings sin-offerings and trespasse-offerings in Lev. 1. Lev. 4. Lev. 5. c. as I have explained their use above Answ No doubt it was But whether as you have explained is the Question nor may we yet take your word for a reason they were called sacrifices of Atonement or sin offerings to make atonement because they typically did expiate sinne pacific wrath and procure reconciliation to the sinner which was really done by the bloud of Christ Heb. 2.17 in such manner as hath been formerly both said and proved Dialogu The doctrine of a sinners justification or righteousnesse by the Fathers Atonement was taught and explained by the Prophets The Prophet David saith in the Person of Christ I have preached thy Righteousnesse to the great Congregation Ps 40.9 what righteousnesse was it that he by himself and by his Officers preached to the Church of the first born Was it his Legal Righteousnesse made theirs by his Fathers Imputation no the Text denieth that and saith that it was such a righteousnesse as he obtaineth by his sacrifice of Atonement saying Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire and then said I Lo I come I delight to do thy will O my God Ps 40.8 By the doing of which will saith Paul we are sanctified from sin or made perfectly righteous Answ If Righteousnesse be obtained by his Sacrifice of Atonement then Atonement is not Righteousnesse Righteousnesse as formally performed is an ingredient into the meritorious cause of justification Righteousnesse as it is imputed not formally as it is an ingredient in the meritorius cause but virtually in respect of its efficacy is the matter of the justification of a sinner It were better said Atonement is obtained by the sacrifice of Righteousnesse then that Righteousnesse is obtained by the sacrifice of Atonement The obedience of Christ both active and passive is the cause and sacrifice of atonement atonement or pardon of sin is an effect thereof Those words by which will Heb. 10.10 signifie the will of the Father who appointed his son to take our nature upon him to make satisfaction for our sins or we are to understand will with its correlate viz. the fullfilling thereof by the obedience of his Son we are sanctified that is we are made perfect Sanctification here is taken largely for all the benefits of Christ Dialogu Or thus Christ purchased or procured such a righteousnesse of his Father for sinners as shall last to all Eternity by the same way and means by which he purchased their eternal redemption but he did not purchase their redemption and freedom from sin by his active Legall Obedience but by his active Meditoriall Obedience when he made his soul a Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement for poor sinners Compare Heb. 9.12.14 with Dan. 9.24 therefore Christ purchased and procured such a
exceeded the bounds of naturall fear Answ His confidenee that he should not be moved by his sufferings either from his hope state or the good hoped for but that it should be with him as ver 10. sheweth us his certainty of victory which doth not oppose but rather suppose the matter of his sufferings which the Scripture manifests to be the wrath of God Neither can we apprehend that Christs fear exceeded the bounds of naturall fear understanding by natural fear regular fear in which sense this distinction is used by Divines after Damascene who distinguished fear into a fear according to nature this was in Christ and a fear besides nature adverse to reason this was not in Christ Dialogu These sentences of M. Calvin may advise us how we do attribute such a kinde of fear to Christ as might disorder his pure naturall affections which doubtlesse would have fallen upon him if he had undergone the pain of losse for our sins such as the damned do feel in hell as the common Doctrine of Imputation doth teach Answ It is vain labour to write so much out of Calvin to prove against us that the fear which was in Christ was pure and not impure it being the professed and known judgement of all the inference of impure and vicious fear in Christ from his undergoing of the pain of losse for our sins is your own Institution lib. 2. c. 16. s 10. See Willet synops and an errour nor have you any greater adversary then Calvin therein who not only affirms the fear and affections in Christ to be pure according to your citations but also that in his soul he suffered the terrible torment of the damned and forsaken men Yet because the sufferings of the damned differ in some things from the sufferings of Christ later Writers choose rather upon just reason to say he suffered the punishment of the elect who deserved to be damned then that he suffered the punishment of the damned Dialogu And if he had died without manifesting fear of death it would have occasianed wofull heresie yea notwithstanding the evident proof given of his humane nature sundry hereticks have denied the truth of his humane nature it was necessary therefore that he should be pinched with the fear of death as much as his true humane nature could bear without sin as Calvin well observeth Answ There 's difference between manifest fear and excessive fear to have feared naturall death with excessive fear and that such as never man or woman manifested was to have manifested something lesse then man It was a sufficient manifestation of Christ to be man that he was touched with the feeling of our infirmities that he was in all points tempted like to us His words are these speaking on Matt. 26.39 Sed quantū ferri potuit sana integra natura hominis metu percussus anxietate constructus fuit Dialogu yet without sin So far as I can finde in Calvin for you have not pointed to the place you put in the word Therefore and so force both it and the whole sentence to confirm your own premises contrary to his minde which is directly against you See Calv. Comment on Ver. 2.28 of the chapter mentioned If the fear of death which he expressed to his Disciples in the night before his death had risen on the sense of his fathers wrath inflicted upon him for our sinne then you must also say that he suffered his fathers wrath for our sins six daies before this for six daies before this he spake those words Luk. 12.50 where our Saviour doth expresse as much distresse of minde as here yet I know no expositor that ever gathered so much from this place of Luke Answ Expositors do generally agree that as in Mathew and Mark so also Luke 12.50 Christ speaks of his passion as likewise that the wrath of God was the principal matter thereof in Luke he 's troubled at the remembrance of his future passion of his fathers wrath the sense of that wrath had at present in great degree taken hold upon him Christ doth not expresse so much distresse of minde in Luke as here he saith he was straightned but here he professeth his sorrowfullnesse unto death together with consternation and expavefaction of which straightway Dialogu Our Saviour tells the two sons of Zebedee they must drink of his cup and be baptized with his baptism by these two expressions which are Synonima's or equivalent our Saviour doth inform the two sons of Zebedee what the true nature of his sufferings should be viz. no other but such only as they should one day suffer from the hands of tyrants Answ Herein is a fallacy confounding such things as should be divided this Text saith Piscator is to be understood with an exception of that passion in which Christ felt the wrath of God for the Elect Quod tamen intelligendum est cum exceptione passionis illius quâ Dominus pro electis sensit iram Dei Pisc in loc Dialogu Christ suffered both as a Mattyr and as a satisfier the sons of Zebedee drank of the cup of Martyrdom not of the cup of satisfaction or redemption James and John the sons of Zebedee were asleep whilest Christ was drinking of that cup. His son was not touched with any sufferings from Gods wrath at all except by way of sympathy from his bodily sufferings only Answ If his soul was touched with Gods wrath by way of sympathy then his body was touched with the suffering of his wrath properly then Christ suffered the wrath of God by your concession These sufferings in the soul were not by way of sympathy his soul suffered properly and immediatly Isa 53.10 Mat. 26.37 the cause of his sufferings required that his soul should suffer as well as his body we sinned in soul properly therefore our surety must suffer in soul properly The greatest of the sufferings of Christ were spirituall and such as immediatly seized on his soul As his active obedience was as properly spirituall as bodily so his passive obedience was as properly spirituall as bodily Much rather is their judgement to be embraced who say The body suffered by way of sympathy because the soul is sensible of sufferings without the body but not the body without the soul Dialogu If the circumstances of his agony be well weighed it will appear that it did not proceed from his fathers wrath but from his naturall fear of death only because he must be stricken with the fear of death as much at his true humane nature could bear he must be touched with the fear of death in a great measure as the Prophets did foretell Adde to these pains of his minde his earnest prayers to be delivered from his naturall fear of death the fear of death doth often cause men to sweat and earnestly pray as he was man he must be touched with the fear of death as he was Mediatour he must fully and wholly overcome his naturall
one Sanctulus a Presbyter that offered himself to be beheaded for a certain Deacon that was to be put to death by the Longobards I dare almost say saith Grotius Caterùm ubi consensus c. Grotius de satisfacti-Christ c. 6. a man excelling in this kinde of learning that where there is consent there is not any of all those whom we call Pagans who would esteem it unjust that one should be punished for the delinquency of another Dialogu And this distinction of the souls case from the bodies case may sufficiently serve as an answer to M. Reynolds who doth labour to iustifie the imputation of our sins unto our innocent Saviour in Psa 110. p. 444. 445. Answ This distinction of the case of the body in this life liable and the case of the soul not liable unto punishment is grounded upon presumption of that which is not namely such an act wherein the body is guilty and the soul both guiltlesse and uncapable of guilt either inherently or imputatively M Reynolds distinguisheth between inherent and imputative guilt and concludes Christ was guilty imputatively that is obnoxious unto the punishment that others had deserved Ursin expos Catech. p. 1. qu. 13. Paraeus in Rom. cap. 5. Dub. 5. Mr Reynolds on Psa 110. pag. 446. The arguments whereby he proveth that Christ though inherently innocent might be guilty imputatively and suffer the punishment that others had deserved they that please to examine shall finde solid and in effect much the same with what Vrsin and Paraeus had taught before Were there place for this distinction concerning any other subject yet it holds not concerning Christ who was guilty imputatively though not inherently and in himself which hath been proved in its proper place before PART II. SECTION I. Wherein the Dialogue pretendeth to prove I. That Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law not by suffering the said curse for us but by a satisfactory price of Atonement namely by paying or performing unto his Father that invaluable precious thing of his Mediatorial obedience whereof his Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement was the master-piece II. A sinners Righteousnesse or Justification is explained and cleared from some Common Errours CHAP. I. Of the nature of Mediatorly obedience both according to the Dialogue and the Orthodox Dialogu THat which Christ did to redeem us from the curse of the Law was not by bearing of the said curse really in our stead as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach but by procuring his Fathers atonement by the invaluable price or performance of his own Mediatoriall obedience whereof his Mediatoriall sacrifice of atonement was the finishing master-piece this kinde of obedience was that rich thing of price which the Father required and accepted as satisfactory for the procuring of his atonement for our full Redemption Justification and Adoption Answ The Dialogue having hitherto denied and contended against Christs suffering of the wrath of God due unto the Elect for their sins in way of satisfaction to divine justice as also against the imputation of the sins of the elect unto Christ the latter whereof the order of cause and effect would have placed first the imputation of the sins of the Elect unto Christ being the cause of his suffering the wrath of God due to them which passive obedience the Orthodox beleeve and teach to be essentiall unto the Mediatorly obedience of Christ a truth of no lesse moment then the Redemption and salvation of souls The Dialogue I say thus engaged feeleth a neeessity lying upon it to present the Reader with some Mediatorly obedience because without it at least in appearance no Christian who is in earnest concerning his Redemption will be satisfied It concerneth us then the received Mediatorly obedience being denied diligently to attend what this new Mediatorial obedience is Dialogu And according to this tenour the Apostle Paul doth explain the matter he doth teach us to place the obedience of the Mediatour in a direct opposition to the first disobedience of Adam Rom. 5.19 he makes the merit of Christs Mediatoriall obedience to countervail the demerit of Adams disobedience for the disobedience of Adam was but the disobedience of a meer man but the obedience of Christ was the obedience of God-man and in that respect God the Father was more highly pleased with the obedience of the Mediatour then he was displeased with the disobedience of Adam Answ The disobedience of the first Adam and obedience of the second are opposites these opposites are compared in respect of some things wherein they are alike viz. Both are publike persons both communicate what is theirs to their seed respectively and some things wherein they are unlike viz. 1. In respect of their efficacy the obedience of Christ is more potent to communicate the good of his obedience unto his then the disobedience of Adam is able to communicate the evil of his disobedience unto his 2. In respect of the effect the disobedience of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit makes his seed guilty only of that first act of disobedience but the obedience of Christ dischargeth beleevers which are his seed not only from the guilt of that one act of the disobedience of Adams sin but also from the guilt of all other disobedience both originall and actuall The obedience of the second Adam did not only countervail but exceed all the disobedience of the first Adam much more Rom. 5.15 16. Grace abounded ver 16. abundance of grace vers 17. where sin abounded grace did much more abound ver 20. It is a truth most precious that God was more highly pleased with the obedience of the Mediatour then he was displeased with the disobedience of Adam but so unhappy is the Dialogue contending against the Mediatorly obedience of Christ as that in the prosecuting of that opposition it cannot speak this truth without insinuating a fallacy of putting that for the cause which is not the cause for the ground of the acceptation of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ proceeds not wholly though principally from the eminency of the Person which the Dialogue acknowledgeth but also from the kinde of his obedience which the Dialogue denieth But how doth this either prove the bearing of the curse really to be no part of the obedience of the Mediator which the argumentation intends though the obedience whereof the Text speaketh intends the contrary or inform the Reader what the Dialogue means by its new Mediatorly obedience which the order of disputation here called for The Dialogue denying the received doctrine concerning the Passive obedience of Christ as Mediator yet acknowledging a Mediatorly obedience but not giving any tolerable description of it in any one place whence the ordinary Reader may know what it is only here and there mentions the name thereof and occasionally adding to that name such a something as indeed renders it a dark nothing which manner of handling it is rather a snare then a guide to the
of Ch. 19.31 There being therefore so much reason to conclude the theeves were buried before Sun-set it is very inconsiderately affirmed that they were alive at Sun-set It is also very inconfiderately affirmed that the theeves did continue alive in their torments till after the time that Ioseph of Arimathea had begged our Saviours dead body of Pilate when Iohn telleth us that the Jews besought Pilate that their legges might be broken and that they might be taken away and after that their legges were broken and Christs side was pierced with a spear Ioseph of Arimathea besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus Ioh. 19.31 34 38. but much more unadvised is it to say that the theeves were alive at Sun-set there being so much reason to conclude they were buried before Sunset The Margine note concerneth not us who acknowledge but two Evenings nor oppose the Hebrews or Jews beginning the first with the sensible declining of the Sun after its being in its altitude at midday the latter at Sunset between which two evenings that is in the space after the beginning of the first and before the beginning of the second the Lamb was slain Exo. 12.6 Christ died after three of the clock Mat. 27.45 50. the theeves were taken down and buried out of the way before Sunset and 't is probable Christ and they were taken down together whose body being wound up in linnen clothes with the spices and carried into Iosephs own sepulchre in a garden upon the same mount must necessarily take up some time neither is there reason to think they would put themselves upon any danget of entrenching upon the Sabbath The case thus standing and it being not set down what space there was between the death of Christ and of the theeves the Dialogue ventures too far in saying Christ died not only long but three hours before them But be it what it was let us see what the Dialogue infers from thence Dialogu What then was the true reason why Christ died three hours before the theeves had he lesse strength of nature to bear his torments then they or did the Roman souldiers adde more torment upon his body then upon the two theeves or did the Fathers wrath kill him sooner then the two theeves as some think surely none of all these things did hasten his death before the two theeves but the only true reason was because he did actuate his own death as a mediatorial sacrifice of atonement at the just hour appointed by his Father by the joint concurrence of both his natures Answ That Christ was dead a notable space before the theeves is manifest and Pilate marvelled if he were already dead Mar. 14 4◠But that he died three hours before them cannot appear Christ had lesse strength of nature left to bear his torments then the theeves had therefore they compelled a man of Cyrene Simon by name to bear his Crosse that is to help him bear it Illusio conspuitio Christi post latam in eum mortis sententiam a ministris a mediâ nocte usque ad horas matutinas fuit producta Gerh. harm 73. He is a very negligent Reader of the History of the Passion that observeth not many sufferings inflicted upon Christ by men more then were upon the thieves His restlesse vexation the night before by their carrying of him first before Annas Joh. 18. then to Caiaphas ver 24. where they spit in his face and buffeted him others smote him with the palms of their hands Mat. 27.67 Again they cover his face and buffet and say unto him Prophesie Mar. 14.65 and thence they carry him to Pilate early in the morning Mat. 27.1 2. thence to Herod Luk. 23.7 and Herod with his men of war set him at naught and mocked him and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe and sent him again to Pilate where the souldiers of the Governour took Jesus into the Common Hall and gathered unto him the whole Band of souldiers and they stripped him and put upon him a scarlet Robe and when they had platted a Crown of thorns they put it upon his head and a reed in his right hand and they bowed themselves before him Thom. part 3. qu. 46. vid. Gerh. harm in loc saying Hail King of the Jews and spit upon him and took the reed and smote him on the head Mat. 27.27 28 29 30. adde hereunto their casting lots upon his vesture reviling of him wagging their heads at him and mocking of him as well by the better as by the meaner sort whilest he was hanging upon the Crosse and all this besides what was extraordinary in his scourging you forget his sorrow unto death mortall of it self in time his agony in the garden besides the full sense of the wrath of God upon the Crosse no wonder if all these exhausted the spirits of the Manhood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold the man and if these things still seem lesse to the authour of the Dialogue yet know they seemed great both to David that spake of them and to Christ that felt them Reproach hath broken my heart Psa 69.20 My heart is like wax it is melted in the midst of my bowels my strength is dried up like a potsherd Psa 22.14 15. Dialogu Surely none of all these things did hasten his death before the two theeves but the only true reason was because he did actuate his own death as a mediatoriall sacrifice of atonement at the just hour appointed by his Father by the joint concurrence of both his natures Answ Of Christs fear hath been spoken particularly and I hope sufficiently upon Heb. 5.7 In regard of the Personal union and unction of Christ whereby he received all possible created fitnesse for the execution of his office it is inconsisting with his perfection to suppose the least unreadinesse either in respect of fear or whatsoever else to perform any Mediatorly service in the time thereof Iohn telleth us the true reason why Christ died then and not before nor after because then and not untill then his work of Mediatorly obedience both active and passive was finished and whatsoever was written concerning him was fullfilled When Iesus therefore had received the Vinegar he said It is finished and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost CHAP. V. Of the Dialogues distinction of Christs dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor Dialogu I Have already shewed you that Christ dyed a twofold death for he died both as a Malefactor and as a Mediatour at one and the same time as a Malefactor he died a passive death but as a Mediatour he died an active death and the Scripture doth often speak of both these deaths sometimes iointly and sometimes severally when the Scripture doth mention his passive death then it saith that he was put to death killed and slain But secondly the Scripture doth sometime speak iointly of his passive death and of his Mediatorly death together in one sentence as
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
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
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
and brings salvation though it self be invisible and in the heart For with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Dialogu And in this sense all Sacrifices of Atonement are called Sacrifices of Righteousnesse not only as they are the procuring cause of the Fathers Atonement for a sinners righteousnesse but also because they must be offered in righteousnesse Mal. 3.3 that is to say in faith because poor beleeving sinners do by faith receive the Fathers atonement for their full and perfect righteousnesse Answ This is in effect but what was objected and answered before Dialogu And it is further evident that faith doth no otherwise justifie a sinner but as it is that grace or instrument of the Spirit whereby a sinner is enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers atonement by the Apostles discourse in Rom. 3.21 22 23 24 25. all which Verses I will br efly expound unto you First The Apostle in these words doth teach us the true nature of a sinners justification he cals it the righteousnesse of God He doth not call it the righteousnesse of Christ but the righteousnesse of God the Father because the formall cause and finishing act of a sinners righteousnesse or justification doth come down from God the Father upon all beleeving sinners A sinner cannot be made righteous by the works of the Law as the former verse doth conclude For by the Law men come to know themselves to be sinners and they that are sinners are ever sinners in themselves therefore if ever sinners can be made righteous they must be made righteous by such a kinde of righteousnesse as it pleaseth God the Father to bestow upon them and that can be no other righteousnesse then a passive righteousnesse proceeding from Gods mercifull atonement pardon and forgivenesse Answ The righteousnesse whereby a sinner is justified is called the righteousnesse of God because he is the authour of it it is as much as called the righteousnesse of Christ Rom. 5.18 where it is called the rigteousnesse of one which one is Christ The imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ is the formall cause of our justification and is the act of God the Father The word Father not being taken personally for the first person in the Trinity but essentially for all the three persons God the Father Son and holy Ghost Because all works wrought upon the creature are the works of the three persons equally A sinner is not justified by the works of the Law namely by works that we have done Tit. 3.5 For to such a work four things are requisite viz. that it be wrought 1. By vertue of the grace of the first Covenant 2. By our own persons 3 With exact obedience to the Law 4. Under the promise of justification unto continuance therein But yet a sinner is justified by the works that Christ hath wrought though not by the works that we have wrought If that Proposition be absolutely true that they that are once sinners are ever sinners then either the Saints in glory were never sinners or they are and ever shall be sinners and consequently neither are nor ever shall be perfectly blessed See Ephes 5.27 Neither the justified persons continuance to be a sinner which is the condition of all in this life nor the dependance of justification upon Gods free pleasure nor the passivenesse of the soul in receiving justification do at all inferre atonement much lesse the atonement of the Dialogue to be our righteousnesse The good pleasure of God is the cause why the righteousnesse of Christ imputed and not atonement is our righteousnesse Dialogu But yet the Apostle doth further describe this righteousnesse of God ver 21. by two other circumstances 1. Negatively 2. Affirmatively 1. Negatively he saith that this righteousnesse is without the works of the Law He doth plainly affirm that the works of the Law have no influence at all in the point of a sinners justice or justification Answ We are justified without the works of the Law that is without the works of the Law done by us but not without the works of the Law done by Christ We are justified freely it costeth us nothing Buchan loc 31. q. 16. yet we are justified justly it cost Christ the laying down of a full price Dialogu He doth affirm that this righteousnesse of God whereby sinners are made righteous is such a reghteousnesse as is witnessed by the Law and by the Prophett It is witnessed by the Law namely by that part of the Law which did teach and typifie unto sinners how they might be sinlesse by Gods atonement through their sacrifice of atonement as the procuring cause thereof as I have opened the matter more at large already Answ Willet in loc q. 27. The Apostle in those words by the Law Rom. 3.21 doth not intend the Law of works nor the Ceremoniall Law only but the Law of Moses Moses wrote of me Joh. 5.46 The ceremoniall Law did not typifie our being made righteous by atonement much lesse by the atonement of the Dialogue as it is to be seen in the answer of the places you referre unto Dialogu Faith it self is not a sinners righteousnesse and therefore it cannot be accounted as a sinners righteousnesse in stead of the righteousnesse of the Law as some would have it For if faith were a sinners righteousnesse no otherwise but in the place or stead of the righteousnesse of the Law then faith could not justifie a sinner any further then the Law would do if it could be supposed that a sinner could by any means attain to the righteousnesse of the Law and then truly faith would be but a poor righteousnesse to cover a sinners nakednesse For if a sinner could keep the whole Law in every circumstance of it from his birth unto his death yet it would not be sufficient to justifie him from his originall sin Answ It doth not follow though faith is not therefore atonement is a sinners righteousnesse None of us say that faith is a sinners righteousnesse otherwise then relatively for the sake of the object apprehended by faith and so the Apostle saith expresly Abrahams faith was accounted to him for righteousnesse Yea the Dialogue if atonement might passe for righteousnesse acknowledgeth that faith for the atonements sake received by it is accounted for righteousnesse No marvell though the Dialogue denieth faith to be accounted a sinners righteousnesse in stead of the righteousnesse of the Law the righteousnesse of the Law being righteousnesse properly and truly so called which the Dialogue simply denieth to have any influence into the matter of justification There is no need unto meer justification that faith should justifie a sinner further then the Law requireth yet faith doth not onely justifie a sinner which the Law could not Rom. 8.3 4. but also justifieth him in some respects in a more excellent manner then the Law could have justified an innocent person Dialogu If any
obedience only His distinction between Christ as he was a Lamb for sacrifice in his humane nature and as he is our Priest in his Divine nature is very ill applied because he makes Christs passive obedience to be meritorious and satisfactory excluding him as he is our Priest Answ The scope of M. Forbes is to prove that not the active but the passive obedience of Christ is the only matter of our justification and therein his bloud and death alone To that end he distinguisheth between the matter of our righteousnesse and the requisites in Christ to the end that he may be righteousnesse unto us like as the bloud of the Lamb is to be distinguished from those things in the Lamb which made the Lambs bloud to serve for a propitiation for sin placing the active obedience of Christ amongst the requisites and excluding it from the matter of our righteousnes in both which we leave him The distinction you mention and call it a shift I finde not in the Chapter cited Though M. Forbes do distinguish between the Sacrifice of obedience and the natures office and person of Christ considered apart yet you do him great and open wrong to speak of him as if he excluded the influence of the person office or concurrence of both natures from Christs passive obedience Of the impropriety of the use of those words Christs God-head or Priestly nature hath been spoken before To make the actions i. e. the active obedience of Christ God-man Mediatour part of the matter of a sinners righteousnesse viz. not properly as if they were personally done by us but virtually because done by our Surety is to assert a great and necessary truth Dialogu From all the premises I think I may well conclude that your Authour is in a great errour to ascribe the whole matter of a sinners righteousnesse to Christs bloudy Sacrifice only Neither was his bloudy sacrifice the only procuring of his fathers atonement but his Priestly nature must concur thereunto he made his oblation by his divine nature as well as by his humane nature Answ The Dialogue calleth that a great errour which indeed is a great truth namely the making the passive obedience of Christ in his death performed in way of satisfaction to divine justice for the sins of the Elect to be of the matter of justification That he makes his passive obedience in his death only to be the matter of our justification excluding his active the contrary whereunto is proved par 2. S. 2. cha 7. we look at it as no little errour and do hereby bear solemn testimony against it Yet withall we may not conceal that observable temperature of that Learned and Godly Authour herein which appeareth by his Testimony concerning the doctrine of imputation of both active and passive obedience Chap. 24. beg and upon this occasion it may not be unseasonable here to acquaint the Reader with the tenet of those who assert the passive obedience of Christ only to be the matter of our justification consisting in these particulars Vid. Pisc praef in Ep. 1. ad Tim. Wotton They acknowledge 1. The active obedience of Christ to be the obedience of God-man our Surety unto the Law 2. That the active obedience of Christ hath an influence into the meritorious cause of our justification 3. That it doth in its way conduce unto our justification as a preparation or disposition 4. That our justification is by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed Lastly M. Forbes himself judgeth that the doctrine of imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ may be tolerated without any contention or strife acknowledging Forbes of justificat cha 24. it containeth not in it any impiety hindereth not any man from the mark or matter of his righteousnesse and that it is not contrary to truth Your labour to prove that the Mediatorly obedience of Christ was the oblation of whole Christ God-man Mediatour with the joint concurrence of both natures might have been spared Who is he that doubts of it Dialogu The bloud of Jesus Christ doth clense us from all sin 1 Joh. 1.7 by a Synecdoche for the Apostle doth not say that his bloud alone without any thing doth cleanse us from all sin as M. Forbes would have him speak but he names his bloud as a Synecdoche of his death or as a Synechdoche of his Mediatoriall obedience which also he sealed with his bloud when he made his soul a Mediatoriall Sacrifice Answ M. Forbes so far speaketh the truth as he interprets bloud synechdochically of Christs passive obedience imputed he erreth 1. In limiting his passive obedience imputed to that of his death only 2. In excluding his active obedience wholly from imputation The Dialogues Mediatoriall Obedience is confuted before and therewith its interpretation Dialogu I grant that all mankinde are one with Adam by ae naturall union as proceeding from the same root and fountain of nature but I fear your Authour doth stretch out naturall union with Adam unto a personall union I mean M. Forbes doth so by consequence to the end that he might make Adams personall action to be ours by imputation Answ The scope of M. Forbes is to prove the imputation of Christs passive obedience and that only in his death to be the matter of our justification Pauls comparison according to his interpretation is instituted not between that single act of Adams disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit imputed unto his seed and the obedience of Christ in generall both active and passive imputed to his seed but between the single act of Adams disobedience and one act of Christs obedience viz. his death We consent to M Forbes as concerning the argument taken from the comparison we dissent from him as concerning the restrictions the reason of the comparison being founded upon the condition of the persons and divine institution it holds between such acts as the first and second Adam acted as publike persons Adam therefore being in that act of disobedience only a publique person hence that act only is imputed unto his seed but Christ being in all his acts of obedience a publique person hence therefore all the acts of Christs obedience are imputed to his seed As upon the supposition of Adams continuing in obedience because he had then continued a publick person all the acts of his obedience even unto the finishing of perfect righteousnesse had been imputed unto his seed according to the nature of the Covenant of works unto their attaining of justification by the Law The union between Adam and his posterity was not personall nor only natural but mysticall It was a conjunction of the person of Adam and all contained then in his loins in one spiritual body by the institution of God whereby he was as their head they as his members to stand or fall with him standing or falling Dialogu Adams disobedience had this effect that it procured a corrupt and sinfull nature to himself and to all
from the-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.
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