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
any efficiency of it self Non-subsistence saith nothing nothing cannot act of it self but of this I spake before That Law which faith in Christ a Saviour establisheth that Law Christ as God-man Mediator establisheth but the Law of works is that Law which faith in Christ a Saviour establisheth Rom. 3.2 therefore the Law of works was established and consequently obeyed by Christ as God-man Mediator for the establishing of the Law includes Legall obedience He who as God-man Mediator is the perfecting end i.e. is he in whom the Law hath its perfecting end of the Law performed obedience to the Law but Christ i.e. God-man Mediator as such is the perfecting end of the Law so is the plain and acknowledged sense of the Greek word Rom. 10.4 therefore Christ as God-man Mediator performed obedience to the Law The Law is fullfilled as concerning them that are saved Gal. 3.10 either by the obedience of Christ God-man Mediator or by the personal obedience of the Beleever not by the personal obedience of the Beleever Rom. 3.3 Gal. 3.10 therefore by the personal obedience of Christ God-man Mediatour Dialogu The suffrage of the Godly Learned hereunto is known and acknowledged Polan l. 6. c. 14. Park de desc l. 3 n. 52 53. Rivet in Psa 40. Consideratio deitatis alia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polan syntag lib. 6. c. 12. Inequalitas officiorum non tollit aequalitatem naturae aut personarū Ursin expl catech par 2. qu. 33. q. 6. Christ Jesus saith Polanus from the time whereat he took upon himself the form of a servant began to pay the price of our redemption Christ is such a Mediator as is a debtor to keep the whole Law to that effect it was necessary saith Rivet that seeing Christ was our surety he should be made under the Law The divine nature considered absolutely in it self is not subject unto the Law as subsisting in personall union with the humane nature it is subject in respect of voluntary dispensation the humane nature is subject absolutely and properly being a creature The sum is Christ i.e. the person who is God man Mediator was subject unto the Law absolutely as touching the humane nature in respect of voluntary dispensation and office as concerning the divine nature it 's a received rule given for the understanding of this mystery that inequality of office taketh not away equality of nature and persons First God appointed the Mediatour to fulfill the Law of works I mean so much of it as fell within the compasse of his humane course of life not as a proper condition belonging to the Law of Mediatorship as Mediator but as true man only for he was bound to observe the Law of works as he was true man as much as any other Jew by a native right Gal. 4.4 Answ That God appointed the Mediator to fullfill the Law of works as a proper condition belonging to the Law of Mediatorship as Mediator and not as man only is already proved Of the difference between the obligation of Christ and another Jew to Legal obedience there is no need here to speak they were both bound by native right and otherwise but not altogether upon the like grounds and for very unlike ends the obedience to the Law whereof Paul speaks Gal. 4.4 was the obedience of Christ not as man only but as Mediator which is plain in that it was to redeem us that were under the Law ver 5. Dialogu Secondly Though I make this Legall obedience to be no more but humane obedience yet I grant that he was thereby qualified and fitted to make his soul a Mediatorly sacrifice for he could not have been the Lamb of God without spot if he had not been exact in the performance of so much Legal obedience as fell within the compasse of his humane course of life Heb. 7.26 Answ Rhetorf de gra exerc 1. c. 2. Righteousnesse or obedience in Christ hath a double consideration either it is considered in him as in such a person and not our surety or as in such a person and our surety righteousnesse in his person qualified him for the service of a surety Legal Mediatorly obedience or his personall and surety-obedience are distinguished only notionally not really i. e. it is one and the same obedience considered according to two notions Dialogu Thirdly The rewards which his father did promise him for his Mediatorly obedience do far exceed the rewards which he doth promise to Legall obedience for I cannot finde that ever the Father did promise to reward any mans Legall obedience with such speciall rewards as he doth promise unto Christs Mediatoriall Obedience I will give thee the end of the earth for thy possession Psa 2. And He shall see his seed and prolong his daies when he shall make his soul a trespasse-offering Isa 53.10 Answ The terms Legal and Mediatorly intend not two kindes of obedience but one and the same obedience under two denominations called Legal in respect of the Law which is the Rule of obedience and Mediatorly in respect of the office of the person who performed this obedience unto it both the promises instanced and all other of like kinde are made Dialogu Fourthly Christ was not bound to fulfil personal obedience to every branch of the Law of works for he had not wife and children to instruct c. but he was bound to fullfill every branch and circumstance of the Law of Mediatorship he must not be wanting in the least circumstance thereof if he had been wanting in the least circumstance he had been wanting in all Answ Legal obedience consists not in performing personal obedience to every branch of the Law formally But in performing all that the Law requireth as the Law requireth actually or habitually The Law of works and the Law of the Mediator differ not as two Laws but as the whole and the part of the same Law The will of God concerning the Mediator was that he should obey the Law of works Quando igitur quaeritur qualem obedientiam Deo praestiterit Pareus in loc Rivet in Psal 40.8 and more Pareus commenting upon those words Heb. 10.8 speaks thus If it be enquired saith he what obedience Christ performed unto God we must answer both the universal obedience of the whole Law given to man and the special obedience imposed upon the Mediator alone Christ faileth not of fulfilling the least iota unto either By the Law Psa 40. saith Rivet he understands as well all the Commandments of God common to all men as the singular command of laying down his life Dialogu M. Calvin observeth rightly that some of the actions of Christ were proper to his God-head only and some of his actions were proper to his humane nature only and some of his actions were common to both his natures and this observation saith M. Calvin shall do no small service to assoyl many doubts if the Reader can but fitly apply
it Answ The same is observed by all Orthodox Writers generally The Margine telleth you the use thereof was for the avoiding as of other errours so of those wherein Nestorius and Eutyches were condemned Had you sufficiently weighed the use that Calvin makes of his observation in the words immediatly following viz. For it is marvellous how much the unskilful yea not utterly unlearned are cumbred with such forms of speech which they see spoken by Christ which do rather well agree with his Godhead then with his Manhood because they consider not that they agree with his person wherein he is shewed both God and man and with the office of a Mediator you might not only have spared this Citation but also the very distinction it self Dialogu It is absurd to affirm that all the acts of Christs obedience were Mediatory because his person consisted of both natures for then his natural Actions should be Mediatorial as well as any other You may as well say that all actions of the Son and of the holy Ghost are the actions of the Father because they are united into one Godhead as say that the acts of Christs Legal obedience were Mediatorial because his person consisted of two Natures Answ There are none of us that so affirm Not his person alone but both his Person and Office are requisite to every action of a Mediator all his naturall actions of obedience were Mediatorly Such natural actions which are so the actions of men as yet they are not humane Rationall or Morall which considered in themselves without all circumstances of good or evil are indifferent not falling within the compasse of a rule are not here considerable You have been already told that we affirm not the Legal acts of Christ to be Mediatorly acts because his person consists of both natures with the reason thereof But we say the Legal obedience of Christ were the actions of the person consisting of both natures they were not the actions of a meer man and because they were performed by such a person in way of such an office they were all Mediatorly actions The distinction of the personall actions in the Trinity arising from the natures of the Persons in the Divine essence holds proportion with our asserting the actions of Christ to proceed from his Person as the Agent Notwithstanding the two Natures are Principles respectively of such actions They that have competent knowledge in these great Mysteries of the Trinity of Persons in one essence and the two natures in one Person will soon see your inconsideratenesse in your comparing the Person Natures and Legal obedience of Christ with the Divine Nature Trinity of Persons and Personall or Essential acts Dialogu As for example all the Actions of Christ from his birth until he began to be thirty years of age must be considered as natural actions or as Legal acts of obedience for till he began te be thirty of years of age he led a private life with his parents Secondly When he began to be thirty years of age he did then begin to declare himself to be the Mediaatour for when he was baptized of John in Jordan the holy Ghost lighted upon him in visible manner before all Johns Auditory and the Father by his voice from Heaven declared that he was the Mediator Thirdly In the upshot of his life as soon as he had fullfilled all things that were written of him he sanctified himself and sacrificed his oblation by the joint concurrence of both natures and this was the masterpiece of his Mediatorial obedience Having thus distinguished the actions of the Mediatour we may and must rank his acts of obedience accordingly his obedience to the Law of works must be ranked among the actions of his humane nature and his obedience to the Law of Mediatorship must be ranked among his Mediatorial actions which he performed by the personal union of both his natures Answ The sum is Christ was not declared publikely to be the Mediator until he was about thirty years of age therefore he did no Mediatorly act before he was thirty years of age a meer non-consequence you may by the like reason say the Father had not before declared him to be his beloved Son therefore he was not his beloved Son Joseph had not declared himself to be the Brother of the Patriarchs and Benjamin therefore he was not their Brother Nor was his weeping in secret Gen. 42.24 and weeping again in secret and his soul-pouring upon his Brother Gen. 43.30 brotherly acts It hath already I hope been sufficiently proved that all the Legall actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of a Mediator Christ was a Mediatour to be incarnate before the foundation of the world from eternity Dialogu It may be you think as many others do that Christ began to pay the price of our redemption from the very first beginning of his incarnation for many affirm that he was conceived by the holy Ghost without any original sin that so he might thereby justifie us from our original sin which opinion I have confuted but the open History of the Evangelists do speak nothing at all of his Mediatoriall actions till he was publikely installed into the office of the Mediator by Johns Baptism Dialogu Yet the Apostle testifieth that Christ himself saith by the Psalmist Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me In burnt offering and sacrifice for sin thou hast had no pleasure then said I Lo I come in the Volume of thy Book it is written of me to do thy will O God Coming into the world his incarnation doing his will is the fullfilling the Law for our Redemption Whatsoever Righteousnesse the Law required unto Justification Christ performed Polan de conceptione Christi But the Law required inherent righteousnesse from the first moment of our conception and not onely active obedience Therefore it was necessary that Christ who fullfilled the Law should be inherently righteous from the first moment of his conception The Dialogue it self acknowledgeth some Mediatorly acts before thirty years of age viz many Mediatorly prayers and his incarnation though incarnation is not a Mediatorly or office-act but an act constituting the person called to that office If that his meaning be of publike actions of a Mediator Our Question is not Whether there were any publike Mediatorly acts of Christ before his Baptism but whether his Legal obedience was Mediatorly obedience Dialogu Yea when Christ began to be thirty years of age he was publikely installed into the Mediators office by the joint consent of all the Trinity and so our Saviour doth explain the matter unto John saying Thus our Desire is or thus it becometh us to fullfill all Righteousnesse Mat. 3.14 These two terms 1. our desire 2. our fulfilling all righteousnesse had need to be explainad the term us or our desire must have relation to some
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
ten thousand-thousand worlds That which is infinite knoweth no bounds but Gods will The kinde of his obedience was Legal the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto This his obedience to the Law was more acceptable to God then the disobedience of Adam was detestable yea more acceptable then the obedience of Adam had he continued in the first Covenant Though all these ingredients are so essentially requisite unto the obedience of the Mediator as that the defect of any one of them renders Christ an insufficient Mediator yet is it both the grand Error and a great part of the unhappy Labour of the ensuing Treatise to take away the Second of the Three It is therefore unworthy a Christian to say with Fevardentius One drop of the bloud of Christ is sufficient to have redeemed us Or with Bellarmine That the bodily death of Christ is sufficient for the Elect though according to both performed in way of satisfaction to Divine justice But much more unworthy a Christian to say with the Dialogue That the bodily death of Christ is sufficient for redemption though not performed in order to satisfie justice Quaere 4 How doth it appear that the justice of the Law is answered by a sinners suffering the punishment due to sin either in their own person or in the person of their Surety Answ Because God Gen. 2.17 no otherwise obliged himself by the Law to the punishment of sin with death but so as that it was free for him to execute that punishment either upon the offender or upon the Surety Distinct 1 Distinguish between the Essential or Substantial and the Accidental or Circumstantial parts of the punishment of the curse The essential part of punishment is that execution of justice which proceedeth from the curse Desperatio non est de essentia paenae infernalis Bellar. enerv To. 1. lib. 2. c. 2. considered absolutely in it self without any respect to the condition or disposition of the patient this may be called The essence of punishment The accidental part of punishment is that execution of justice which proceedeth not from the cause considered absolutely but from the disposition or condition of the patient being under such a curse this may be called A penal adjunct For examples sake In the execution of the sentence of death upon a malefactor Mors Per se Aeterna the separation of the soul from the body is of the essence of the punishment the gradual decay of the senses impotency of spirit losse of friends are accidental parts of punishment or penal adjuncts arising not from the meer separation of the soul and body Polan Carcer debiti pars nulla est Parker de Descen l. 3. num 91. but from the disposition of the patient In case of execution of the sentence of imprisonment upon a debtor Imprisonment is of the essence of the punishment but duration in the prison is from the disposition of the debtor viz. his insufficiency to pay the debt The essential punishment of the curse is the total temporal privation of all the sense of the good of the promise called by some The pain of losse and the inflicting of the positive evil flowing from the curse considered absolutely in it self without any respect to the disposition of the patient called The pain of sense This essential punishment was that and only that which Christ suffered Medull l. 1. c. 22. th 6. The death which Christ died was in nature and proportion the same which was due unto the Elect for their sin according to justice The accidental part of the punishment of the curse is all the rest of the penal evil thereof and befals the reprobate not from the curse simply but from the disposition of the patient under that curse Of these accidental parts of punishment which if you please may well passe under the name of penal adjuncts are final and total separation from God final death in sin final and total despair duration of punishment for ever the place of punishment c. Pataeus in Matth. 27.46 p. 889. Absolute separation from disunion or discovenanting with God is a consequent of reprobation but not of the essence of punishment because the elect notwithstanding the Commination stood in as full force against them as against the reprobate yet continued elected and in Covenant with God in Christ the Elect were in Christ before they were in Adam The personal union of Christ continued notwithstanding he suffered the punishment due to the sinnes of the Elect. Sin is not of the essence of the punishment because essential punishment is a satisfaction unto justice for injury done but sin is a continuing of the injury and a provocation of not a satisfaction unto justice Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author but it is blasphemy to say God is the Author of sin The Elect suffer no part of penal punishment yet are left unto sin Duration for ever and the place of the punishment are adjuncts as the nature of them sufficiently shews Distin 2 Distinguish between the wrath of God as concerning the Elect Vide Zanch. de natura Dei l. 4. c. 6. Hatred is taken either for the willing of affliction or for hatred opposite to eternal love in the last sense God hates not the Elect. Odium sumitur pro volitione malorū odio opposito amori aeterno Twiff Vind. Grat. l. 3. errat 8. S. 7. Dei ira in electos non est odium oppositum dilectioni quā antea ipsos est prosecutus Rhetorf exc 1. c. 2. and the hatred of God strictly taken Wrath is sometime taken for Gods hatred of persons and signifieth reprobation thus the reprobates are called Vessels of Wrath Rom. 9.22 Sometimes for the execution of Vindicative Justice Rom. 1.18 chap. 2.5 in this sense the elect are called the children of wrath Eph. 2.3 because their state by nature is such whereunto vindicative justice is due by reason of their sin Sometimes for the execution of corrective justice Deut. 4.21 Psal 78.62 in the first sense God is wroth with the reprobate in the second sense he was wroth with Chirst in the last he is wroth with the Elect Though in the second sense not in the first God may be said to be wroth with Christ yet in no sense could God be said ever to hate Christ God hates both persons and sins of the reprobate he hates sin in the Surety and in the Elect but he ever loved their persons God is wroth with all whom he hates but he hates not all with whom he is wroth Distinct 3 Distinguish concerning imputation of sin Imputation of sin is either of the commission of sin or of the guilt of sin guilt not taken for the commission of sin but for the obligation unto punishment for sin committed sin is imputed to Christ in the later sense not in the former Distinct. 4
formally and individually yet all suffer the wrath of God Eternall death is an evill not in kinde but in value not formally but virtually As the enjoyment of blessednesse doth not presuppose all temporall good things enjoyed in kinde so neither doth the suffering of the wrath of God suppose the suffering of all temporall evils in kinde Duration of punishment for ever is not of the substance of punishment but is an adjunct following upon the inability of the Patient to satisfie justice as continuance in prison is no part of the debt but the consequent of the debtors inability to pay the debt the punishment of the damned continueth for ever because they can never satisfie divine justice The punishment of Christ endured but a time because he satisfied justice The sufferings of Christ were eternall in value though temporall in duration Mors aeterna duratione pondere Paraeus in Rom. 3. Willet Synops cen 5. gen cont 28. par 4. qu. 3. had they been eternall in duration he had been overcome by the curse had they not been eternall in value he had not overcome the curse Christ suffered death as inflicted upon him by the justice of the curse Gal. 3.13 1 Pet. 2.24 hanging on the tree was a type therefore a divine testimony of a cursed death The curse notes the execution of justice and that executed upon sin in our stead Rom. 5.25 Who was delivered for our offences The bodily death of Christ alone did not redeem our bodies nor the spirituall death of Christ alone redeem our souls but the whole suffering of that person who was God In respect of his humane nature both body and soul from the instant of his incarnation to the instant of his death redeemed our whole persons both bodies and souls Those places of Scripture which attribute our redemption unto his bloud are to be understood synechdochically mentioning a more visible part of his sufferings for the whole Dialogu My reasons why Christ could not suffer eternall death for our redemption therefrom are first Then he must have suffered all other curses of the Law to redeem us from them but I have shewed that utterly impossible immediatly before 2. Then he did descend locally into hell it self to suffer it there for no man can suffer death eternall in this life no man can suffer the second death till after this Life is ended Answ Your first reason is in effect satisfied in the foregoing answer where we saw that Christ suffered the eternall wrath of God and consequently eternall death in value equivalent unto yea exceeding of eternall death in kinde it doth not follow that he must suffer all the other curses of the Law in kinde but the contrary followeth he hath satisfied the debt therfore there can be no more required Sufferings for sin as we have divers times said before are such as are poenall essentially viz. in respect of the punishment considered in it self namely the privation of the present fruition of the good of the promise and inflicting of the sinlesse misery of the curse or consequentially viz. not in respect of the punishment it self but in respect of the condition of the Patient such are called detestable consequents namely sins imperfections c. And evils that are proper to the reprobate 3. Innumerable common sorrows of this life 4. The duration of the punishment for ever As the eternall vertue of Christs sufferings redeemed us from the eternity of suffering formally so Christ in suffering the wrath of God formally suffered virtually whatsoever was due to the Elect for their sin and so by suffering redeemed us from all the properly-poenall curses of the Law whatsoever 'T is true Heb. 2.17 and 4.15 Omnis poena damnatorū his duobus continetur generibus ut aliae pertineant ad corpus aliae ad animam Cham. 1.2 l. 5. c. 19. s 14. in all points he was like unto us sin only excepted in All generically not individually that is in All in respect of the generall kindes of temptation namely both bodily and spiritually but not in All in respect of each particular passion and malady As concerning your second Reason The place of punishment is not of the essence of punishment Malefactors may and oft do suffer out of the ordinary place of execution The devil alwaies suffers hellish pains in some degree yet is many times out of the place of hell Souls in this life feel the wrath of God in some degree 't is not impossible then in respect of the thing it self but that it may be felt in its full degree Christ felt the joys of heaven out of heaven in his transfiguration and after his Resurrection so he both might and did feel the pains of hell out of hell There is a poenall hell and a locall hell a poenall hell may be where there is not a locall hell 'T is from the free dispensation of God not from the nature of the things themselves that the full measure of the wrath of God is not ordinarily executed in this life As Enoch and Eliah entred into the joys of heaven without death So if God please may a person enter into the pains of hell without death The Reprobate alive at the last day shall not die and yet shall suffer the pains of eternall death The distinction of the first and second Death in respect of the order of the execution holds only concerning the Reprobate Christ suffered the essentiall poenall wrath of God which answers the suffering of the second death due to the elect for their sin before he suffered his naturall death Dialogu If Christ bare Adams sin by Gods imputation and his curse really then you make Christ to be dead in sinne Answ We distinguish between the imputation of the Commission of sin and the imputation of the guilt i.e. the obligation of the punishment God imputed not unto Christ the guilt of Commission of sin but the guilt of obligation unto punishment for sin committed and because so the contrary followeth from our doctrine viz. that Christ is not dead in sin As it is not the inherent righteousnesse of or actuall working of Righteousnesse by Christ Willet Synops but the vertue power and efficacy which is imputed to the beleever so it is not the inherence or commission of sin but the guilt and punishment of sin that is imputed to a Beleever Dialogu Consider the true force of the Word Impute in the naturall signification thereof and then I beleeve you will acknowledge that it cannot stand with the justice of God to impute our sins to our innocent Saviour for to impute sin to any is to account them for guilty sinners and to impute the guilt of other mens sins to any is to account them guilty of other mens sins by participation Answ To impute in Court-language is judicially to reckon unto a person either that which is his properly and not only as a Legall Surety so sin is imputed to the
offender Lev. 17.4 Or that which is not his properly but as a legall Surety only So Philemon may put Onesimus his debt on Paul ver 18. or that which though it be not his properly yet is his in a way of grace So the word Impute is used ten times Rom. 4. Distinguish between the nature of sinne and the guilt of sin and there will be no cause to say with Socinus that it is against justice to impute sin understanding thereby the guilt of sin unto an innocent person especially upon these considerations 1. If the innocent be of the same nature with the nocent Ursin Paraeus in Rom. 5. Dub. 5. 2. If he voluntarily undertake the paenal satisfaction of the debt 3. If he can satisfie the punishment 4. If he can thereby free others from the punishment which they cannot undergo 5. If in this satisfaction he looks at the glory of God and the good of man It is therefore not only a perillous untruth but a high blasphemy to say and that without any distinction should God impute our sin to our innocent Saviour he should be as unjust as the Jews were The meer imputation of the guilt of sin doth no more infer a participation with the commission of sin then the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ inferreth a participation in the working thereof Dialogu If our Mediator had stood as a guilty sinner before God by his imputing of our sins to him Then he could not have been a fit person in Gods esteem to do the office of a Mediator for our Redemption Answ As it was requisite that Christ should be without sin i. e. without the commission of sin Heb. 7.26 So it was requisite that Christ should be made fin i. e. that the guilt of sin should be legally imputed to him 2 Cor. 5.21 both were necessary to make him a meet Mediator You erre not distinguishing according to the Scripture Dialogu The common doctrine of imputation is I know not what kinde of imputation it is such a strange kinde of imputation it differs from all the severall sorts of imputing sin to any that ever I can meet withall in all the Scriptures Answ It is a judiciall imputation of that unto a person which is not his properly but made his by way of voluntary and both Legall and Evangelicall account If you know not what kinde of Imputation it is the being of things depends not upon mans knowledge much lesse upon his ignorance but upon the will of God notwithstanding the term of imputation in this sense were not in the Scripture yet the thing intended by it is The terms of essence trinity satisfaction merit c. are not in the Scripture expresly yet are they acknowledged generally to be contained in the Scripture by just consequence because the things contained by those terms are found therein expresly The very term Impute taken for judicial imputation of that unto a person which is not his properly yet reckoned to be his in a way of grace is as was said before ten times used Rom. 4. Your other Reasons for what you assert which you promise immediatly before we shall expect in their place CHAP. IV. The Vindication of Isa 53.4 5. Isa 53.4 Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows Dialogu HE saith not only saith M. Jacob that he sustained sorrows but our sorrows yea the Text hath it more significatively our very sorrows or our sorrows themselves that is to say those sorrows that else we should have born Answ This Exposition of M Jacob understood according to that distinction premised Chap. 1. M. Jacob on Christs Sufferings p 33. is both solid and acute and that this Learned Authour is so to be interpreted his own words sufficiently argue Dialogu The Evangelist Mathew hath expounded this text in a quite contrary sense Mat. 8.17 saying that this Text was fullfilled when Christ did bear our infirmities and sicknesses from the sick not as a Porter bears a burthen by laying them on his own body but bear-them away by his own power Answ That the Prophet in this Text by griefs and sorrows intends sufferings due to us for sinne is plain from the scope of the Chapter and the comparing of the 4. and 5. verses with 1 Pet. 2.24 that by bearing those griefs and sorrows he intends Christs bearing them in our stead appears ver 5 6 8 10 11 12. of this chapter as also from the collation of the two Hebrew words used in this very place for though Nasa he hath born be of more generall use signifying sometimes to bear as a Porter beareth a burthen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes otherwise yet Sabal he hath carried signifying properly to bear as one beareth a burthen restraineth the sense of the former word and limits it to the received interpretation This Text therefore in Isaiah may either be understood as a compound Proposition containing these two truths 1. That Christ should bear our spirituall griefs and sorrows for us 2. That he should heal bodily diseases as a type and figure of his bearing our spirituall griefs and sorrows Piscat in Mat. 8.17 Veritas magis quid quam figura habere debet ficut dicitur plus hic est quaÌ„ Jonas Park l. 3. de Desc n. 63. Dialogu So the word fullfilled in Mathew is true properly of the type or specimen and symbolicaly or typically of the thing signified or the word fullfilled in Mathew is taken figuratively i. e. metonymically viz. the sign namely healing bodily diseases put for the thing signified namely a healing-bearing of spiritual diseases That of your coherence which concerns the question is already answered the rest is either impertinent or uncontroverted Isa 53.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities The chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed These words I confesse do plainly prove that Christ did bear divers wounds bruises and stripes for our peace and healing but yet the Text doth not say that he bare these wounds bruises and stripes of Gods wrath for our sins 1. It was Satan by his instruments that wounded and bruised Christ according to Gods prediction Gen. 3.15 2. Christ bare these wounds bruises and stripes in his body only not in his soul for his soul was not capable of bearing wounds Satan could not wound his soul the Jews fullfilled all his sufferings Act. 13.27 29. Peter expounds the Text of his bodily sufferings only 1 Pet. 2.24 If Peters phrase He bare our sins in his body on the Tree had meant any thing of his bearing Gods wrath for our sinnes the case of his sufferings had not been a fit example to exhort to patience his appeal to God had â—ot been suitable 3. The end was a triall of his mediatoriall obedience and our peace Answ Satan by his instruments did wound and bruise him true but not only Satan by his instruments Satan
himself layeth both his hands upon the live goat and confesseth over him the iniquity of the children of Israel Lev. 16.21 which confession of sin though it be only expressed in the case of the Scape-goat yet it is judged to have accompanied imposition of hands upon the sin-offering From the collation of the texts with Lev. 5.56 as also because there is like reason in all Calvin in Lev. 1.1 Junius in Lev. 1. Ainsworth Lev. 1.4 Willet in Lev. 1. qu. 9. 4.10 16.23 Annot. in Le. 16.21 Ita per fidem oportet nos peccata nostra imponere Christo h.e. certò staâ—uere quòd illa ei impofita sint â Deo ut ea expiaret Orthodox and judicious Expositors seem rather to understand that the rite of imposition of hands did typifie the profession of their faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for sin imputed to him and that the present sacrifice or beast slain was a type thereof then that it did typifie the Lords laying our sin upon Christ by imputation there is difference between an act typifying Gods imputation of sin unto Christ and an act testifying our faith concerning Gods imputation of sin unto Christ You should have produced your Expositors for they do not generally so speak the man saith M. Ainsworth that brought the offering was to lay or impose his hands thereby testifying his faith in Christ the true sacrifice to be slain for sin But it being granted that Expositors did so understand it how doth the Dialogue disprove their exposition A private mans imposition cannot represent Gods act the imposition of the hands of the Elders cannot for the Elders actions represent the Churches astions neither can the imposition of the Priests and High-Priests they were types of Christs Priestly nature and not of the father Answ If these Reasons were good for what they are alledged yet they are impertinent as not reaching the minde of Expositors at least generally upon the place There is nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing but that the act of a private person was capable if God so pleased to become a type of Gods act which is also true concerning the Elders Priests and High-Priests The act of an Israelite though a private person in letting his Hebrew servant go free for nothing either at the seventh year Exo. 21.2 or at the year of Jubilee Lev. 25.40 figured or represented God the Fathers gift of free redemption by Jesus Christ Cyrus as every King or Emperour which receiveth his office from the people was Persia's representative yet in letting the Jews go without price and reward he typified our free salvation which is the act of God the Father the putting of Gods name upon the children of Israel by Aaron and his sons Num. 6.27 was saith Ainsworth a sign that the name and blessing of God was imposed upon them It 's improper to say the Priests were types of Christs Priestly nature they were types of his Priestly office or if you please of the Priestly part of his office whereof the person consisting both of divine and humane nature was the subject Dialogu Imposition of hands with confession of sins upon the head of the sin offering signified the owners faith of dependance Then it signified the owners faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for our sin imputed to him for besides that this notion of faith in particular is included in the faith of dependance as the part is in the whole he that asserteth the faith of dependance asserteth therewithall the object thereof for faith and its object are Relates a part of which object and that directly intended in these texts is this truth to wit That Christ did bear and take away the guilt and punishment due to the elect for sin In your reasoning against the doctrine of Imputation from the Text alledged omitting any other you commit these two errours 1. You put upon us an interpretation which is not ours nor hath our doctrine need of it our conclusion sufficiently proceeding from these Texts according to the Exposition given The Question is not whether this rite of Imposition of hands with confession uf sin doth represent Gods laying of the sins of the Elect upon Christ but whether the sins of the elect were laid upon Chtist by God 2. In disputing for these rites to signifie faith of dependance you do not only not dispute against us but in conclusion against your self because the faith of the truth controverted is included in the faith of dependance nor do you in your whole discourse concerning it interpose a syllable to the contrary to provide against the retorting of your Argument upon your self The conclusion then you argue for being for us though we approve not your arguments we think it best to passe them by and ease the Reader of so much impertinence only minding you that your assertion so often used viz. that they imposed hands and leaned upon the sacrifice with all their might is groundlesse whatsoever you refer us to in Ainsworth out of Maimony neither the Hebrew text nor any other reason countenancing of it Dialogu If you make the act of laying on of hands on the sin-offering to signifie Gods laying our sins upon Christ by imputation then the same act of laying on of hands with confession of sins upon the Scape-goat must also signifie that God did impute our sin to Christ as well after he was escaped from death by his resurrection and ascention as when he made his oblation here upon earth and thus by this doctrine Christ is gone as a guilty sinner into heaven We have already said that we make not this act a type of Gods laying sin upon Christ the live-goat and the scape-goat were both types of Christ that of him dying this of him delivered from death sin was laid upon the scape goat not after but before its escape and signifieth that notwithstanding his bearing of sin typified by both goats yet after he had suffered which was typified by the killed goat he then should be delivered from those sufferings which were typified by the scapegoat and thus by the doctrine of the Scapegoat Christ is risen again ascended and sits at the right hand of God the Father acquitted from all sin Dialogu But the Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition of hands with confession of sins of Gods imputation but they understood it to be a typicall sign of the faith of dependance upon Christs sacrifice of Atonement and so much the prayer of the High-Priest imports See Ainsworth Lev. 16.21 Answ M. Ainsworth on this very place saith that this act shewed how our sins should be imputed unto Christ it is not likely therefore he so understood the Hebrew doctors otherwise we might well think he would either have forborn a needlesse citation contrary in his judgement to the truth or would have taken notice thereof Neither is there any reason so to interpret their meaning
fear of death by prayers therefore there was a necessity for him to pray and to strive in prayer untill he had overcome it as I shall further explain the matter by and by in Heb. 5.7 Answ There can no reason be given why the fear of naturall death should be as much as the humane nature of Christ could bear without sin because the object of that fear may be and is much exceeded paenal-spiritual death is a greater object of fear incomparably Dialogu Again Because the humane nature of Christ whatever had been inflicted upon it could not have sinned there can no sufficient reason be given why Christ should fear naturall death either more or so much as other men there being therefore not such a measure of fear in Christ of naturall death as the Dialogue affirmeth there was no such fear foretold nor was his earnest prayer to be delivered from that fear which could not be what it was and what he praied to be delivered from we shall see where you promise us to explain Heb. 5.7 We must observe the due time of every action the manner the place and the persons and all other circumstances to fullfill every circumstance just as the Prophets had foretold nothing must fail if he had failed in the least circumstance he had failed in all and his humane nature could not be exact in these circumstances without the concurrence of the divine nature in all these respects his naturall fear of death could not chuse but be very often in his minde and as often to put him unto pain till he had overcome it Answ As things were foretold by the Prophets concerning Christ so he fullfilled them Act. 3.18 Luke 22.37 that there might be a ready concurrence of the divine nature with the humane for the enabling of it unto the fullfilling of them he was both God and man Heb. 9.14 Rom. 1.4 there could not therefore be in Christ any fear as concerning his failing to fullfill his office to the utmost Your mentioning other causes though false of Christs fear besides his naturall death is a secret acknowledgement that his conflict with the fear of naturall death only was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows felt before his death Dialogu Scanderbeg was in such an agony when he was fighting against the Turks that the bloud hath been seen to burst out of his lips with very eagernesse of spirit only I have heard also from credible persont that Alexander the great did sweat bloud in the couragious defence of himself and others The sweaeting sicknesse caused many to sweat out of their bodies a bloudy humour and yet many did recover and live many years after but if their sweating bloud had been a sign of Gods wrath upon their souls as you say it was in Christ then I think they could not have lived any longer by the strength of nature Answ The effusion of certain drops of bloud at Scanderbergs lips through the commotion of his spirits was no sweat Your information concerning Alexander in all probability is a mistake there being no such matter reported of him by the ordinary Historiographers of his life It was but a bloudy humour if so and in a time of sicknesse not bloud Arist l. 3. depart animal c. 5. l. 3. De Historia anim c. 9. Fernelius lib. 6. that you mention at the sweating sicknesse Aristotle reports of one that sometimes sweat a kinde of bloudy excrement which yet he looked at proceeding from an evil disposition of the body Theophrastus confirmeth the same Fernelius writes that he saw bloud effused out of the extremity of the veins through infirmity of the Liver and the Retentive faculty Lib. de dignosc morb c. 11. 8. Vid. Gerh. Herm. in Luc. 22.43 Rondelettius tels us that he saw in the year 1547. a kinde of bloudy sweat in a certain Student occasioned by some defects of the veins bones and thinness of bloud Maldonat upon Mat. 26. makes mention of a man at Paris strong and in health who having received the sentence of death was bedewed with a bloudy sweat But this bloudy sweat of Christ properly so flowing from such a person and free from all distemper either of body or minde and in such a manner and plenty as Luke reports differed much from all these Whether the sweat of Christ were naturall or miraculous we leave it to them that have leisure and skill to enquire though the Evangelist mentioneth it as an effect proceeding from a greater cause then the fear of a meet naturall death all which notwithstanding yet is not our doctrine built only or chiefly upon this Argument Dialogu Do but consider a little more seriously what an horrid thing to nature the approach of death is see in how many horrid expressions David doth describe it Psa 116.3 18.4 55.4 5. Answ There were many times many causes why David was much afraid of death none of which are to be found in Christ yet you make Christ much more afraid of death then David was Though death be horrid unto nature yet not so to faith much lesse so horrid as to cause affections of fear above the nature of the evil feared that is erring affections in an unerring subject Dialogu Suppose Adam in innocency had grapled with the fear of death like enough it would have caused a violent sweat over all his body Answ Adam being a sinner did grapple with death Genes 5.5 without any such sweat mentioned doubtlesse Adam innocent would not have been inferiour to Adam a sinner Christ was much superiour to Adam innocent though you make him inferiour in this matter to Adam a sinner Dialogu It 's no strange new doctrine to make the naturall fear of death to be the cause of Christs agony seeing other learned men do affirm it Christopher Carlile in his Treatise of Christs desceut into hell p. 46. saith thus Was not Christ extreamly afflicted when he for fear of death sweat drops in quantity as thick as drops of bloud John Fryth a godly Martyr saith thus in his answer to Sir Thomas Moor B. 2. Christ did not only weep but he feared so sore that he sweat drops like drops of bloud running down upon the earth which was more then to weep Now saith he if I should ask you why Christ feared and sweat so sore what would you answer me was it for fear of the pains of purgatory he that shall so answer is worthy to be laughed to scorn wherefore then was it Verily even for the fear of death as it appeareth plainly by his prayer for he prayed to his Father saying If it be possible let this cup passe from me Answ These Authours I not having by me cannot examine the quotations their words therefore rather better bearing the sense of the Orthodox then the sense of the Dialogue charity untill the contrary appeareth construeth in the best sense M. Fryth's other writings call to have it so But though
signifying that it put on the nature of the Antitype or thing signified whereas the type as the type can no more put on the nature of the Anti-type then the adjunct can put on the nature of the subject Adam as a publike person disobeying and communicating guilt and punishment to his seed was a type 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 5.14 of Christ obeying and communicating righteousnesse and life unto his seed Did then the first Adam put on the nature of the second and so become a mediator or did obedience put on the nature of disobedience Moses the Minister of the Law dying before he came into Canaan as M. Ainsworth observeth on Numb 20.12 signified the impotency of the Law to save was therefore Moses no instrument of salvation unto any Cyrus was a type of Christ must therefore Cyrus not only be saved but also put on the nature of a Mediator who neither then Isa 45.4.5 nor afterwards for ought that appeared beleeved Who ever reasoned thus before that in any measure understood the nature of a type Dialogu But if the circumstances of the Text be well marked they will tell you plainly that this hanging upon a tree cannot be a type of the eternall curse for 1. This Law of Moses must not be understood of putting any man to death by hanging but of hanging of a dead body upon a tree after it was first put to death by stoning but Christ was crucified whilest he was alive 2. This hanging in Moses time was done by the judiciall Law and civil Magistrates and not by the ceremoniall Law nor the Priests 3. This hanging in Moses was commanded to be practised by the Magistrates of the Iews Common-wealth but the death which Christ suffered was a Roman kinde of death Answ Yet Paul who well marked and understood also the Circumstances of the Text telleth us plainly Gal. 3.13 that Christ hanging upon the Crosse though by the Romane power and also after a Romane manner was intended in and proved out of Deut. 21.23 The ceremoniall curse therefore was laid upon every one that was judicially hanged upon a tree in Judea from the time of the giving of this Law until the time of the passion of Christ by what lawfull authority soever or after what manner soever The principall scope of this Text is not to command putting to death by hanging upon a tree the ground whereof is had elsewhere but to give a Law concerning him that is hanged namely that he should in any wise be buried that day with the reasons thereof annexed Dialogu When the Romans did put Christ to that kinde of death which they used to inflict upon their base fugitive slaves they made him cursed in his death in the highest degree they could and yet at the self-same time Christ did redeem us from the curse of the Law even from the eternall curse because Christ died not only as a Malefactor by the power of Roman souldiers but he died also as a Mediator by his own Mediatoriall obedience Answ If he that only granteth Christ died as a Malefactor in the Romans and Jews account but denieth that he died a Malefactor in Gods account should not put in that yet Christ died as a Mediator he could expect no other but utmost abhorrence from every Christian man for such a tenet as did not secretly steal away by subtle sophisms but openly and before the Sun spoil them of their Mediator The curse laid upon Christ hanging upon a tree was not the curse of the Romans or a humane but a divine curse Gal. 3.13 Deut. 21.23 for he that is hanged is accursed of God Christs death as a Malefactor in the Jews and Romans account unjustly was a part though but a small part of the just punishment of God inflicted upon him as the great Malefactor imputatively in Gods account Christ died both as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor in Gods account Of his dying as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor in the sense of the Dialogue See before Ch. 10. Dialogu This act of Christ was an everlasting act of Mediatoriall obedience it was no legall obedience nor was it any humane act of obedience as all legall obedience must be but it was a supernaturall act of obedience it was no lesse then a Mediatoriall oblation and therefore it was the meritorious procuring cause of our Redemption from the curse of the Law even at that very same time when Christ was made a curse for us by hanging as a Malefactor upon a tree Answ Christ acted in his death not as his own Executioner but as our Priest and faithfull Surety yeelding up his life according to his voluntary pre-consent This act of Christ in laying down his life was an act of legall obedience because it was done in obedience to the Law This commandment have I received from my Father Joh. 10.18 He was obedient to the death he humbled himself and became obedient to the death even the death of the Crosse Phil. 2.8 He was made under that is subject to the Law Gal. 4.4 and fullfilled the Law Mat. 5.17 this act of laying down his life was supernaturall but not only supernaturall it was both divine and humane according to both natures for it was the act and obedience of him who was God-man as God-man-Mediator otherwise it could not have been effectuall This reasoning is as full of perill as empty of sound reason Dialogu Therefore the Tree on which Christ was crucified as a Malefactor cannot be the Altar neither were the Roman Souldiers the Priests by whom this mediatorial sacrifice was offered up to God but it was his own Godhead that was the Priest and his own Godhead was the Altar by which he offered up his soul to God a mediatorial sacrifice for the procuring of our redemption from the curse of the Law Answ Who saith the Tree was the Altar or that the Souldiers were the Priests when the crosse is sometimes in Writers resembled unto the Altar it is an illustration by way of allusion unto the type that is the Altar whereon the beast was laid but not unto the Antitype Christ was both Priest Sacrifice and Altar which yet is not to be understood as excluding either of his natures in any of these considerations He was a Sacrifice in respect of his humane nature yet he who was the Sacrifice was both God and Man He was the Altar in respect of his divine nature yet he that was the Altar was both God and Man He was Priest as God-man CHAP. XII Christ redeemed us not from the curse of the Law by his soul-sufferings only And of the meaning of Haides Dialogu GOod Divines do affirm that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law not by his bodily but by his soul-sufferings only which God inflicted upon his soul when his body was crucified upon the Tree Answ I do not finde that any Orthodox Divine so affirmeth Willet cen 5. err 3. par 3.
to the cause Answ Guilt is either taken for the personal commission of sin or for a personall obligation unto punishment upon our voluntary taking thereof for the sin committed by another in the last sense only Christ was guilty of sin that is he was guilty imputatively not inherently as Christ was guilty of sin so also he was sensible of an accusing Conscience If Christ saith D Willet truly bare our sins he sustained also the grief of conscience for them which is the inseparable companion of our sin The question is not Whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently but only whether he may be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively Desperation is not of the essence but accidental in paenal wrath The rest is but a repetition of what was said and also answered a little before Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in the proper place of hell seeing none can suffer the torments of hell as long as they live in this world none can suffer the second death till after this life is ended Answ The place of punishment is not of the essence of punishment as the place of the third heaven is not of the essence of blessednesse so neither is the place of the damned of the essence of misery As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joys of heaven out of the place of heaven if not at other times as Luk 9.28 yet after the Resurrection so might it suffer the pains of hell out of the place of hell The prison is no part of the essentiall debt The most Popish enemies of Christs soul-sufferings of the wrath of God whilest though in their erroneous asserting the locall descent they affirm an actuality concerning Christs being in the place of hell without the pains of hell cannot with any reason deny a possibility of being in the pains of hell without the place of hell Vide Rivet â—athol orth â—o 1. tract â— q. 60. Christ was in a paenall hell not in a locall hell the distinction between a paenall hell and a locall hell is nor only acknowledged unto this day by the Orthodox but was long ago taught by sundry of the Learned and sounder Schoolmen The dispensation of God is either extraordinary or ordinary according to the ordinary dispensation of God the full pains of hell are not suffered in this life but according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not only could but did suffer the pains of hell in this life Many Reprobate suffer the pains of hell here in a degree The Reprobate as was said before that shall be found alive 1 Cor. 15.51 shall passe into the pains of hell without any separation of the soul from the body Dialogu Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his body as well as in his soul to redeem our bodies as well as our souls from the torments of hell Answ We have already seen that Christ suffered the torments of hell in his body as well as in his soul as it is evident that Christ suffered the torments of hell for kinde in his soul so who can deny but he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of hell though not inflicted after the same manner August de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 10. All the flames of hell are not corporeall and materiall witnesse that fire wherein the rich man was tormented such as his eyes and tongue were such was the flame Luk. 16.23 24. Willet syn 20. gen cont qu. 3. par 4. Those flames of hell which torment the bodies of the damned though justly acknowledged to be materiall are materiall after a spirituall manner They therefore are not to be heard who object against Christs suffering hell-pains in his body because there was no visible instrument of such bodily pain If any say his bodily pains were not equall to the bodily pains of them that are in hell that being granted to them therein which they are unable to prove it is sufficient to integrate and make up the execution of the full measure of wrath upon Christ that if his bodily torments were not equall to the bodily torments of the damned yet what was not executed upon his body was executed upon his soul The measure of hell-pains is made up without bodily pains in the Angels that fell and if haply some mindes labour concerning the capacity of the soul of a meer man to hold such a measure of torment they may remember that the soul of Christ who is both God and Man is above that objection exceeding the capacity of all Men and Angels by reason of his personall union Dialogu How long did he suffer the torments of hell was it for ever or how long did he suffer them and when did the torments of hell first seize on him and when was be found freed from them or did he suffer the torments of hell at severall times or in severall places or but at one time or place only Answ His sufferings though temporall in respect of duration were eternall in efficacy in respect of the eminency of the Person it was more for an infinite person to suffer for a time then for all finite persons to suffer for ever Christ suffered the torments of hell upon the Crosse where he bare the moral curse Gal. 3.13 and in the garden Mat. 26. though his sufferings in the garden and upon the Crosse are the principal and therefore called the Passion emphatically yet the rest of his sufferings from his conception unto his passion are integral parts thereof that is such without which his passive obedience is not compleated He was freed from them at his death Job 19.30 he was freed from the sensible part of his sufferings at his death from sufferings simply at his Resurrection That Christ suffered the torments of hell is revealed which is the question though many circumstances of time and place are not revealed These are impertinent and captious quere's Dialogu Was he tormented without any forgivenesse or did Abraham deny him the least drop of water to cool his tongue Answ Christ was tormented without any forgivenesse God spared him nothing of the due debt Rom. 8.32 Mat. 26.39 but God gave him a discharge when the debt was paid Isa 53.10 Col. 2.14 He had not then so much as the least drop of water to ease him of the least particle of suffering due unto him according to justice but was wholly forsaken in respect of any participation of the sense of the good of the promise for the time Mat. 27.46 Dialogu Did Christ inflict the torments of hell upon his own humane nature was his Divine nature angry with his humane nature or did his Divine nature forsake his humane nature in anger as it must have done if it had suffered the torments of hell if so then he destroyed the personall union of his two natures and then he made himself no Mediatour but a cursed damned sinner Answ The second Person of the
lesse attentive Reader before we proceed to examine the arguments for this new Mediatorly obedience what the rules of disputation required of the Authour namely that he should first have given us some such definition or description thereof whence we might have understood what it is that he so much contends for for to be willing to dispute say the Logicians before we undrstand certainly what is the Question is to be willing to lose our time and that serious and affectionate counsell of Keckerman is here seasonable Kec Log. Sact. Post cap. 1. Let us not saith he dispute of any thing in Divinity before the various signification of that whereof we dispute is diligently distinguished that I shall endeavour to supply namely to acquaint the Reader with what the Dialogue intends by its new Mediatorly obedience according to what is to be collected out of it self comparing one place with another whereto I shall also subjoyn a description of Mediatorly obedience according to the received doctrine of the Orthodox that so the Reader conferring both together may the better judge both of the question and disputation Truth loves the light and errour lurks in ambiguities The minde of the Dialogue concerning Mediatorly obedience is to be gathered 1. By its dictinction 2. By putting together what in severall places it speaks concerning it It is necessary saith the Dialogue to distinguish between Legall and Mediatoriall obedience Legall or naturall obedience is no more but humane obedience performed by Christ as a godly Jew unto the Law of works all the actions of Christ from his birth until he was thirty years of age must be considered but as natural or but as legall acts of obedience I cannot see saith the Dialogue how any of these actions which yet it somewhat corrects as we shall finde in due place can properly be called Mediatoriall obedience Pag. 111. 112. The Mediatorial obedience of Christ Mediatorial obedience of the Dialogue what Largely according to the Dialogue consists of those acts of his obedience which he did actuate by the joynt concurrence of both his natures some whereof viz. many mediatoriall praiers of his intercession though they were acted by him before 30 years of age yet the far greater part of the acts thereof and all the publike actions were performed after he was thirty years of age viz. after his publique installing into the office of Mediatorship Mat. 3. See pag. 112. 113. amongst the which mediatorial acts of his obedience is his giving up his Manhood by the power of his Divine nature to suffer a natural death such and no other as the sons of Zebedee suffered Mar. 10.39 Pag. 46. without suffering any degree of Gods wrath at all either in soul or body pag. 2. yet so as the Divine nature separated his soul from his body which was the master-piece and was accepted of God the Father as the price and meritorious procuring cause of our Redemption pag. 86. for that was the most precious thing that either God the Father could require or that the Mediatour could perform for our atonement or redemption pag. 87. The sum whereof take thus Briefly Christs Mediatorly obedience according to the Dialogue are certain actions performed by him not in way of obedience to the moral Law for all such actions he performed as a godly Jew and as man only but as God-man Mediatour unto the Law of Mediatorship especially after 30 years of age the Master-piece whereof was his yielding himself to suffer a bodily death Mediatorly obedience according to the Orthodox what Mediatorly obedience according to the received doctrine of the Orthodox is the inherent conformity and whole course of the active and passive obedience of Christ from his conception to his passion inclusively performed by him as God-man Mediatour unto the Law in way of Covenant whereunto the whole good of Redemption was due unto the Elect for Christs sake according to order of justice though conferred upon them in a way of meer grace Touching the Dialogues Mediatorly obedience here are divers things which the Reader is desired to take distinct and seasonable notice of 1. Concerning the distinction Mediatorly and Legal obedience are not two kindes of obedience in Christ but one and the same obedience called Mediatorly from the office of the person obeying Legall from the Rule which was obeyed 2. Concerning the nature of Mediatorly obedience we have First a new Law given which is called the Law of the Mediatour excluding from it wholly the Law of works Secondly we have a new Mediatorly obedience conformable to that new Law and excluding expresly the essential obedience of the Mediatour which consists in obedience to the Law of works That obedience which the Creditor according to the Law demands and the Debtor owes that the Surety is to pay but the obedience unto the Command i.e. the Law of works Lev. 18.5 Gal. 3.10 and suffering of the punishment due to sin Gen. 2.17 is that which God according to Law demands and the Debtor namely the sinner oweth therefore obedience unto the Law of works is that which the Surety ought to pay It is a fiction not only unwarrantable and from beginning of time as I beleeve unheard from any Classical authour but above measure presumptuous expresly to deny about or neer 30 years of the obedience of Christ to be Mediatorly obedience and upon point to acknowledge only an uncertain little part of his life to be spent in that service it is also an ignorant and snaring contradiction to affirm that to be meritorious which is not done in a way of justice Justice is of the form of merit Merit is a debt according to order of justice it is a just debt Christs mediatorly obedience was an act of a far higher nature then is the fictitious obedience of the Dialogue It is an untruth of perillous consequence to corrupt the Faith of the Reader by asserting Gods high acceptance of such a Mediatorly obedience which is not Mediatorly obedience nor will be so owned of God That Christ in giving up his life in respect of the Divine nature as considered in Personall union with the humane nature acted in way of consent but not as his own executioner hath been oft seen CHAP. II. Of the divers waies of Redemption Dialogu IF so then there is no need that our blessed Mediator should pay both the price of his Mediatoriall obedience and also bear the Curse of the Law really for our Redemption Answ Even so it was viz. that the obedience of the second countervailed yea far transcended the disobedience of the first Adam because our blessed Mediatour paid the price of his Mediatorly obedience by beating the curse of the Law really for our Redemption the Meritorious obedience of Christ not the fictitious obedience of the Dialogue was the cause of Gods actual acceptation thereof not of his volition to accept and not Gods actual acceptation the cause of his meritorious obedience
for the whole and compleat cause The valour and preciousnesse of the obedience of Christ though it depends principally yet it depends not wholly upon the eminency of his person but also upon the quality of his obedience and Gods gracious acceptation thereof the absence of any of these would render Christ an insufficient Redeemer Had not he been such a person his obedience could not have been satisfactory and though there were such a person yet without such obedience unto the Law there can be no satisfaction The immutable truth of God Gen. 2 17. and his inviolable justice Rom. 1.32 require obedience in the Mediatour the Law requireth obedience both active Lev. 18.5 and passive Gal. 3.10 else there can be no life The Dialogues frequent reiteration of the same objections forceth the reiteration of the same answers The firstling of the Asse must either be redeemed or destroyed Exod. 34 20. Christ was appointed of God to be a common and more effectuall principle of Redemption then Adam was of destruction Rom. 5.14 16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 15.22 Dialogu Christ at one and the same time died both as a Mediatour actively and as a Malefactor passively as I have explained the matter Gal. 3.13 and in other places also Answ Christ both was and died such a Mediatour as was also a Malefactor imputatively in his death he was both active and passive how we shall soon see in due place The errour of this distinction in the sense of the Dialogu hath been already shown in the place mentioned Dialogu But for your better understanding of the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ consider 2. things 1. Consider what was the Priestly nature of Christ and 2. Consider what was his Priestly action 1. His Priestly nature was his Divine nature for he is said to be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck of whom it is witnessed that he liveth or that he ever liveth Heb. 7.8 Answ None that beleeveth the Scriptures doubts of Christs being in respect of his Divine nature a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck but that Christs Priestly nature was his Divine nature only that is that Christ was only a Priest according to his Divine nature which the language of the Dialogue seemeth to hold forth is a great errour the common principles of Religion tell us that the Priesthood is a part of the Mediatorly office Christ as Mediator is God man therefore as Priest he is God-man Parts are of the same nature with the whole Necessary it is say the Catechisms that the Mediatour should be both God and Man he must be man else he could not be a meet sacrifice he must be God or else his sacrifice could not have been effectuall Christ was both Priest Sacrifice and Altar The humane nature only suffered therefore most properly was the sacrifice yet so as in Personal union with the Godhead the Divine nature was that which upheld the humane The person consisting of both natures was the Priest Christ offered up himself before his humane nature was dissolved by death which consideration might have prevented that objection in this place though the union of the body with the soul was dissolved by death Dawascen de fide orthodox l. 3. cap. 7. yet the union both of soul and body with the second Person continued undissolved the separation of the soul from the body loosed not the union of both with the Divine nature Tho. par 3. qu. 5. ar 4. Gerh. suppl 104. they were locally separated the one from the other but both united hypostatically i. e. personally with the Deity Neither the soul nor the body of Christ ever had any subsistence but in the Word The word He in the Scriptures alledged signifieth not either Nature apart but the person consisting of both Natures as the Mediator was not nor is not God alone nor man alone but God-man so he merited not as God alone or man alone but as God-man and as Christ merited the application of the good of Redemption so God applieth it not for the sake of the Divine nature alone nor the humane nature alone but for the sake of God-man Mediatour The Scripture so attributes the infinite value and efficacy of the works of the Mediatour unto the Divine nature denoted by the word Spirit as it also ascribes those works unto the Person i. e. whole Christ consisting of both natures signified by the word Who How much more shall the bloud of Christ who through the eternall Spirit offered himself without spot to God Synops pur Theol. disp 26. Thes 18 19. purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God Heb. 9.14 Because the actions of the Mediatour were the actions of Christ who is God-man in them the Divine nature was the principal the humane nature the lesse principal and instrumental cause If upon a supposition this untruth were a truth yet 't is impertinent to the question being neither beneficial to the tenet of the Authour nor prejudiciall to the tenet of the Orthodox Dialogu But yet withall take notice that the term He Gen. 3.15 doth comprehend under it his humane nature as well as his divine yea it doth also comprehend under it the Personal union of both his Natures Answ Then the term He Gen. 3.15 notes the Person consisting of both natures therefore not the Divine nature onely but the person consisting of both natures was the Priest The Term He in the other Scriptures being by your own acknowledgement of the same sense with the term He Gen. 3.15 you hereby unsay what you just now said or otherwise what was said was nothing to the purpose Dialogu Consider what was his Priestly action and that was the sprinkling of his own bloud by his own Priestly nature that is to say by his divine nature Isa 53.12 namely by the active power of his own divine Priestly nature Heb. 9.14 that is to say he separated his soul from his body by the power of his Godhead when he made his soul a trespasse-offering for our sin Isa 53.10 and the manner of sprinkling of bloud by the Priests upon the Altar must be done with a large and liberall quantity and therefore it is called pouring out and this sprinkling with pouring out did typifie the death of the Mediatour a large quantity of bloudshed must needs be a true evidence of death Answ Christ considered as a Priest was obliged in the state of his humiliation to fullfill the Law in our stead and consequently the sacrifice that he offered as our Priest was the whole work of his active and passive obedience the Priests who were a type of Christ stood severally charged with the custody of the Ark wherein the Decalogue distinguished into two Tables was laid up Duties of active as well as passive obedience are ordinarily called Sacrifices Heb. 13.16 The Priest that offered this Sacrifice was not the Divine nature alone but the Person of Christ consisting
of both natures with the needlesse repetition of which it is full time to cease troubling the Reader any further So to attribute the Mediatorly obedience of his death unto the divine nature as to exclude the humane nature from its influence thereunto is not only to derogate from the humane nature but indeed not to attribute such mediatorly obedience unto Christ for Christ is a person consisting of both Natures Christs shedding of his bloud in such a large manner as we reade in the Scripture is a truth worthy of all attention and acknowledgement but understood in the sense of the Dialogue for the shedding of his materiall bloud only it is comparatively but a small part of his obedience for Christ suffered not only a naturall death Job 19.30 but also a spiritual death Mat. 26.46 Heb. 2.9 not only a bodily but also a spiritual death he shed his blood together with the sense of the wrath of God here his death is not called a death simply but a suffering wherein the iniquities of us all gathered together as in an heap were laid upon him Isa 53.6 and a curse but this is already largely spoken to The death or shedding of the bloud of Christ in Scripture is often put for the whole satisfactory obedience which he performed in the state of his humiliation Rom. 3.25 Eph. 1.7 Col. 1.20 because it was the compleating and consummation of all or synechdochically taking a part for the whole namely the visible part of his sufferings for both visible and invisible Med. lib. 1. c. 22. th 5. Polan Pis 2 Pet. 2.4 like as in the relating the moral acts of his obedience the external part is oftentimes only mentioned the internal understood and in setting down the works of the Creation the visible creatures are named the invisible included Dialogu And secondly In this respect the bloud of Christ is called the bloud of God Act. 20 28. not only because his humane nature was united to his Divine nature for by the communication of properties that may be attributed to the Person which is proper to one nature only but secondly 't is called the bloud of God in another respect namely because he shed his bloud by his own Priestly nature that is to say by the actuall power of his divine nature for he offered himself by his eternall Spirit Heb. 9.14 Answ As it was the bloud of him that was God-man so it was shed by him that was God-man Christs offering up of himself unto God was a free and a willing act otherwise his offering had not been effectual it could not have been obedience if it had not been done freely In respect of God He had done none any wrong if the second Person had continued only in that subsistence wherein he was equal unto God without admitting any subsistence in personal union with the Manhood in which respect he is inferiour unto God by voluntary dispensation He laid down his life of his own accord otherwise there was no one could have taken it away Ioh. 10.18 Christ had power of right authority and Majesty and might dispose of his own life yet having received commandment of the Father to lay down his life he put not forth his Divine power to rescue the manhood from deadly sufferings but cooperating with subordinate instruments according to the concourse of the first cause with the second gave way to the course of nature and patiently suffered a violent death That which the Dialogue is to prove is that the Mediatorly obedience of Christ whereby we are redeemed is by way of price only not by way of Suretiship and just satisfaction unto the Law but that which it here saith is that the bloud of Christ was shed with a large and liberal quantity that his bloud was shed for the atonement of mens souls that the bloud that was shed was the bloud of him that was God all which are true but conclude not the question he shed his bloud most true but he did not only shed his bloud but so as the sense of the wrath of God was mixed with it he suffered both a naturall and a supernatural death Separation of the soul from the body is either by the first and universal efficient so the Divine nature considered in it self separated one from the other or by an universal subordinate efficient acting by way of consent so the Divine nature subsisting in Personal union acted together with the humane in the separation of his soul from his body or else by the next formal cause so the executioners separated his soul from his body Dialogu In like sort he is called Jehovah our Righteousnesse Jer. 20.3 because his Mediatorial obedience whereof his oblation was the masterpiece was actuated by Iehovah that is to say by his divine nature as well as by his humane Answ He is called Iehovah our righteousnesse because he merited our justification by obeying and because he obedience imputed is the matter of our righteousnesse You now plainly acknowledging that his Mediatorly obedience was actuated by Iehovah that is to say by his divine nature as well as by his humane acknowledge therewithall that it was performed by the joint concurrence of both natures as elsewhere you say And so shew that your Reader is troubled in vain to finde out the meaning of those novell propositions viz. He poured out his soul to death by the active power of his own Divine Priestly nature He separated his soul from his body by the power of his God-head without mentioning the humane nature We must needs look at that as a piece of the mystery of darknesse which hath no other strength but in imagination and that only whilest it is not understood but when understood becomes just nothing The Father of Popery proveth a known Impostor if men once speak in the mother tongue Popery liveth no longer then it speaks Latine to plain people Dialogu So then I may well conclude that the death of Christ was a Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement because it was the act of the Mediatour in both his natures in his humane nature he was the Lamb of God without spot and in his Divine nature he was the Priest to offer up his humane nature to God as a Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement for the full Redemption of all the Elect. Answ It is an inviolable rule in disputation that the conclusion should run in the formall terms of the question The question therefore being whether the natural death of Christ without his suffering the wrath of God was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement other inferiour acts done by him as God-man included the Conclusion should have proceeded thus The natural death of Christ without his suffering of the wrath of God was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement The weaknesse and fallaciousnesse of which conclusion deduced from the annexed reason viz. because it was the act of the Mediatour in both natures immediatly discovereth it self unto him who
seeth herein the Dialogues usuall fallacy of putting that which is not a cause for a cause since not onely the eminency of the Person but also the kinde of obedience and acceptation of God are required as essential to Mediatorly obedience But the Dialogues conclusion expressing it self in ambiguous terms capable both vf the sense of the Orthodox and Heterodox doth by this unseasonable and irregular equivocation betray the weaknesse of its cause and arguments both at once Dialogu It was the holinesse of his Divine nature that gave the quickning power to the oblation of his humane nature Joh. 6.63 Answ 'T is true the sacrifice of the humane nature could not have profited any thing but by reason of the Person whereunto it was united which notwithstanding the Person was not the sole cause of the efficacy of the oblation had the eminency of the Person been sufficient alone then one drop of his bloud might have been as effectual as his life-bloud and so your reasoning would be against your self Dialogu In this answer Joh. 6.63 our Saviour declareth two things 1. That the grosse and carnall substance of his flesh and bloud considered by it self alone had no meritorious efficacy and therefore his legal obedience cannot profit us 2. Our Saviour in his answer declared wherein the true force and efficacy of his sacrifice did lie namely in these two things 1. In the Personal union of his humane nature with his divine nature 2. It lies in his Priestly offering up of his humane nature by his divine nature Answ Though neither the flesh nor the actions of his flesh considered alone can profit us it doth not thereupon follow that his legall obedience cannot profit us the consequent is as false as the antecedent is true for the legall obedience of Christ is not only humane obedience as the Dialogue speaks but the obedience of God-man of the errour of this distinction of legal and mediatorial obedience hath been spoken before The efficacy of it lay in the eminency of the Person offering that is the Person who offered up himself was such a man who was also God Joh. 6.63 Act. 20.28 Heb. 9.14 but not in that only this is but the same in more words which is usually expressed in fewer viz. the value and efficacy of the Sacrifice depends yet not wholly upon the dignity of the Person Godman offered properly Godman was offered but not without the limitation of communication of properties The humane nature suffered properly but the divine nature suffered not Whole Christ suffered but not the whole of Christ i.e. though the God-head did not suffer yet he that did suffer was God CHAP. IV. Whether the Iews and Romans put Christ to death Dialogu NEither did he die a passive death by the power of the Roman souldiers as the Iews thought and as the Papists and other carnal Protestants do think All the men and devils in the world could not put him to death by their power I mean they could not separate his soul from his body till himself pleased to do it by his own Priestly power Joh. 10.17 18. his soul was not separated from his body by the sense of those pains which the Romane souldiers inflisted upon him as the souls of the two theeves were that were crucified with him for Christ died not sooner nor later then the very punctual hour in which God had appointed him to make his oblation Answ The Dialogue unable to prove the meer naturall death of Christ to be meritorious that is to be a sufficient price of our Redemption from the meer eminency of the person that died what it cannot do by argument it attempts by amazement beguiling the lesse attentive Reader into a credulity of the conclusion not by any reason alledged but by asserting some wonders concerning his natural death and first that his death was active only i.e. he separated his soul from his body shed his own bloud actuated his own death but the Jews and Romans put him not to death Suppose it were true that men did not instrumentally inflict upon Christ a naturall death and that they kil'd him not which yet is against the expresse letter of the Scripture Act. 2.23 it doth not therefore follow God did not inflict upon him a spirituall death As they killed their own Prophets so they killed Christ 1 Thes 2.15 but they killed their own Prophets not only in appearance but effectually Neither Christs being active as concerning his death sc as voluntarily permitting or giving way and consenting unto it neither the inability of man to take away his life till himself pleased neither his not dying either sooner or later then the very punctual hour in which God had appointed deny the sense of those pains which the Romane Souldiers inflicted upon him to have instrumentally and as next externall causes separated his soul fron his body when he pleased by suspending the assistance of the Divinity to give way unto the course of nature in the appointed hour By the last reason no man dieth a violent death because no man dieth sooner or later then his appointed time Dialogu The Centurion did plainly see a manifest difference between the manner of Christs death and the death of the two theeves that were crucified with him for as yet they did still continue alive in their torments till after the time that Joseph of Arimathea had begged our Saviours dead body of Pilate at the Sun-set Evening for Joseph did not go to Pilate to beg our Saviours body until the Evening was come Mat. 27.57 Mar. 15.52 53. and that was at Sun-set it could not be when the first Evening was come but Christ was dead long before this for he gave up the ghost at the ninth hour which was about three hours before the two theeves were killed and yet by the course of his nature he might have lived in his torments as long as the two thieves did for the Romane Souldiers did crucifie all three alike Answ Put case Ioseph of Arimathea begged not the body of Christ until Sunset-Evening and that he died three hours before the theeves this disproveth not the Jews as procurers Pilate as a Commander and the Roman souldiers as Executioners to have effectually put Christ to death neither doth all being granted touch the question mans not putting Christ to his natural death no way disproving Gods putting of him to a supernatural death so impertinent are these new assertions though true 'T is true the latter Evening began not until Sun-set but 't is not true that Ioseph came not to beg the body of Christ until Sun-set for he came as the Evening was coming as the Greek hath it therefore before it was actually come Besides otherwise he could not have taken down the body and buried it the same day for it was before Sun-set even after the exposition of the Dialogue it self on Gal. 3.13 according to the Law Deut. 22.23 which Iohn testifieth they were careful and mindeful
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
Adam but then all men had they stood in their innocency had performed If he performed more then was required of us then he performed as much Christ performed actually what was so required and habitually or rather eminently whatsoever could be required if man had stood in his innocency he had had but as much grace as there was duty in the command his grace had been in measure because but a creature but Christ had more grace in him as man then there was duty in the command Grace was in him out of measure by vertue of the personall union CHAP. III. Of the Dialogues distinction between Legal and Mediatoriall Obedience Dialogu IT is a necessary thing to observe a right difference between Christs Legal and Mediatorial obedience which we have in part distinguished already but for your further satisfaction I will again distinguish between them I grant that God required the Mediator to fulfil all righteousnesse but yet his obedience to the Law of works and his obedience to the Law of Mediatorship must be considered as done for severall ends and uses Answ The scope of this distinction is to take away merit from the Legall obedience of Christ because the value of his obedience rising from the eminency of the person and its acceptation from office in denying it to be performed by Christ as God-man or as Mediator it is deprived both of value and acceptation which are two of the three ingredients often fore-mentioned of meritorious obedience Meritorious obedience which is alwaies to be kept in minde requires the concurrence of three things viz. the dignity of the person such a kinde of obedience and Gods acceptation The fallacy of this distinction which is one of the fundamental errours of the Dialogue lieth in the mistake of an adjunct for a form viz. in taking that which is but an inseparable concomitant or qualification of obedience for another kinde of obedience The terms of Legal and Mediatorly are two names of the same obedience but signifie not two kindes of obedience one and the same obedience is called Legal in respect of the Law which is the rule and Mediatorly in respect of the office of the person obeying As if upon supposition of Pauls discharge of the debt he engaged for unto Philemon in Onesimus behalf one should say it were both a Legal and fidejussorial i.e. a sureties act That the legal obedience of Christ was not the obedience of Christ as man only but of God-man yea of God man Mediator is proved thus Christ received the Law not as man only but as God-man Mediator Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire Mine ears hast thou opened a body hast thou prepared Heb. 10.5 burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required then said I Lo I come In the Volume of thy Book it is written of me to do thy will O my God yea thy Law is in my heart the boring of the ear and preparing of a body note his incarnation i e. Christ as God man The Law or will of God which he was to do is that will whereby we are sanctified the word taken largely for our being consecrated unto God and therefore notes Christs redeeming of us Christ was made subject to the Law not as man only but as God-man Mediator But when the fulnes of time was come God sent forth his Son made of a woman made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law that they might receive the Adoption of Sons Gal. 4 4.5 His Son made of a woman signifieth God-man the Law whereunto he was subject is the Law whereunto we are subject he was made under the Law from under which he redeemed us his circumcision argued him a debtor to that Law chap. 5.3 the end was to redeem us which evinceth his doing thereof as Mediatour Christ fullfilled the Law not as man onely but as God-man Mediatour Think not that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets I came not to destroy it but to fullfil it Mat. 5.17 compared with Heb. 10 7. he that had a body prepared came to do the will of God by which i.e. by the doing of which the relate taken together with the correlate of obedience we are sanctified Christ came to fullfil the Law as he was sent but God set him as God-man Mediator Gal. 4.4 those words are spoken by Christ after Johns Baptism in the time of his Mediatorly obedience according to the Dialogue If Christ then according to the Scripture had the Law of works or the Law of Moses written in his heart was made subject thereunto and fullfilled it not as man only but as God-man Mediatour then Christs Legal obedience was not the obedience of a man only All the Legal actions of Christ God-man from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of Christ God-man Mediator All the Legal actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of Christ God-man therefore all the Legal actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of Christ God-man Mediatour The major is not denied by the Dialogue which though it asserts the Legal obedience of Christ to be done by him as man only yet it affirms not to my observation that any act of God-man was not the act of God-man Mediatour Neither indeed can the maior with any good reason be denied even those who say Christ merited for himself which yet is generally denied by the protestants understand the word wherefore Phil. 2.9 not causally but as a note of consequence according as it is used Act. 20.26 Heb. 3.17 1 Pet. 2.10 and reading those words Heb. 2.9 with a comma or rather a colon at death and referring those words suffering death unto the words fore-going made little not to the word following crowned acknowledge that in those actions wherein he merited for himself he also merited for us which is sufficient to the Proposition asserted Let an instance of any Legall act of Christ God-man incarnate be produced which was not an act of Christ God-man Mediator as such i. e as Mediator Principium operationum commune persona formale natura Polan syntag li. 6. cap. 27. Trelcat Jun instit l. 2. c 4. Ame. med l. 1. c. 18. Wolleb compend l. 1. c. 16. The minor appears because rational actions of persons flow from the person as their agent In the work of Christ four things are to be considered 1. The agent i.e. the person 2. The principle according to which the action proceeds viz. either or both of the two natures 3. The action 4. The work it self that operation which proceeds from both natures and so it is twofold in respect of its next principle is yet but one action because the person or agent is but one actions in respect of their next principle proper to either nature are common to the person consisting of both natures The humane nature having no subsistence of its self it is impossible it should have
obedience only His distinction between Christ as he was a Lamb for sacrifice in his humane nature and as he is our Priest in his Divine nature is very ill applied because he makes Christs passive obedience to be meritorious and satisfactory excluding him as he is our Priest Answ The scope of M. Forbes is to prove that not the active but the passive obedience of Christ is the only matter of our justification and therein his bloud and death alone To that end he distinguisheth between the matter of our righteousnesse and the requisites in Christ to the end that he may be righteousnesse unto us like as the bloud of the Lamb is to be distinguished from those things in the Lamb which made the Lambs bloud to serve for a propitiation for sin placing the active obedience of Christ amongst the requisites and excluding it from the matter of our righteousnes in both which we leave him The distinction you mention and call it a shift I finde not in the Chapter cited Though M. Forbes do distinguish between the Sacrifice of obedience and the natures office and person of Christ considered apart yet you do him great and open wrong to speak of him as if he excluded the influence of the person office or concurrence of both natures from Christs passive obedience Of the impropriety of the use of those words Christs God-head or Priestly nature hath been spoken before To make the actions i. e. the active obedience of Christ God-man Mediatour part of the matter of a sinners righteousnesse viz. not properly as if they were personally done by us but virtually because done by our Surety is to assert a great and necessary truth Dialogu From all the premises I think I may well conclude that your Authour is in a great errour to ascribe the whole matter of a sinners righteousnesse to Christs bloudy Sacrifice only Neither was his bloudy sacrifice the only procuring of his fathers atonement but his Priestly nature must concur thereunto he made his oblation by his divine nature as well as by his humane nature Answ The Dialogue calleth that a great errour which indeed is a great truth namely the making the passive obedience of Christ in his death performed in way of satisfaction to divine justice for the sins of the Elect to be of the matter of justification That he makes his passive obedience in his death only to be the matter of our justification excluding his active the contrary whereunto is proved par 2. S. 2. cha 7. we look at it as no little errour and do hereby bear solemn testimony against it Yet withall we may not conceal that observable temperature of that Learned and Godly Authour herein which appeareth by his Testimony concerning the doctrine of imputation of both active and passive obedience Chap. 24. beg and upon this occasion it may not be unseasonable here to acquaint the Reader with the tenet of those who assert the passive obedience of Christ only to be the matter of our justification consisting in these particulars Vid. Pisc praef in Ep. 1. ad Tim. Wotton They acknowledge 1. The active obedience of Christ to be the obedience of God-man our Surety unto the Law 2. That the active obedience of Christ hath an influence into the meritorious cause of our justification 3. That it doth in its way conduce unto our justification as a preparation or disposition 4. That our justification is by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed Lastly M. Forbes himself judgeth that the doctrine of imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ may be tolerated without any contention or strife acknowledging Forbes of justificat cha 24. it containeth not in it any impiety hindereth not any man from the mark or matter of his righteousnesse and that it is not contrary to truth Your labour to prove that the Mediatorly obedience of Christ was the oblation of whole Christ God-man Mediatour with the joint concurrence of both natures might have been spared Who is he that doubts of it Dialogu The bloud of Jesus Christ doth clense us from all sin 1 Joh. 1.7 by a Synecdoche for the Apostle doth not say that his bloud alone without any thing doth cleanse us from all sin as M. Forbes would have him speak but he names his bloud as a Synecdoche of his death or as a Synechdoche of his Mediatoriall obedience which also he sealed with his bloud when he made his soul a Mediatoriall Sacrifice Answ M. Forbes so far speaketh the truth as he interprets bloud synechdochically of Christs passive obedience imputed he erreth 1. In limiting his passive obedience imputed to that of his death only 2. In excluding his active obedience wholly from imputation The Dialogues Mediatoriall Obedience is confuted before and therewith its interpretation Dialogu I grant that all mankinde are one with Adam by ae naturall union as proceeding from the same root and fountain of nature but I fear your Authour doth stretch out naturall union with Adam unto a personall union I mean M. Forbes doth so by consequence to the end that he might make Adams personall action to be ours by imputation Answ The scope of M. Forbes is to prove the imputation of Christs passive obedience and that only in his death to be the matter of our justification Pauls comparison according to his interpretation is instituted not between that single act of Adams disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit imputed unto his seed and the obedience of Christ in generall both active and passive imputed to his seed but between the single act of Adams disobedience and one act of Christs obedience viz. his death We consent to M Forbes as concerning the argument taken from the comparison we dissent from him as concerning the restrictions the reason of the comparison being founded upon the condition of the persons and divine institution it holds between such acts as the first and second Adam acted as publike persons Adam therefore being in that act of disobedience only a publique person hence that act only is imputed unto his seed but Christ being in all his acts of obedience a publique person hence therefore all the acts of Christs obedience are imputed to his seed As upon the supposition of Adams continuing in obedience because he had then continued a publick person all the acts of his obedience even unto the finishing of perfect righteousnesse had been imputed unto his seed according to the nature of the Covenant of works unto their attaining of justification by the Law The union between Adam and his posterity was not personall nor only natural but mysticall It was a conjunction of the person of Adam and all contained then in his loins in one spiritual body by the institution of God whereby he was as their head they as his members to stand or fall with him standing or falling Dialogu Adams disobedience had this effect that it procured a corrupt and sinfull nature to himself and to all
Persons upon the creature is answerable to the manner of their subsistence in the divine nature The Father worketh of himself the Son worketh from the-Father Joh. 5.19 30. and 8.28 The holy Ghost worketh from the Father and the Son Joh. 16.13 hence though all the works of God concerning the creature are wrought jointly by all the three persons yet is the work principally ascribed to that person whose manner of subsistence doth most eminently appear therein Beginning works as creation are ascribed principally to the first person the carrying works on to perfection as redemption to the second person the perfecting of them as the application of redemption under which last work the grace of justifying faith is contained unto the third person To make the first person an efficient and the third person an instrumentall cause in the working of reconciliation or faith were by consequence to affirm some inferiority of the third person in respect of the fiâ—st consequently an inequality between the persons which were to inferre an inequality in God because every person is God which leaving the consideration of more dangerous inferences to the intelligent Reader is inconsisting with the perfection of God so unsafe is it to speak unadvisedly in these mysteries The second person in the Trinity is to be considered as in himself so he is only God and not man or as subsisting in personall Union with the manhood so he is God-man The second Person in the Trinity considered in himself works together with the Father and the holy Ghost jointly and equally in all essentiall works consequently as concerning faith atonement c. as we have already seen The Mediatorly obedience of Christ i. e. of God-man consisting of the divine and humane nature in one person called by the Father unto that service is the procuring and only meritorious cause of the Fathers atonement and all other spirituall blessings that beleeving sinners do enjoy Dialogu To conclude If thou hast gotten any spirituall blessing by any thing that I have said in this Treatise Let God have all the glory Answ To conclude Herosis in capite Pol. Syn. l. 7. c. 22. Vide Par. 1. Cor. 1.11 and 11.19 Ames Cas Con. l. 4. c. 4 Val. tom 3. dis 1. q. 11. punct 1 2 3. Taking heresie for a fundamentall errour that is such as whosoever liveth and dieth in cannot be saved The Dialogue containeth three Heresies The first denying the imputation of the sin of the Elect unto Christ and his suffering the punishment due thereunto contrary to 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 Isa 53.5 6. and Other Arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative Thereby leaving the Elect to perish in their sinne 1 Cor. 15.17 18. This Heresie is maintained in the first part The second denying that Christ as God-man Mediatour obeyed the Law and therewith that he obeyed it for us as our surety contrary to Galat. 4.4 5. Matth. 5 17 18. Heb. 10.7 compared with Psa 48.7 8. Rom. 3.31 and Other arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative Thereby rendring Christ both an unfaithfull and an insufficient Saviour and spoiling the elect of salvation This Heresie is maintained in the former Section of the second part The third 1. Denying the Imputation of Christs obedience unto justification Contrary to Rom. 4. Rom. 5.19 Phil. 3.19 and the arguments in the answer proving the affirmative Thereby leaving all that be ungodly under an impossibility of being justified 2. Destroying the very being of a sinners righteousnesse by taking away the obedience of Christ unto the Law and imputation which are the matter and form that is the essentiall causes of justification 3. Placing a sinners righteousnesse in a fictitious Atonement or pardon of sin such as in effect manifestly doth not only deny it self to be the effect of but denieth yea and defieth the very being of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ to the Law for us This Heresie is maintained in the second Section of the second part The first holdeth us in all our sin and continueth the full wrath of God abiding upon us The second takes away our Saviour The third takes away our righteousnesse and our justification What need the Enemy of Jesus grace and souls adde more This threefold cord of Hereticall doctrine so directly and deeply destructive to the truth of the Gospel and salvation of man We desiring after Christs example to distinguish where there is cause between Peter and Satan reserving all charitable and compassionate thoughts according to rule touching the compiler thereof who we hope did it ignorantly do principally impute to him who is not only a lyar but also a murtherer from the beginning Now the good Spirit of Grace that great Defender and Teacher of the Truth as it is in Jesus who in his rich mercy causeth all then whom he loveth to beleeve the truth that they may be saved and in his righteous judgement giveth up such who receive not the truth in the love of it to beleeve a lie that they may be damned Grant that truth may look down from heaven in this hour and power of the spirit of errour so perilously prevailing to deceive if it were possible the very elect Preserve the Reader from every false way and leade him into all truth Magnifie his compassion in the pardon and recovery of the Authour a person in many respects to be very much tendred of us in so saving of him though as by fire as that his rising again may be much more advantageous to the truth comfortable to the people of God and honourable to himself then his fall hath been scandalous grieving or dishonourable And lastly Inspire us all with a discerning and conscientious spirit as concerning the mystery of piety working in the way of truth and the mystery of iniquity working in the way of lying so as that in these evil daies wherein errours and heresies must be we may manifest our selves approved and to be acted vigorously and efficaciously by the spirit of him who sealed that good confession before Pontius Pilate saying To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world that I should bear witnesse to the truth Christian Reader if as sometimes through grace it was with Augustine concerning the Heresie of Pelagius by occasion of this Dialogue and other perilous Treatises with which this hour of temptation abounds threatning it it were possible to deceive the very elect thou hast been stirred up more to search into and hate the unsound tenets contained therein and more to search into and love the sound doctrines contrary thereunto Remember to glorifie that God which brings Light out of Darknesse by his good Spirit leading all those whose Names are written in the Book of Life of the Lamb into all truth teaching them to abhorre the wine of deadly errours notwithstanding they are presented in a golden cup and to discern Satan though transformed into an Angel of Light Glory be to God in Jesus Christ.
intimation to premise briefly certain Propositions four Questions five Distinctions with some few Arguments The Distinctions serving to Answer some chief Objections The Propositions Questions and Arguments tending to clear and confirm the Truth Prop. I The Lord Jesus Christ as God-man Mediator according to the will of the Father and his own voluntary consent fully obeyed the Law doing the command in a way of works and suffering the essential punishment of the curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto Divine justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant which active and passive obedience of his together with his original righteousness as a Surety God of his rich grace actually imputeth unto Beleevers whom upon the receipt thereof by the grace of Faith he declareth and accepteth as perfectly righteous and acknowledgeth them to have right unto eternal Life More fully and particularly Prop. II God in the first Covenant the substance whereof is Do this and thou shalt live Lev. 18.5 But in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Gen. 2.17 proceeded with man in a way of justice Prop. III Justice in God is either Essential whence God can do no wrong Or Relative in respect of the creature viz. Gods constant will of rendring to man what is his due this is the free constitution of Gods good pleasure whose will is the first and absolute rule of Righteousness Prop. IV Relative justice supposeth somewhat due from God to man in a way of debt so as if God should not perform it he should be unjust That which thus obligeth God in a way of Reward is called Merit in a way of Punishment Demerit yet so as the word Merit is ordinarily used promiscuously Prop. V Merit is either Absolute so God cannot be a Debtor to the creature no not to Christ himself or By Way of free Covenant so God hath in case made himself a Debtor to man Justice then consisting in rendring to every one their due and Gods will being the rule of Justice it followeth that and only that to be the due desert merit or demerit of man which God hath willed concerning him The Moral Law it self that eternal rule of manners The recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience The punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience are all the effects of Gods good pleasure Merit by vertue of free Covenant notes such an obedience whereunto God by his free Promise hath made himself a debtor according to order of Justice Demerit notes such disobedience whereunto by force of the Commination death is due according to the order of Justice Merit or Demerit is a just debt whether in way of reward or punishment the genus of merit is debt i. e. To indebt or make due its form in a way of Justice Prop. VI The demerit or desert of man by reason of sin being death according to Relative justice the rule of proceeding between God and him Justice now requireth that man should dye As God with reverence be it spoken of him who cannot be unjust in case man had continued in obedience had been unjust if he had denied him life so in case of disobedience he should be unjust in case he should not inflict death Prop. VII The elect then having sinned the elect must diâ—â— if they die in their own persons Election is frustrate God is unfaithfull if they die not at all God is unjust the Commination is untrue If elect men die in their own persons the Gospel is void if man doth not die the Law is void they die therefore in the man Christ Jesus who satisfied Justice as their Surety and so fulfilled both Law and Gospel As Gods will is the rule of righteousness so Gods will is the rule of the temperature of righteousness Prop. VIII Though God by his absolute power might have saved man without a Surety yet having constituted that inviolable rule of relative justice In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die he could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this rule but man having sinned man must die and satisfie the Law that man may live Justice requireth that the Surety should die thâ—â— the Debtor may live That he might be just and the Justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Rom. 3.26 God suffereth multitudes of sins to be unpardoned but he suffereth not one sin to be unpunished Quaere 1 What is Vindicative justice strictly taken Answ It is an execution of relative justice rewarding sin with the punishment due thereunto according to the Law Justice in God as was said before is either essential which is in him necessarily hence he can do no wrong Or relative which is in him freely that is it hath no necessary connexion with the Being of God This Relative or Moral justice is an act of Gods good pleasure whence flows his proceeding with men according to the Law of righteousness freely constituted between him and them Quaere 2 What is the supream and first cause why justice requireth that sin should be rewarded with the punishment due thereunto according to the Law Answ The free constitution of God The principal and whole reason of this mystery depends upon the good pleasure of God Nam hujus mysterii summum imo tota ratio independit quis negat potuisse Deum alio quovis modo providere saluti hominuÌ„ sed hoc voluit nec nisi hoc Cham. de Descensu To. 2. l. 5 cap. 12. for who can deny that God could have saved man in another way but he would save him thus and no otherwise then thus This great principle is all along to be kept in minde and occasionally to be applied serving not as a sword to cut but as a leading truth to loose many knots of carnal reason The good pleasure of God is the first rule of Righteousness the Cause of all Causes the Reason of all Reasons and in one word all Reason in one Reason Quaere 3 Wherein consists the sufficiency and value of the obedience of Christ as our Surety Answ In three things 1. In the dignity of the person obeying 2. In the quality or kinde of his obedience 3. In the acceptation of this obedience The person obeying was God-man The first Adam was by Gods institution a publick person hence in him sinning the world sinned The second Adam is not only by Gods institution a publick person but also an infinite person because God This publick and infinite person doing and suffering was as much as if the world of the Elect had suffered If the first Adam a finite person was by Gods institution in that act of disobedience A world of men why should it seem strange that the second Adam being an infinite person should be by Gods institution in the course of his obedience As the world of the Elect He being an infinite person there needed no more then Gods pleasure to have made him The world of men yea
term a sinne worthy of death namely of this death hence it is evident that not every sinne that deserved death is here meant but such as deserved a double death namely 1. Stoning to death 2. Hanging up of their bodies upon a tree after they were stoned to death Answ Though the person thus accursed was according to the Law a person worthy of death yet not the guilt of the person but the typifying of the morall curse was the reason of this ceremoniall curse For greater Malefactors as was intimated before then some that were hanged if they were not hanged were not accursed Though the manner of the Jews were to hang up those that were stoned to death yet we reade not in the Scripture of any that were both stoned and hanged though we reade of Achan that he was both stoned and burned but not that he was hanged Naboth was stoned but we do not reade that he was hanged The King of Ai was hanged but we do not reade that he was first stoned Josh 8.29 The like we may observe of Sauls sons 2 Sam. 29.4 The Gibeonites being Proselytes were bound to the same laws with the Jews Exod. 12.49 Those five Kings that were hanged were first slain but 't is not said they were stoned nor doth any reason in the text leade so to think and afterwards hanged Howsoever it is no consequence they were great offenders upon whom the ceremoniall curse was inflicted Deut. 21.23 Therefore the curse inflicted upon Christ whom we have already proved to be the greatest offender as being imputatively guilty of all the sins of the elect both hanged upon the crosse and others was not the morall curse Dialogu M. Calvin in Deut. 21.23 saith That the hanging of Christ upon a tree was not after the manner that is here spoken of for such as were stoned to death among the Jews were also hanged up upon a gibbet after they were dead M. Goodwin and M. Ainsworth from the Hebrew Doctors reckon 18 particular capitall sins for which men were first stoned to death and after hanged and M. Ainsworth doth also say that the Hebrew Doctors do not understand this hanging of being put to death by hanging but of hanging a man up after he was stoned to death which was done for the greater detestation of such heinous malefactors Answ M. Ainsworth upon Exo. 12.21 telleth us that the Hebrew Doctors say that all that were to be stoned death by the Law were 18. but he doth not there say that after they were stoned they were hanged The curse indeed fastened upon the person hanged shewed the hainousnesse of sinne charged upon the Antitype as our surety but that the Jews would not see though the Hebrew Doctors say there were 18 sins for which men were stoned and hanged not women see Ainsworth on Deut. 21.22 yet Moses doth not say so Who is ignorant that the Jewish and Romane manner of hanging was as Calvin saith diverse or who denieth the manner of the Jews for a long time to be according to their Doctors writings but we look at this discourse as impertinent It doth not appear that hanging by divine institution above all other punishments pointed out the detestation of the fact If it did the person hanged was so much the fitter to be infamed with that curse which might render him a type of the truth in controversie namely that Christ who was hanged upon the tree was the most hainous Malefactor imputatively Dialogu The rebellious son Deut. 21.21 is brought in as an instance of this double punishment he was first stoned to death and then hanged upon a tree Answ The Dialogue saith so but not the Text interpreters look at the Law concerning the disobedient son and the Law concerning the person hanged as distinct laws whether so or not is not materiall to the point in hand Dialogu Thou shalt not let his carkasse remain all night upon the Tree but thou shalt surely bury him in the same day at the going down of the Sun and the reason is added because he is the cursed of God namely because such sinners are more eminently cursed of God because they were punished with the heaviest kinde of death that the Iudges of Israel did use to inflict upon any Malefactors Answ All that were hanged and only those that were hanged in Iudea after this Law given were thus accursed without reference to any other punishment suffered or not Though hanging of it self concludeth the person accursed yet not punished with the heaviest kinde of death Stoning and burning were by the Hebrew Doctors themselves both distinguished from and accounted heavier then strangling or hanging See Ainsw on Exod. 12.21 If they were dead before they were hanged they felt not the pain of hanging All that were slain before they were hanged were not stoned Iosh 10.26 If a man were both stoned and hanged yet stoning and burning was as heavy if not a heavier punishment of which last execution we reade expresly Iosh 7. but not so of the first Even according to the Hebrew Doctors alledged by M. Goodwin and M. Ainsworth you may observe some offences punished with stoning and burning not so hainous as some offences punished by other deaths Lying with his daughter in law or a betrothed maid was according to them punished with stoning to death and hanging whereas lying with his daughter and that whilest his wife lived was punished with burning and murder was punished with the sword Ains on Exo. 12.21 The reason why such sinners as were hanged were more eminently cursed of God then other malefactors was not because they were punished with the heaviest kinde of death but for the typicall use of this death Dialogu I think I have sufficiently proved that God did not appoint the hanging upon a tree to be a type of the temporall curse Answ We think you have not and indeed that in all you have said you have said little to that purpose whose thoughts are right belongs to the Reader to judge Dialogu If hanging upon the tree had been appointed by God to be a type of the eternall curse then every one that is hanged upon a tree should be eternally accursed and then diverse Martyrs that were crucified as Christ was are eternally accursed and then the penitent thief was eternally accursed Answ Nothing so Neque enim maledictos vocat ac fi desperata esset corum salus sed quia maledictionis nota est suspensio Calv. in 5. lib. Mosis for the type as the type could not be the Antitype Canaan was a type of heaven but Canaan was not heaven Adam in his first sin was a type of Christ obeying Rom. 5.14 yet Adam was not Christ nor disobedience obedience Calvin often alledged by the Dialogue telleth you that the salvation of him that was hanged upon a tree was not desperate A person might be ceremonially accursed yet everlastingly blessed As if it were requisite to the being of a type or thing