his posterity which otherwise had continued righteous and sinlesse In like sort Christs Mediatoriall obedience had this effect that it procured Gods fatherly atonement and acceptance of all his posterity and seed that should be born of the same promise Gen. 3.15 Answ If the sinfull nature of Adams posterity was the effect of Adams disobedience in like sort as Atonement i. e. remission of sin is the effect of Christs obedience then it was the effect thereof according to justice as indeed it was for original sin is the penal effect of Adams sin he is just to forgive us our sin 1 Joh. 1.9 Dialogu By one man namely Adams sin in eating the forbidden fruit death entred into the world and death by sin namely spirituall death in sin fell upon Adam and his posterity for his sin and so death passed upon all men for that all men had sinned That is to say in whose loins all men have sinned by receiving from his loins his corrupt nature which is sin and also is the punishment of Adams sinfull eating not whose act of disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit all men have sinned in eating the forbidden fruit for then we must have been united to Adam as one person with him Answ What is to be understood by death see in the vindication of Gen. 2.17 The Dialogue not enduring the imputation either of our disobedience unto Christ or of Christs obedience unto us to avoid the Apostles argument taken from the imputation of Adams disobedience to mankinde Rom. 5. denieth that we are guilty of Adams sin acknowledging only that we receive from Adam a corrupt nature or a spirituall death in sin viz. that which we call originall sin Whilest you acknowledge corruption of nature to be the punishment of Adams sinfull eating and yet deny that we sinned in eating the forbidden fruit you make a contradiction for there can be no punishment without sin and by consequence also you put injustice upon God who notwithstanding by his absolute will he might yet having limited himself he doth not afflict without sin That all descended of Adam by ordinary generation are guilty of Adams sin is evident 1. From the expresse Text for that all have sinned Rom. 5.12 or in whom i. e. in Adam all have sinned as it is upon the margent and according as the Learned Interpreters generally turn it Both come to the same sense In this Chapter the Apostle insists upon Adams sin as in the 7th upon originall sinne 2. From the effect all sinned in Adam because all died in Adam even those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression viz. Infants who sinned not actually in their proper persons but only in their publike person Rom. 5.14 Gen. 2.17 1 Cor. 15.22 3. There can be no other reason given according to the revealed will of God of the propagation of of originall sin This doctrine of yours too much favours Pelagius who denied Infants to be guilty of Adams sin and of original sin 4. Adam in his first transgression stood as a publike person by the free constitution of God whose will is the rule of righteousnesse who is the figure of him that was to come Rom. 5.14 Adams being a publike person was a great aggravation of Adams sin hence a world of sin was in Adams sin 1. Because Adam was the whole world the world sinned in Adams sin 2. Because Adam by that sinne slew the whole world 3. Because all sin by consequence was contained in this sin Thence is Originall sin as an effect from the cause hence actuall sinne as an act from the habit 4. It was a universall sin because in it was in sum the violation of the whole Decalogue Dialogu But it passeth my understanding to conceive how God in justice can impute the act of Christs Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement to us as our act unlesse he do first make us one with Christ in the personal unity of both natures noither can I see how any of the actions of Christ can be imputed to Beleevers as their actions Answ Though there needs no other ground for the justice thereof then the good pleasure of God and the free consent of Christ yet herein the pleasure of God and consent of Christ and the mysticall not personall union of Christ and Beleevers concurre The Legal acceptance of the offended or creditor Justitia Christi non imputatur nobis ut causis sed ut subjectis tantura Bellarm. encr Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. and the consent of the surety are sufficient for the Legall charging the offence or debt of a third person who is the offender or debtor upon the surety Christs obedience is imputed to us not formally as if we were the performers thereof but in respect of its efficacy because we have the benefit of it as effectually as if we had performed it our selves The obedience of Christ is imputed to us as the Subjects meerly not as the causes of it Christs actions are ours not properly but virtually in respect of their vigour good benefit and efficacy Dialogu In like sort our blessed Mediatour as he is the mysticall head of all beleevers in the Covenant of grace did take care to do all and every act of Mediatoriall obedience that might procure his Fathers Atonement for the good and benefit of every member of his mysticall body as fully and effectually as if every member could have performed those acts of Mediatoriall obedience themselves And in this sense God doth imput◠the efficacy of all Christs Mediatoriall obedience to all beleevers as the only meritorious price of his Fathers atonement for them Answ The Reader may at the first sight hereof haply think that as it was sometimes with Bellarmine who having spent whole Books in a laborious disputation for mans merit against grace Bellarm. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 7. Tutissimum c. at length saith It is most safe to place our confidence in the alone mercy of God So it is here fallen out with the Authour who after his labour hitherto against the doctrine of Imputation now at length may seem to acknowledge it But though his words be equivocall yet his meaning is the same that it was before and so much the more dangerous because the same evil sense is insinuated in a better language To suppose a sinner to have performed those acts of Mediatorly obedience which Christ performed is to suppose an impossibility Christ was and is God-man and without sin neither of which can be found in him who is a sinner The voice of this whole clause this supposition excepted or somewhat qualified is not unlike the voice of Jacob but the sense is the sense of Esau i. e. the minde of the Dialogue uttered by the tongue of the Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is with the minde of the Orthodox as hath been said of old concerning the Scripture it lieth not in the sound but in the sense
followeth upon Adams sin Originall sin proceeding thence as an effect from the cause and actuall sin as an act from the habit As all evil is inflicted for sin so all evil in Scripture-language is called Death The evil of affliction Exo. 10.17 Of bodily Death Gen. 3.15 Rom. 8.10 Gen. 26.10 Exo. 21.16 Of spirituall death i.e. the death of the soul in sin 1 Tim. 5.6 1 Joh. 3.14 Of eternall death Joh. 8.51 Ezek. 33.8 Concerning the Distribution of Death Punishment is taken in a large or strict sense If taken largely the castigations of the elect are punishments but not so if taken strictly Poena est castigatio aeterna vel vindicta poena correctionis vel maledictionis Oecolampad in Ezek. 22. Castigatio electorum est poena latè sumptâ voce poenae eadem non est poena strictè sumptā voce poenae Polan l. 6. c. 4. The sufferings of the Elect are not vindicatively-paenall in a strict sense i.e. they are not inflicted by God upon them in a way of satisfaction to justice Death is either Death In sin Separation of the Image of God from the soul and the Castigatory or correctively-poenall and temporary in the Elect Properly poenall viz. Vindicatively or strictly-poenal i.e. in way of satisfaction to divine justice Presence of sin For sin Separation of the soul from the body Temporal and castigatory in the Elect. Temporal and properly-poenal in Christ Temporal and properly poenal in the Reprobate Separation from the sense of the good things in the promise Partiall temporary and castigatory in the Elect. Total temporal and properly-poenall in Christ Total perpetual and properly-poenall in the Reprobate Presence of the evil things in the Commination Separation of the whole person soul and body from God Totall eternall and properly poenal in the Reprobate The castigatory or correctively poenall part of death only was executed upon the elect the essentiall properly poenall part upon Christ both the essentiall and circumstantiall properly-poenall parts of death upon the Reprobate The castigatory but not poenall i. e. strictly-poenall part was and is executed upon the elect Post remissam culpam adhuc tam multa patimur tandem etiam morimur ad demonstrationem debitae miseriae vel ad emendationem labilis vitae vel ad exercitationem necessariae patieutiae August tractat 124. in Joannem for though Christ freed his from the punishment of sin yet not from the castigation or correction for sin thereby leaving a testimony against sin a remedy for sin a place for conformity unto their head The whole essentiall properly-poenall death of the curse that is the whole essentiall punishment thereof was executed upon Christ The whole properly-poenal death of the curse is executed upon the reprobate both in respect of the essential and accidental parts thereof Adam then standing as a publike person containing all mankinde and which is more so standing as that the first Adam a publike person contaiing all mankinde disobeying was a figure of Christ the second Adam a publike person containing all the Elect obeying so Paul expresly who is the figure of him that was to come Rom. 5.14 the meaning of these words In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die is this If man sin man shall die either in his own person as the Reprobate or in the person of the man Christ Jesus their surery as the elect according to the distribution above so is the Text a full and universal truth Man sins and man dies Touching the Reprobate there is no controversie Concerning the Elect thus Either Christ suffereth the poenall Death of the curse due to the Elect for sin or the Elect suffer it themselves or the curse is not executed but the Elect suffer it not themselves neither is the curse not executed for then the truth of the Commination and Divine justice should fail Therefore Christ suffered the poenall Death of the curse due to the Elect for sinne Briefly this Text Gen. 2.17 is Gods judiciall denunciation of the punishment of sinne with a reservation of his purpose concerning the execution of the execution of it The punishment is denounced to shew divine detestation of sin to deterre man from sin to leave man the more inexcusable in sin his purpose concerning the execution is reserved that the mystery of the Gospel might not be opened before its time This for the clearing of the Text. Since you dislike the last member of the disjunction you do ill to approve the former for thence it followeth Either that God is not true or else that Adam with his Elect posterity must perish for they sinned yet by your exposition neither die in themselves nor in their surety notwithstanding the Divine Commination and so either you take truth from God or salvation from the elect which also denieth the truth of God in the promise in your very entrance But why cannot the curse here threatned be extended unto the Redeemer Dialogu This Text doth not comprehend Jesus Christ within the compasse of it for this Text is a part of the Covenant only that God made with Adam and his posterity respecting the happinesse they had by Creation Answ Though Christ do not fall within the compasse of the Covenant of works it doth not thence follow that he is excluded the compasse of the Text. Damnation is no part of the Gospel yet it is a part of the verse wherein the Gospel is revealed He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved but he that beleeveth not shall be damned Adam in his eating intended and prohibited in this verse was a figure of Christ to come Rom. 5.14 Vel potiu◠ex ipso eventu Evangelij patefactione hunc typum Apostolu◠nos vult intelligere Pareus in loc Sequitur illam comminationem quo die comederis morieris ex intentione divinā non fuisse purè legalem c. Vide Rhetorf exercit pro div gratia ex 2. c. 2. 'T is certain then though Adam during the first Covenant perceived it not yet that Christ was couched and comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant 'T is very probable that the Tree of Life Gen. 2.9 was a Figure of Christ who is called and indeed is the Tree of life Rev. 22.2 If Christ be not within the compasse of the Text the Text is not true Dialogu Death here threatned concerns Adam and his fallen posterity only therefore Christ cannot be included within this Death Answ This is nakedly affirmed your reason annexed being impertinent and the contrary to your assertion is already proved Dialogu God laid down this rule of Justice to Adam in the time of innocency Why should the Mediatour be comprehended under the term Thou Answ Because God so pleased Because elect sinners not dying in their own persons must die in their surety else the Text should not be a truth Unde admirabilis Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cognoscitur qui in
one Sanctulus a Presbyter that offered himself to be beheaded for a certain Deacon that was to be put to death by the Longobards I dare almost say saith Grotius Caterùm ubi consensus c. Grotius de satisfacti-Christ c. 6. a man excelling in this kinde of learning that where there is consent there is not any of all those whom we call Pagans who would esteem it unjust that one should be punished for the delinquency of another Dialogu And this distinction of the souls case from the bodies case may sufficiently serve as an answer to M. Reynolds who doth labour to iustifie the imputation of our sins unto our innocent Saviour in Psa 110. p. 444. 445. Answ This distinction of the case of the body in this life liable and the case of the soul not liable unto punishment is grounded upon presumption of that which is not namely such an act wherein the body is guilty and the soul both guiltlesse and uncapable of guilt either inherently or imputatively M Reynolds distinguisheth between inherent and imputative guilt and concludes Christ was guilty imputatively that is obnoxious unto the punishment that others had deserved Ursin expos Catech. p. 1. qu. 13. Paraeus in Rom. cap. 5. Dub. 5. Mr Reynolds on Psa 110. pag. 446. The arguments whereby he proveth that Christ though inherently innocent might be guilty imputatively and suffer the punishment that others had deserved they that please to examine shall finde solid and in effect much the same with what Vrsin and Paraeus had taught before Were there place for this distinction concerning any other subject yet it holds not concerning Christ who was guilty imputatively though not inherently and in himself which hath been proved in its proper place before PART II. SECTION I. Wherein the Dialogue pretendeth to prove I. That Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law not by suffering the said curse for us but by a satisfactory price of Atonement namely by paying or performing unto his Father that invaluable precious thing of his Mediatorial obedience whereof his Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement was the master-piece II. A sinners Righteousnesse or Justification is explained and cleared from some Common Errours CHAP. I. Of the nature of Mediatorly obedience both according to the Dialogue and the Orthodox Dialogu THat which Christ did to redeem us from the curse of the Law was not by bearing of the said curse really in our stead as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach but by procuring his Fathers atonement by the invaluable price or performance of his own Mediatoriall obedience whereof his Mediatoriall sacrifice of atonement was the finishing master-piece this kinde of obedience was that rich thing of price which the Father required and accepted as satisfactory for the procuring of his atonement for our full Redemption Justification and Adoption Answ The Dialogue having hitherto denied and contended against Christs suffering of the wrath of God due unto the Elect for their sins in way of satisfaction to divine justice as also against the imputation of the sins of the elect unto Christ the latter whereof the order of cause and effect would have placed first the imputation of the sins of the Elect unto Christ being the cause of his suffering the wrath of God due to them which passive obedience the Orthodox beleeve and teach to be essentiall unto the Mediatorly obedience of Christ a truth of no lesse moment then the Redemption and salvation of souls The Dialogue I say thus engaged feeleth a neeessity lying upon it to present the Reader with some Mediatorly obedience because without it at least in appearance no Christian who is in earnest concerning his Redemption will be satisfied It concerneth us then the received Mediatorly obedience being denied diligently to attend what this new Mediatorial obedience is Dialogu And according to this tenour the Apostle Paul doth explain the matter he doth teach us to place the obedience of the Mediatour in a direct opposition to the first disobedience of Adam Rom. 5.19 he makes the merit of Christs Mediatoriall obedience to countervail the demerit of Adams disobedience for the disobedience of Adam was but the disobedience of a meer man but the obedience of Christ was the obedience of God-man and in that respect God the Father was more highly pleased with the obedience of the Mediatour then he was displeased with the disobedience of Adam Answ The disobedience of the first Adam and obedience of the second are opposites these opposites are compared in respect of some things wherein they are alike viz. Both are publike persons both communicate what is theirs to their seed respectively and some things wherein they are unlike viz. 1. In respect of their efficacy the obedience of Christ is more potent to communicate the good of his obedience unto his then the disobedience of Adam is able to communicate the evil of his disobedience unto his 2. In respect of the effect the disobedience of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit makes his seed guilty only of that first act of disobedience but the obedience of Christ dischargeth beleevers which are his seed not only from the guilt of that one act of the disobedience of Adams sin but also from the guilt of all other disobedience both originall and actuall The obedience of the second Adam did not only countervail but exceed all the disobedience of the first Adam much more Rom. 5.15 16. Grace abounded ver 16. abundance of grace vers 17. where sin abounded grace did much more abound ver 20. It is a truth most precious that God was more highly pleased with the obedience of the Mediatour then he was displeased with the disobedience of Adam but so unhappy is the Dialogue contending against the Mediatorly obedience of Christ as that in the prosecuting of that opposition it cannot speak this truth without insinuating a fallacy of putting that for the cause which is not the cause for the ground of the acceptation of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ proceeds not wholly though principally from the eminency of the Person which the Dialogue acknowledgeth but also from the kinde of his obedience which the Dialogue denieth But how doth this either prove the bearing of the curse really to be no part of the obedience of the Mediator which the argumentation intends though the obedience whereof the Text speaketh intends the contrary or inform the Reader what the Dialogue means by its new Mediatorly obedience which the order of disputation here called for The Dialogue denying the received doctrine concerning the Passive obedience of Christ as Mediator yet acknowledging a Mediatorly obedience but not giving any tolerable description of it in any one place whence the ordinary Reader may know what it is only here and there mentions the name thereof and occasionally adding to that name such a something as indeed renders it a dark nothing which manner of handling it is rather a snare then a guide to the
of Gods dispensation Paul speaks frequently of this accidental use of the Law in order to conversion after the cessation of the judicial and ceremonial Law Christ not only being come in the flesh but also dead buried and ascended Rom. 3.20 4.15 7.8 9 10 11 13. into heaven The whole Law of Moses was a school-master to leade us unto Christ the moral Law leades us unto Christ by an accidentall direction of it self it shuts souls up into the prison of sin that it may condemn it is by accident that being shut up we seek after righteousnesse and life by faith in Jesus Christ the ceremonial Law led unto Christ by direct signification and its period of duration the judicial Law led unto Christ by his distinction of the Jews from all other people and by the the period of its duration It follows by good consequence from this School-masterly discipline of the Law that God did never intend to justifie any corrupt son of Adam by Legal obedience done by his own person but that God did not intend to justifie his Elect by our Saviours Legal obedience followeth not at all from hence except in the mistake of the Authour of the Dialogue Paul evidently enough concludes the direct contrary consequence Par. in loc Gal. 3.24 those words the Law was added for transgressors till the seed should come Gal. 3.19 are to be interpreted according hereunto in a limited not in an absolute sense Dialogu God cannot in iustice iustifie sinners by our Saviours Legal obedience imputed because Legal obedience is altogether insufficient to iustifie a corrupt son of Adam from his original sin for our corrupt and sinful nature did not fall upon us for the breach of any of Moses his Laws but for the breach of another Law of works which God gave to Adam in his innocency by way of prohibition In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death so God cannot in iustice impute our Saviours Legal obedience to any corrupt son of Adam for his full and perfect righteousnesse because it is altogether insufficient to make a sinner righteous from his original sin Answ We are to distinguish of the Law it 's taken sometimes more largely either for all the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament Luk. 16.17 Joh. 15.25 or for all the Books of Moses Matt. 7.12 sometimes more strictly for the Moral Law Rom. 7.7 So Paul opposeth the Law of works to the Law of faith and Luke the Law of Moses unto Christ Act. 13.39 because by him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses The Law of Moses taken strictly and the Law of works usually known by the name of the Decalogue or ten Commandments are the same and differ no otherwise then as two Editions of the same Book the Law of Moses being nothing else but an external pattern of the internal Law of nature printed in the hearts of our first Parents by their creation after the Image of God consisting in holiness and righteousnes Eph. 4.24 the sum of the two Tables it is called the Law of works Rom. 3.27 because it required personal obedience unto life Lev. 18.5 the Law of Moses Act. 13.39 because it was given to the people of Israel by the Ministry of Moses Joh. 1.17 In the Law strictly taken which also holds concerning the Law taken largely we must distinguish between that part of it which is moral positive Vide Wille Exod. 21. qu. 1. Jus morale positivum jus divinum positivum Weems exerc 37. in precep 8. The habitual writing whereof in our hearts by nature together with its obligation were both from the first instant of Creation this bindes perpetually and is immutable so essential is the nulling and obliging nature of the Law as that though life be not attained by obedience thereunto as it was in the Covenant of works yet is obedience thereunto unseparable from life in the Covenant of grace and that part which is divine positive which though it be habitually written in our hearts by nature yet it bindes not without a superadded command these are accessory Commandments added to the Law written and binde not by force of creation or light of nature but by force of institution both moral positive and divine positive Law are the Law of nature only that 's the primary this is the secondary Law of nature As God at Mount Sinai after the Decalogue gave the judiciall and ceremonial Laws which were accessory commands part of and reducible thereunto as conclusions to their principles so God at the creation having given the Law unto Adam by writing it in his heart Gen. 1.27 after that gave him this accessory command concerning the Tree of the knowlege of good and evil Gen. 2.17 part of and reducible thereunto and as a Conclusion of its principle The transgression then of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit was a breach of the same Law of works which was given to Adam and afterwards given by Moses and so the punishment of original sin inflicted upon man therefore did fall upon us for the breach of Moses Law which was first given to Adam and afterwards given by Moses that the imputation of the Legal obedience of Christ God so being pleased to accept thereof is sufficient to make sinners righteous from all sinnes is manifest because Christ performed perfect obedience for us unto the Law of works given to Adam which had Adam himself personally performed he had been just The Law that was given by Moses convinceth us effectually and fully of Adams sin Rom. 5.20 moreover the Law entred that sin i. e. Adams sin for of that he speaks might abound therefore Adams sin was committed against the Law of Moses to this purpose serveth the labour of Divines shewing how Adams sin was a violation of the most yea of all the Commandments if so then it was a breach of Moses Law Dialogu If Christs Legal obedience imputed were sufficient to iustifie a sinner from all kinde of sinne both originall and actuall then Christ made his oblation in vain for it had been altogether needlesse for him to give his soul as a Mediatorial sacrifice of atenement for the procuring of our iustice in Gods sight if his Legal righteousnesse performed by his life had been sufficient to iustifie us from all sin in Gods sight for if righteousnesse could have come to sinners by the Law then Christ died in vain Gal. 2.21 Answ Christs inherent righteousnesse and active obedience is an essentiall part of our justification but not all our justification Christs active and passive obedience make up our righteousnesse Original justice and active obedience was sufficient to justifie man innocent but not to justifie man fallen The law in case of innocency required only doing Lev. 18.5 but in case of sin it cannot be satisfied without suffering Gen. 2.17 and doing Gal. 3.10 that is without both passive
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
Distinguish between such a measure of punishment and the particulars whereby that measure is made up Parker de Desc lib. 3. n. 55. Such a measure is necessary but that this measure should be made up by suffering these or those particulars is arbitrary Distin 5 Distinguish between a Local hell and a Penal hell Bonavent li. 3. in Sent. dist 22. q. 4. Rivet Cathol Orthod Tom 1. Tract 2. qu. 60. Willet Synops Cent. 5. gen contr 20. p. 5. q. 3. Christ suffered a Penal hell but not a Local he descended into hell Virtually not Locally that is He suffered the pains of hell due unto the Elect who for their sin deserved to be damned Arg. 1 Either Christ suffered the justice of God in stead of the Elect denounced against sin Gen. 2.17 or God might dispense with the execution thereof without violation of his justice But God could not dispense with the execution thereof without the violation of his justice What was sometimes spoken of the Law of the Medes and Persians holds true at all times concerning the Law of God that it altereth not for the confirmation of this truth Christ solemnly engageth his truth Verily I say unto you Till heaven and earth passe one jot or one tittle shall in no waies passe from the Law till all be fulfilled Matth. 5.18 This sentence was universal given to Adam as a publick person and holds all his posterity whether elect or reprobate in case of sin guilty of death Hereby the omnipotent hath so limitted himself as that now he cannot do that which else he could do in respect of his absolute power The command being given out for Lots preservation God could not destroy Sodom till Lot was secured Gen. 19.22 for the Decree being passed and the word gone out of his mouth God cannot deny himself Hence in the case of execution of justice 't is not only a truth that God spared not the Angels 1 Pet. 2.4 nor the old world vers 5. but it is also a truth that he spared not his Son Rom. 8.28 Unto this purpose Piscator well interprets those words of our Saviour If it be possible c. Matth. 26.39 Confer Piscat Analys Observ in Matth. 26. Davenant in Col. 1.20 p. 105. That is saith he If in respect of the righteous will of God the father there could be any other way found to save the Elect without Christs suffering of the wrath of God for their sin he praieth that then the cup might passe from him but because that could not be he submits his will to his Fathers will the summe whereof is God sheweth by the example of his Son that he having constituted his Law the rule of relative justice between him and man the dispensation with the exemption from punishment in case of sin was impossible Arg. 2 Either Christ suffered the wrath of God i. e. the punishment due to the sins of the Elect or else God is untrue in that Commination he that sins shall die because the Elect themselves do not suffer it But God is true The strength of Israel will not lie 1 Sam. 15.29 God cannot lie Titus 1.1 Arg. 3 He that was the Surety of the Elect was bound to pay their debt and consequently to satisfie the Law for them Polon â—ynt lib. 6. c. 36. But Christ was the Surety of the Elect Heb. 7.22 By so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better Covenant Neither is the Argument at all infringed by saying he is our Surety in regard of the Covenant of grace here called a better Covenant but not in respect of the Covenant of works for besides that the word better is not to be referred unto either Covenant it self but to the manner of the dispensation of the Covenant of grace under the Gospel we are to know that the Covenant of grace it self obligeth us to fulfill the Covenant of works in our Surety Faith establisheth the Law Rom. 3.31 We cannot fulfill the Covenant of works or the righteousness of the Law in our Surety by believing if it were not a truth that he fulfilled the Covenant of works for us Arg. 4 Either Christ suffered the punishment due to the Elect for sin or the Law remaineth for ever unsatisfied for it is as true as salvation it self that the Elect satisfie it not in themselves Arg. 5 If the Gospel save without satisfaction given to the Law then the Law is made void by the Gospel and the Law and the promises are contrary But neither of these are so Rom. 3.31 Gal. 3.21 Therefore Arg. 6 If Christ suffered not the punishment due to the Elect then the Elect must suffer it in their own persons man hath sinned therefore man must die Therefore in his own person if not in his Surety Arg. 7 If Christ did not suffer the wrath of God a punishment due unto the Elect for sin then there can be no justification of a sinner without Christs suffering of the punishment due to sin i.e. his passive obedience there can be no remission of sin without obedience there is no reason to acknowledge his active obedience whence we are accepted as righteous this being in vain without that if there be neither passive obedience nor active then there is no remission of sins nor acceptation as righteous and consequently no justification Arg. 8 If justifying faith establish the Law then Christ the object of faith hath established that is fulfilled the Law for otherwise the Law cannot be established by faith But justifying faith establisheth Rom. 3.31 Do we then make void the Law through faith God forbid yea we establish the Law Willet Synops Cent. 5 gen contr 20. Christ suffering the essential punishment of the curse i.e. the wrath of God containeth nothing derogatory from the worth of his person nor prejudicial unto Redemption The denyall then of Christ to have satisfied the wrath of God in that it renders the Mediatorship of Christ insufficient takes away the being of the Justification of a sinner and leaves the elect to suffer the wrath of God in their own persons which who can exempt to use Peters words from the charge of a damnable heresie and if so in that it so denies Christ to have suffered the wrath of God as therewithall it not only exceedingly diminisheth the love of God and the love of Christ but also imputes injustice and untruth unto God leaves the Law for ever unsatisfied made void by the Gospel and not established by faith one and the last of which Paul looketh at as abomination Rom. 3.31 I see not how it can be pronounced lesse then both an abominable and damnable heresie These premised come we now to the Dialogue it self beginning with its beginning viz. the stating of the Controversie CHAP. II. The stating of the controversie Dialogu I Hold that Jesus Christ our Mediatour did pay the full price of our Redemption to his father by the merit of his mediatorial obedience which
justice that he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Rom. 3.36 yea with the establishing of justice Do we then make void the Law by faith God forbid Yea we establish the Law ver 31. Therefore the meritorious mediatorly obedience of Christ was performed in such a way of satisfaction unto justice as included also a suffering of justice You disagree with the truth and us and scarcely agree with your self Dialogu Secondly Though I say that Christ did not suffer his Fathers wrath neither in whole nor in part yet I affirm that he suffered all things that his Father did appoint him to suffer in all circumstances just according to the prediction of all the Prophets even to the nodding of the head and the spitting of the face as these Scriptures do testifie 1. Peter told the Jews that they had killed the Prince of Life as God before had shewed by the mouth of all the Prophets that Christ should suffer and he fullfilled it so Act. 3.17 18. 2. Christ did expresly by his Disciples tell that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things of the Elders and cheif Priests and Scribes and be killed and raised again the third day Mat. 16.21 3. After his resurrection he said to the two Disciples O fools and slow of heart to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken Ought not Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory Luk. 24.25 26. and in ver 44.46 he said thus to all his Disciples These are the words which I speak unto you that all things must be fullfilled which are written in the Law of Moses in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning me thus it is written and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day 4. Paul told the men of Antioch that the Rulers of the Iews condemned him because they knew not the voices of the Prophets concerning him and therefore though they found no cause of death in him yet they desired Pilate that he should be slain and when they had fullfilled all things that were written of him they took him down from the tree and laid him in a sepulchre Act. 13.27 28 29. mark this phrase They fulfilled all things that were written of him if they fulfilled all his sufferings then it was not Gods wrath but mans wrath that he suffered 5. The Lord told Adam not only that the promised seed should break the devils head-plot but also that the devil should crucifie him and pierce him in the foot-sole Gen. 3.15 the devil did it by his instruments the Scribes and Pharisees by Pilate and the Romane souldiers Answ He that saith Though Christ did not suffer his Fathers wrath in whole nor in part yet he suffered all things that his Father appointed him to suffer saith that his Father did not appoint him to suffer his wrath either in whole or in part That you say thus cannot be denied but with what reason you so say let the Reader judge by what follows None of the Scriptures alledged by you confirm though some of them alledged by you deny what you affirm Christ sheweth that he must suffer many things by the Elders chief Priests and Scribes Matth. 16.21 true yet he doth not there shew that he must not suffer the wrath of God God fullfilled those things which he had before shewed by the mouth of all his Prophets that Christ should suffer Act. 3.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to this sense the Greek Text is to be read and not as you seem to mistake it this may include but certainly excludes not the suffering of the wrath of God Luke 24.25 26. concludes that Christ was to suffer the word All ver 26. includes the suffering of divine justice the word All Act. 13.27 28 29. is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fullfilled by the Romanes and the Jews as the instruments thereof not absolutely for all things whatsoever he was to suffer from any They fullfilled all things that he was to suffer from them true but it doth not therfore follow that they fulfilled all things he was to suffer The meaning of those words Thou shalt bruise his heel Gen. 3.15 is that Christ chiefly and with him beleevers that live godlily both which are the seed of Eve shall suffer affliction and persecution by Satan and his malignant agents which are the seed of the Serpent Notwithstanding what you have hitherto said touching the stating of the matter controverted that the Reader who shall be pleased to cast his eye upon this poor paper may not be at a losse but may with the more facility clearnesse and distinctnesse go along with us in the following discourse he is desired here to take just and seasonable notice that the whole controversie between you and us consisteth of four parts 1 Concerning Christs suffering the wrath of God due to the elect for sin 2. Concerning Gods imputation of sinne to Christ 3. Concerning the nature of Mediatorly obedience or the meritorious price of redemption 4. Concerning the Justification of a sinner The Dialogues method wherein though in respect of the two first immethodical for the second should have been first the answer is constrained to observe and accordingly to begin with the first viz. Whether Christ suffered the wrath of God due to the Elect for their sins we assert the Affirmative you endeavour to prove the Negative and that first by disproving the received interpretation of Certain Texts alledged by the Orthodox for the proof of the Affirmative which we are now Christ assisting to consider with you CHAP. III. The Vindication of Gen. 2.17 Gen. 2.17 In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death Dialogu YOu say that the term Thou is thou in thine own person and thou in thy posterity thus far I approve of your exposition but whereas you extend the term Thou unto the Redeemer this last clause I dislike for the death and curse here threatned cannot extend it self unto the Redeemer in the manner of his ing out our redemption Answ For the better understanding this Text the misunderstanding whereof seemeth not a little to have mislâ—d the Authour and the true understanding whereof may be of good use to preserve the Reader Consider these three things 1. What is here intended by death 2. The distribution of death 3. The application of that distribution The Death here spoken of is the wages of sin Rom. 5.21 and 6.23 That is all evill the evil of Adams sin excepted in one word As all lines unite in the center so all sorrows meet in that one term Death The commination Thou shalt surely die is not particular concerning some kinde of Death but indefinite therefore aequivalent to a universall comprehending all kindes of death God inflicts no evill upon man but for sin and all evill not only of affliction but also of sin
morbo remedium in morte vitam in perditore â—ervatorem adumbratum voluit Paraeus in locum He that compareth Rom. 5.14 with Gen. 2.17 hath an unspeakable ground of consolation whilest he reades Gods purpose to redeem us in our first fathers sinning and we in him From hence Paul gathers an argument to conclude that all Adams posterity descended from him by way of ordinary generation to be guilty of Adams sin Whilest you acknowledge that in Gen. 2.17 God laid down a rule of justice to Adam you must needs imply the surety of the elect to have satisfied that rule of justice and consequently to have suffered the wrath of God and in conclusion you tacitely contradict your self and act our cause Dialogu The nature of death intended in this Text is such as it was altogether impossible the Mediatour should suffer it Answ The distinction premised concerning death in sin and death for sin is here to be applied and accordingly the castigatory part of death in sin was intended to the sinner not to the surety The essentiall part of death for sin was intended to the surety not to the elect sinner The essentiall and circumstantiall poenall part of death in sinne and death for sin was intended for the Reprobate The Text must needs proceed according to this interpretation in respect of the elect There iâ— as good and greater reason why it should so proceed in respect of Christ it being much more impossible that he should suffer death in sinne that is become a sinner then that the elect sinners should suffer poenall i. e. properly-poenall death for sinne that is be damned though both be impossible Dialogu The death here threatned must be understood primarily of a spirituall death or death in sin Answ All that you say concerning spiritual death befalling Adam in the day that he sinned and therefore primarily inflicted is vain and impertinent for that denyeth not the inflicting of eternall death to be intended afterward nay it rather argueth eternall death to be primarily intended because not executed according to that Proposition That which is first in intention is last in execution That which is of the essence or substance of the punishment of sin is primarily in the curse and therefore primarily to be understood but death for sin not death in sin is of the essence of the punishment of sin as we saw in the first Distinction Chapter the first Instead of proving your assertion viz. That it was impossible for Christ to suffer any of the cursed death intended Gen. 2.17 your arguing only proves another thing viz. that the death here primarily intended was spirituall death i. e. death in sinne which Christ could not suffer and so you lose your Question Though it be granted that death in sin be here understood primarily yet if death for sinne be understood secondarily then this argument concludes not against Christs suffering any death intended but only against his suffering the death primarily intended in the text Though death in sin compared with eternal death be primarily intended in regard of Adams reprobate posterity yet it cannot be said it was primarily intended in respect of Adam himself if you will yield him to be saved and his elect posterity because that would imply eternall death to be secondarily intended which was never at all intended as concerning them Howsoever certain it is that death for sin as concerning the essentiall poenall part thereof is solely intended concerning Christ and death in sin not at all Dialogu Calvin in Gen. 2.17 demandeth what kinde of death it was that God threatned to fall upon Adam in this Text he answereth to this purpose It seemeth to me saith he that we must fetch the definition thereof from the contrary Consider saith he from what life Adam fell at the first saith he he was created in every part of his body and soul with pure qualities after the image of God therefore on the contrary saith he by dying the death is meant that he should be emptied of all the image of God and possessed with corrupt qualities as soon as ever he did but eat of the forbidden fruit Answ It is a vain question saith Calvin upon the place how God threatned death unto Adam in the day wherein he touched the fruit since he deferred the punishment unto a long time afterward Your labour to confirm Adams falling into death in sin the same day that he sinned is altogether impertinent the Question being Whether â—uch poenall death for sin is not here intended as it was possible for Christ to suffer Mihi definitio petenda ex opposito videtur tenendum inquaÌ„ est ex quâ vitâ homo ceciderit erat enim omni ex parte beatus Calvin in loc That poenall death for sin is here intended Calvin proveth though you omit his proof by the nature of opposites thus The death that he fell into was opposite to the good he fell from But the good he fell from was all kinde of blessednesse Therefore the death he fell into comprehended all kindes of misery This is the scope of his argumentation your mistake thereof though it is easily pardoned yet your other defect in the citation the Reader that compareth Calvin and the Dialogue together can hardly excuse Dialogu If there be good and necessary reason as there is to exempt our Mediatour from suffering the first cursed spirituall death then there is good reason also to exempt him from suffering any other curse of the Law whatsoever Answ The sum is Christ could not sinne Therefore he could not suffer the punishment due to the elect for sin as a surety a most reason-lesse and sick consequence and the contrary true He could not as Mediator and Surety have suffered satisfactorily the punishment for sinne if he had not been without sinne Though Christ was not a sinner inherently yet he was a sinner imputatively whereupon the substantiall curse of the Law was justly executed upon him Dialogu Examine the particulars of any other curse of the Law and they will be found to be such as Christ could not suffer Diseases naturall death putrefaction of body after death eternall death are curses of the Law Christ did not bear diseases and bodily infirmities yet by the common doctrine of imputation you must affirm it nor suffer naturall death in our stead nor see corruption nor suffer eternall death therefore he did not suffer the cursed death meant Gen. 2.17 Answ We are to distinguish between the sufferings which are of the essence or substance of the curse and those the inflicting whereof in particular is not of the essence of the curse Bodily diseases Putrefaction the duration of punishment for ever are not essentiall to the curse because the wrath of God may be suffered where these are not The Devils are not sick the reprobate that shall not die but be changed therefore not see coruption yet shall suffer the wrath of God No reprobates endure all miseries
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
and his instruments were all instruments herein In those effects wherein Satan and men are instruments God is the first and universall efficient not a meer counseller fore-speaker and permitter The efficiency of the second cause is the effect of the first cause Satan the Sabeans and Chaldeans were subordinate causes and instruments of Jobs sufferings yet he saith God hath taken away Job 1.21 So Joseph Gen. 45.8 David Psa 39 9. in cases much alike Satan and men were Instrumens in inflicting such a stroak therefore it is no stroak of divine vindicative justice is no good consequence All evils inflicted upon the reprobate whether corporall or spirituall are stroaks or acts of vindicative justice So often then as Satan or men are instrumentall in inflicting such evils so often Satan and men are instrumentall in stroaks of vindicative justice judicial punishment of sin with sin is an act of vindicative wrath but of this parents are instrumental in the propagation of original sin to their Reprobate children The spiritual distres of an excommunicate person that is a Reprobate is an effect of vindicative wrath But in such distresses Satan is instrumental 1 Cor. 5.5 That delusion of which 2 Thes 2.9 10 11 12. is an act of vindicative justice But in working it Satan and men are instrumentall Casting the wicked men into hell is also an act of vindicative justice in which Gods Angels are instruments Matth. 13.42 Creatures then both good and bad may be instruments of Gods vindicative wrath inflicted both on body and soul Yet we must distinguish between the wounds bruises and stripes inflicted upon Christ and the sin in inflicting of them Satan and his agents were the sole authours and actors of sin yet as concerning the wounds bruises stripes themselves though Satan and men were the subordinate instruments yet God himself was the Authour and principall efficient of them The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all Isa 53.6 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him vers 10. The sufferings of Christ included in this Text are not only such wherein Satan and men were Instruments but some of them were inflicted immediatly of God without any second means as instruments thereof Not only the body but the soul also is capable of bearing wounds bruises and stripes hence we reade of a wounded spirit Pro. 18.14 A wounded conscience 1 Cor. 8.12 The broken and bruised in heart Luke 4.18 The plague of the heart 1 King 8.38 The words proceeding from the very same Hebrew roots with the very words used in this Text are in the Scripture applied to the soul My soul is wounded within me Psa 119.22 A broken and a contrite spirit Psa 51.17 Receive instruction or castigation and not silver Pro. 8.10 which words proceed not only concerning corporeal but also concerning spiritual chastening Should the soul be supposed to be uncapable of wounds bruises chastenings properly yet experience shews it is capable of them metaphorically Satan being a spirit may have accesse unto and consequently both may and doth afflict the spirit 1 Cor. 5.5 Eph. 6.12 16. If Satan could not God can Christ suffered not only in body but in soul Isa 53.10 when thou shalt make his soul a sacrifice for sin My soul is exceeding sorrowfull even unto death Mat. 26.38 Mar. 14.13 His great heavinesse sore amazement agony sweat as it were drops of bloud Mar. 14.33 34. Luk. 2◠44 cannot be looked at in a person that was God-man as lesse then the effects of soul-sorrows hell-sorrows Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell The soul is by judicious and learned Authors understood properly Rivet Hell metaphorically that is for pains aequivalent to the pains of hell it self Parker de Desc l. 3. n. 62. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vir dolorū His sufferings are in the plurall number called passions not a single passion 1 Pet. 4.13 Death 's not a single death Isa 53 9. to shew as some conceive his sufferings both of soul and body He was a man of sorrows Isa 53.3 The word All Act. 13.29 is to be taken in a limited sense as you were told before for all that he was to suffer by them there mentioned not for all that he was to suffer He bare our sins in his body 1 Pet. 2.24 therefore our sins were imputed to him he bare them in his body but not only in his body he hung upon the tree being made a curse Gal. 3.13 The curse is not only bodily but spirituall As we were delivered from our sin so he bare our sin But we were delivered not only from the bodily but also from the spiritual punishment of sin Therefore Most aptly from the example of Christs suffering patiently the punishment of our sins he committed not are we exhorted to suffer patiently our chastisement for the sinnes which we have committed With good reason did he appeal in his sufferings unto the righteous Judge because though he suffered justly in respect of God yet he suffered most unjustly in respect of men The demonstration of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ is truly acknowledged as a subordinate end of his sufferings but the supream end you leave out namely the manifestation of the glory of Gods mercy tempered with justice Mercy to the elect justice unto Christ To declare I say at this time his righteousnesse or justice that he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Whilest you so often affirm the obedience of Christ to be meritorious and yet all along deny it to be performed in a way of justice you so oft affirm a contradiction The very nature of merit including justice for merit is a just desert or a desert in way of justice as Chap. 1. Dialogu I hold it necessary often to remember this distinction namely that Christ suffered both as a malefactor and as a Mediator at one and the same time Answ Though the notions of a Mediatour and a Malefactour are clearly distinct in themselves yet your distinguishing between Christ dying as a Mediatour and as a malefactor is unsound because it implieth that in dying as a Mediatour he died not as a Malefactor no not imputatively whereas to be a malefactor imputatively was for the times a part of his Mediatorly office and essentiall to the death of the Mediator The Dialogue makes him a malefactor in respect of mens false imputations only but denies any imputation of sin unto him by God Dialogu He bare our sins in his body upon the tree 1 Pet. 2.24 Peter means he bare the punishment of sin inflicted according to the sentence of Pilate in his body on the tree sin is often put for the punishment of sin Answ True sin is here taken for the punishment of sin though not only so but for the guilt of sin also 'T is true also that Christ in enduring the sufferings inflicted upon him by the Jews bare as you say our punishments and our sins i. e. the
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
of which Exo. 24.6 8. be called the first Covenant implying that the Covenant as dispensed under the Gospel is a second we are not to understand by the first and second two distinct Covenants but two distinct dispensations of one and the same Covenant By the Law in the first consideration faith is not required in the second Man stands obliged to faith in Christ conditionally viz. when God shall call for it in the third Faith is not only required but is a part of our obedience Unto whom also as to God the Father Son and holy Spirit our obedience is due not only according to the four first Commandments as the Dialogue speaks but also according to all the ten Commandments fullfill the Law of Christ Gal. 6.2 ye serve the Lord Christ Col. 3.23 24 The old Testament or Covenant saith Paraeus in its first and proper signification was the doctrine of spiritual grace Palam quidem sub conditione perfectae obedientiae rectè verò sub conditione paenitentiae fide Par. in Heb. 8. quest 1. promising eternal Salvation to the Fathers and dull people of the Jews openly indeed under the condition of perfect obedience unto the moral Law and threatning of eternall malediction except they fullfill it together with the unsupportable burthen of rites and yoke of the most strict Mosaical polity but secretly under the condition of faith in the Messiah to come prefigured with the shadows and the types of the Ceremonies that by this manner of doctrine-worship and polity a people of a stiffer neck might partly be tamed and be led by the hand as it were by a kinde of paedagogy unto Christ lying hid in those shadows thus Paraeus As the Gospel is called the Law of faith because it giveth salvation by faith without personall works so the first Covenant is called the Law of works because it requires works i. e. personall keeping of the Law unto salvation The observation of the Leviticall worship cannot be especially called the Law of works because it is a part of the Ceremoniall Law long before which was the Law of works besides its ceremonial leading us unto Christ takes us off from the Law of works and carieth us to the Law of faith CHAP. II. Of the Dialogues Arguments against the Imputation of Christs Obedience Dialogu I Cannot see how the common doctrine of Imputation can stand with Gods justice God cannot in justice impute our Saviours Legall obedience to us for our just righteousnesse or justification because it is point blank against the condition of the Legall Covenant so to do for the Legall promise of eternall life is not made over to us upon condition of Christs personal performance but upon condition of our personal performance Answ Mans desert by sin is such whence that God in justice cannot justifie him by the Law but mans desert is not such whence God in iustice cannot justifie him in another way Nothing is due to man according to justice but what God hath appointed the Law is not against the promises Gal. 3.21 God is just and the justifier of him that beleeveth Such was the demerit of sin Longè itaque ista differunt c. Rhetorf de oration exer 2. c. 3. why man according to justice could not be justified legally but not such why it should be unjust for God to justifie him Evangelically according to Gods righteous constitution Such was mans desert why he should not be justified by his own righteousnesse yet mans demerit not being absolute but having dependance upon Gods free constitution he could not deserve why God might not justifie him by the righteousnesse of another if he pleased If it were unjust for God to justifie otherwise then legally then it were unjust for God to justifie in the way of the Dialogue viz. by atonement or acceptilation without all legall obedience it is more against legall justification to justifie without legall obedience personal or otherwise then to justifie by the legall obedience of another Sophisma à limitato ad non limitatum the Dialogue by this reason fights as much or rather more against it self then against us the fallacy lieth in asserting that in an unlimited sense which holds only in a limited sense God cannot justifie man fallen legally ergò he cannot justifie man fallen Evangelically by the righteousnesse of another is not only a meer non-consequence in reason but also a Pestilence in religion Dialogu It 's evident that God never propounded the Law of works to the fallen sons of Adam with any intent at all that ever any of the fallen sons of Adam should seek for justification and atonement in Gods sight by Legall obedience but his intent was directly contrary for when he propounded the Legal promise of life eternal to the fallen sons of Adam he did propound it upon condition of their own personal obedience to allure them thereby to search into their own natural unrighteousnesse by this perfect rule of Legal righteousnesse so by this Law of life God intended chiefly to make the soul of the fallen sons of Adam to be sensible of their own spiritual death in corruption and sin thereby to provoke our souls to seek for life some other way viz. by the mediation of the Mediator promised So it follows by good consequence that God did never intend to iustifie any corrupt son of Adam by Legal obedience done by his own person nor yet by our Saviours obedience imputed as the formall cause of a sinners iustification or righteousnesse Answ God propounded the Law of works to man before the fall with the promise of justification and life in case of Legal obedience Though Gods intent in propounding the Law of works to man fallen were that man should seek that justification which was directly contrary unto Legal righteousnesse that nothing opposeth but rather maketh for justification by the righteousnesse of Christ for justification by our own righteousnesse and justification by the righteousnesse of another are directly contrary in regard of the manner of justification the matter oâ—â—â—stification is the same in both Covenants viz. Legal obedience but the way of attaining it is contrary that by personal righteousnesse this by the righteousnesse of another The principal use of the Law by accident is that seeing our selves uncapable of righteousnesse thereby to provoke the soul to seek for life some other way viz. by the mediation of the Mediatour promised so saith the Dialogue to be our Schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith Gal. 3.24 that is that we might be partakers of the righteousnesse of another so saith Paul Though the Ceremonial and Judicial Law with their discipline are ceased yet the Moral Law still continueth as a perpetual rule of obedience whereunto beleevers are bound not in order to justification but in way of thanks-giving As a School-master until Christ so long as there remains any of the Elect to be converted according to the ordinary way
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
our righteousnesse and justification This the Reader is desired to take full notice of it in the Dialogues corrupt sense being that Helena in defence whereof a good part of the ensuing discourse spends it self and the just confutation whereof here given and kept in minde may serve as an answer to the after frequent repetitions of the same thing That Atonement or pardon of sin only especially such as denieth the Legal Obedience of Christ imputed cannot be the righteousnesse of a sinner is proved thus The difference of the nature of justice and pardon of sin manifests that pardon of sin only is not justice or righteousnesse Pardon and sinlessenesse take away deformity in respect of the Law but righteousnesse consists in a conformity unto the Law Pardon of sin is an effect of that which is the sinners righteousnesse For the clearing whereof three distinct notions in the justification of a sinner are to be attended to 1. Righteousnesse it self i. e. the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed called by some justification taken actively or the application thereof on Gods part 2. The receiving of this gift of righteousnesse by faith Rom. 5.17 whereby we are just called by some justification taken passively or the application thereof on our part 3. Vid. Buch. loc 31 q. 6. Remissio peccatorum est pars nostrae justificationis sed non est pars nostrae justitiae Polan syntag p. 1493. The judicial pronouncing of the beleever in the Court of conscience hereupon to be just by the vertue of the promise of the Gospel for the merit sake of Christ this Divines call our justification because we are now declared to be just and are judicially just that is the Beleever now made righteous by faith is judicially discharged and declared to be discharged from the condemning guilt and punishment of sin and accepted as righteous unto eternall life The first is our righteousnesse or justice it self The second is our being justified The third is the judiciall pronunciation that we are justified so that pardon of sin is not a part of righteousnesse it self but a part of the judiciall sentence concerning one that is righteous and because he is righteous To say pardon of sin is righteousnesse is self is to confound the effect with the cause Whence the reason is plain why notwithstanding both righteousnesse or justice and the pardon of sins be by Divines frequently made ingredients into the definition of justification yet righteousnesse and pardon of sins are not to be looked at as the same thing Such definitions are not nor is it by the Authour thereof so intended perfect definitions adequate to thing defined but they are descriptions or imperfect definitions so expressed as best seems to communicate the truth unto the capacity of the reader Again Justification is an accident now Logicians teach us such definitions of accidents to be oftentimes helpful to the understanding that make use of other terms besides those which are essentiall If pardon of sin were a part of a sinners righteousnesse yet being but a part it could not be the whole Pardon of sin cannot compleat righteousnesse because righteousnesse doth not only consist in being sinlesse but also in being just the heavens are sinlesse yet they are not just the Law is not satisfied with negative obedience Not only he that doth do what the Law forbiddeth shall die Gen. 2.17 but he that continueth not in the things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 Being sinlesse acquits from obnoxiousnesse unto hell but being just giveth a right unto heaven There is an observable difference between being unjust Injustus non-injustus non-justus justus not-unjust not-just just The sinner yet not a beleever is unjust the unreasonable creature is not-unjust Adam in innocency was more then not-unjust yet was not just The Beleever is just There is no such pardon of sin as the Dialogue affirms namely such a pardon of sin as doth not only disown the Legal obedience of Christ imputed as its cause but also disclaims the very being of it The being of the Dialogues pardon is the not being of Christs active and passive mediatorly obedience to the Law It is such a fiction as the Authour of it and that at his conclusion undertaking to shew its being from the causes thereof Dial. p. 133. telleth us the formal cause is the fathers atonement pardon and forgivenesse but the subject matter is beleeving sinners of all sorts the subject matter are the persons receiving justification which some Divines call the matter of justification taken passively yet adding therewith the Legall obedience of Christ which they call the matter of justification taken actively namely that which is the matter whereby a person elect and called is justified but if you enquire after the essential matter of justification amongst the causes enumerated by the Authour behold the Dialogue is speechlesse and presents you with a form without a matter such a being as is neither created nor increated If Christs Legal obedience was the expiation of sin that is if Christ in way of obedient fulfilling the Law was a person accursed the sacrificing of whom in way of satisfaction to divine justice was necessary to the taking away of sin Then there is no pardon of sin without Christs Legal obedience so fulfilled and imputed But Christs Legal obedience was the expiation of sin which appeareth thus The Legal offerings of atonement were typical expiations of sin Exod. 29.36 ch 36. Lev. 16. therefore Christ was the reall expiation of sin He in way of obedient fulfilling of the Law Heb. 10 9. Psa 40.8 Mat. 5.7 was a person accursed and that with a paenal and eternal curse Gal. 3.13 which is already proved in the fore-going vindication of the Text. The sacrificing of whom in way of satisfaction to divine justice was necessary to the taking away of sin Isa 53.10 Rom. 3.26 Heb. 9.22 where bloud is understood synechdochically part of his suffering put for the whole his bloud was shed together with the wrath of God because it was shed as the bloud of a person accursed And he went a little further c. fell on his face c. praied saying O my Father if it be possible Let this cup passe from me to the same effect he praied the second time and the third time Mat. 26.39 42 44. If it be possible If it be possible If it be possible hereby the definitive way of God being set concerning the salvation of the Elect Christ abundantly sheweth there was no other possible way of redemption but by his drinking up the cup of his Fathers wrath for us whatsoever the Dialogue saith to the contrary God doubtlesse will not own those pardons for disobedience unto his Law which will not own Christs meritorious obedience to that Law and that as the cause of pardon If our very pardons minister matter of condemnation how great is that condemnation Who can lay
his satisfaction that is though some part of this obedience be more eminent then others yet the whole is not compleat without the least All the obedience of Christ makes but one obedience All his obedience is one copulative Merit Merit justly indebteth it is that whereunto the thing merited is due according to the order of justice Debt then according to the order of justice is so a debt as that in case God should not perform it he should not be just The application of the good of election to the redeemed becometh a just debt for the obedience sake of Christ by vertue of the Covenant between God and Christ wherein God hath in this sense freely made himself a debtor Isa 53.10 He is faithfull and just to forgive us our sin 1 Joh. 1.9 As Adams disobedience justly deserved condemnation so Christs obedience justly deserveth salvation for his seed His merit exceedeth Adams demerit Obj. Works and Grace are opposite Rom. 11.6 Buchan iust Theol. loc 31. qu. 16. How can merit consist with the Covenant of grace Ans The Covenant of grace denieth merit in the proper debtor but not in the surety It denieth merit in us but not in Christ In the Covenant of works man was capable of merit Rom. 3.23 in the Covenant of grace man is uncapable of merit so we are to understand Rom. 11.6 But to him that workerh not but beleeveth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is accounted for righteousnesse Our salvation cost Christ the full price though it cost us nothing at all The materiall cause The material cause of our justification is the whole course of the active and passive obedience of Christ together with his habituall conformity unto the Law As the matter of Adams justification in innocency had not consisted in one act of obedience but of a whole course of obedience the finishing of which was requisite to have made him just So it is with the obedience of Christ If the justification of a sinner consisteth not only in the not-imputation of sin but also in the imputation of righteousnesse then both the active and passive obedience of Christ are requisite to the matter of our justification But the justification of a sinner consisteth not only of the not-imputation of sin but also of the imputation of righteousnesse 'T is not enough for us not to be unjust but we must also be just Therefore Perfect obedience to the Law is the matter of our justification Gal. 3.10 But the whole obedience of Christ was requisite to the performance of perfect Obedience to the Law Therefore The whole obedience of Christ is requisite to the matter of our justification That righteousnesse of the Law which Christ fullfilled in our stead is the matter of our Justification But the righteousnesse of the Law which Christ fulfilled in our stead is compleated of his whole active and passive obedience together with his originall righteousnesse Therefore The difference between the obedience of Christ considered as an ingredient into the meritorious cause The difference between the obedience of Christ considered as an ingredient into the meritorious cause and considered as the matter of our justification and considered as the matter of our justification appeareth thus In the meritorious cause it is to be considered together with the person office and merit In the materiall cause it is considered as distinct from all these They are distinguished as cause and effect Obedience in the materiall cause is the effect of obedience considered in the meritorious cause They are distinguished as the whole and the part Christs obedience is but a part only of the meritorious but the whole of the materiall cause In the meritorious cause it is both a Legall and an Evangelicall act Christs obeying the Law is Legall but his obeying for us is Evangelicall in the materiall cause it is only an Evangelicall act it is given to us freely There it is considered as wrought by him for us here as applied to us There is as a garment made here as a garment put on There it may be compared to the payment of the money by the Surety here to the money as paid and accounted unto the use of the debtor As it is not the commission of our disobedience but the guilt and punishment that is imputed to Christ so it is not the formall working of obedience or doing of the command but the good vertue and efficacy thereof that is imputed unto the Beleever Obedience righteousnesse and life disobedience guilt which is a right unto punishment and punishment that is death answer one the other The formall cause of justification is imputation The formal cause Imputation is the actuall and effectuall application of the Righteousnesse of Christ unto a Beleever To impute reckon or account in this place intend the same thing the same word in Greek being indifferently translated by any of these Rom. 4. To impute is to reckon that unto another which in way of righteousnesse whether of debt or grace belongs unto him Imputation is either Legall imputing to us that which we have done so the word is used Rom. 4. or Evangelicall imputing to us that which another hath done Thus to impute is for God in his act of justifying a sinner to account the righteousnesse of Christ which is not ours formally nor by just debt to be ours by grace and that as verily and really ours as if it were wrought by us And in this sense the word is used ten times Rom. 4.3 5 6 8 9 10 11.22 23 24. The justification of a Beleever is either by righteousnesse inherent or imputed But not by righteousnesse inherent Therefore by righteousnesse imputed The righteousnesse whereby man is justified before God is perfect It were destructive to the merit of Christ and to turn the Covenant of grace into a Covenant of works to say we are justified by righteousnesse inherent in us The instrumentall cause of justification is faith We are justified by faith correlatively that is we are justified by that which is the correlate of faith namely the obedience of Christ The meaning is 't is the obedience of Christ not faith it self that justifieth i. e. that which is apprehended not that which doth apprehend Synop. par Theol. disp 33. n. 32. Twist l. 1. p. 1. de prae D. 3. f. 4. Med. l. 1. c. 20. The finall cause is the manifestation of the glory of mercy tempered with justice Of mercy in that he justifieth the ungodly Rom. 4 5. And that freely Rom. 3.24 Of justice in that he justifieth not without Christs full satisfaction unto the Law Rom. 3.26 CHAP. VIII Of the Dialogues examination of certain Arguments propounded by M. Forbes for the proving of justification by the Imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in his death and satisfaction Dialogu I Pray you produce some of his Arguments that they may be tried and examined whether there be any weight of truth
Nec putemus in verbis scripturarum esse Evangelium sed in sensu Hieron in Ep. ad Gal. ca. 1. If most pestilent doctrines have oftentimes been communicated in the language of the Scripture marvell not then that they are communicated in a language which doth not unbecome the Orthodox Neither let us saith Hierome speaking against the heresies of Ebion Photinus Marcion and Bafilides think the Gospel to be in the words of the Scripture but in the sense Who is ignorant that the Arrians speak heresie by that Text The Father is greater then I Joh. 14.28 or that the Papists idolatry by that Proposition This is my Body Mat. 26.26 And they who please may reade Pelagius by those words For that all have sinned or In whom all have sinned Rom. 5. August contra Julian l. 6. c. 12. 12. breathing forth no small seeds of Pelagianism so interpreting or rather corrupting of them as that he acknowledgeth not the meaning of them to be that all sinned in Adam wherein the Dialogue followeth him thereby laying a ground for the deducing the corruption of nature not to be by propagation as a penal effect of Adams sin but by way of imitation An error or heresie expressed by the words of the Scripture or the words of the Orthodox is never the lesse erroneous though so much the more dangerous This admonition here may suffice to preserve the Reader against the infection of the unchanged doctrine of the Dialogue notwithstanding the change of its voice Mediatorly obedience and atonement following thereupon being both according to the sense of the Dialogue and the sense of the Orthodox sufficiently understood out of what hath been said before CHAP. IX Of Atonement or Reconciliation Dialogu THe Fathers Atonement comprehendeth under it justification and adoption These two parts of the Fathers atonement or reconciliation are evident by the effects which all the Sacrifices of atonement under the Law did procure to poor beleeving sinners for all sacrifices of atonement under the Law did typifie Christs Sacrifice of atonement and they procured the Fathers atonement which hath a threefold effect towards poor beleeving sinners 1. All Sacrifices of Atonement in generall were ordained to procure a savour of rest unto Jehovah namely to procure a savour of rest to God the Father 2. The sin-offerings which were Sacrifices of atonement were ordained by God to procure Gods merciful atonement pardon and forgivenesse to poor beleeving sinners by which means only sinners are made sinlesse that is to say just and righteous in Gods sight 3. The burnt-offerings which also were Sacrifices of Atonement were ordained of God to procure his favourable acceptance towards poor beleeving sinners by receiving them into speciall favour as Adopted sinners Answ The Dialogue throughout all its Discourse concerning Atonement Par. 2. seemeth to understand pardon of sinne by atonement See pag. 151. and 162. here it seemeth by Atonement to understand reconciliation and so indeed it is to be understood The Reader is here desired to keep in minde that our Question is not Whether justification and Adoption are parts of Atonement The affirmative whereof the Authour therein following M. Wotton asserts in this place But whether the obedience of Christ be the matter of a sinners righteousnesse Although therefore that the Dialogue here said the truth yet it is impertinent according to the sense of the Orthodox neither making for nor against as concerning the matter of the controversie Atonement or Reconciliation as also Justification and Adoption are joint effects of the same cause viz. the Mediatorly obedience of Christ which was the Sacrifice of Atonement but it doth not therefore follow that Justification and Adoption are parts of atonement one joint or fellow-effect because a fellow-effect is not therefore a part of its fellow-effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though the Hebrew word that signifieth to cover sin and to expiate sin be translated atonement which Translation the Dialogue hath formerly followed and the Greek word signifying propitiation which is the same in effect with reconciliation be generally ascribed unto Chrsst Rom. 3.25 1 Joh. 2.2 and 4.10 the cause put for the effect because Christ is our propitiation causally Heb. 2.17 yet neither covering of sin nor the expiation of sin nor Christ himself is our reconciliation properly and formally pardon of sin is a necessary and inseparable antecedent Christ is the procurer and expiation holds forth the manner of procuring reconciliation but none of them are reconciliation it self Reconciliation in generall Reconciliation what Ex hoc colligimus duplicem reconciliationem in Scripturis confiderari unam generalem applicabilem in cruce peractam alteram particularem applicatam Dav. in Col. 1.23 is the restoring of friends after offence given and taken or taken though not given into the same condition of friendship wherein they were before the offence was given or conceived to be given The Scripture mentions reconciliation under a double notion either as procured Rom. 5.10 2 Cor. 5.19 Col. 1.20 or as applied Rom. 4.11 Colos 1.22 we speak of it in the last notion only Because man by reconciliation though he be restored into a better yet is not rrstored into the same estate formally wherein he was before the fall for then though he was a son Luke 3.38 and in a state of favour with God yet he was not just nor was his condition immutable but now being reconciled he is not only just but also in a state of speciall favour a son and his condition immutable hence it may be described thus Evangelicall reconciliation is a transient act of Gods special grace whereby a beleever for the sake of Christ who is the propitiation for our sin received by faith is restored into an estate of everlasting favour son-ship and one-ness of spirit Reconciliation notes a change of the parties reconciled August in Joan. tract 110. and consequently a change both in respect of God and man on Gods part it infers no change in respect of affection but in respect of the manifestation of his love and dispensation God alwaies loveth the persons of the elect Lomba l. 3. dist 19. dist 32. Thom. p. 3. q. 49. art 4. ad 2. Calv. instit l. 2. c. 16. sect 2 3 4. Dav. Col. 1.20 the love of God is an immanent act and is nothing else but God himself loving To affirm any change in God in respect of his affection were to affirm that God is unconstant and mutable to deny his immutability and by consequence to deny him to be God By reconciliation Gods affection is not changed but Gods dispensation and our condition and disposition That is taken away by the Mediatorly obedience of Christ in respect of which God might justly have been angry with us for ever and proceeded against us unto just condemnation In respect of man it notes a change in regard of state relation and disposition A state of favour and adoption are essentiall unto therefore