pain of losse essentially and principally Thirdly It is impertinent holding only as we saw before concerning the pain of losse accidentally but not essentially though this last be the only and very question between us This description of the Dialogue laid as a foundation of the following Discourse being overthrown what we shall finde built thereupon must needs fall with it which before we proceed unto it may be seasonable here to present the Reader with a true description of the pain of loss in stead of this erroneous description of the Authour The pain of losse taken essentially is an universall privation of the fruition of the good of the promise The pain of losse taken essentially and circumstantially is the universall privation of the fruition of the good of the promise together with the totall and finall absence of those good things which flow not from the curse as such but are effects of justice upon the damned in respect of the condition of the Patient viz. dis-union with God privation of his image in the soul and desperation Dialogu For as the favour of God through Christ is the fountain of life because it is the beginning of eternal life Psa 36.9 so on the contrary to be totally separated from Gods favour by an eternall separation must needs be the beginning of hell-torments or of death eternall Answ If the Dialogue intends the favour of God to be the beginning of eternall life only causally then this comparison is instituted between the formall beginning of eternall death and the causall beginning of eternall life so it is vain as to the purpose intended if it intends the favour of God in Christ taken properly to be the beginning of eternall life formally then it is false for the favour of God in Christ which is the fountain of life is increated and without beginning and is nothing else but Election the first cause of our good Eternall life whose beginning and continuance is of the same nature is created and hath a beginning though it be without an end and is the effect of this first cause the Dialogue therefore confounding the favour of God with the beginning of eternall life formally doth as much as say the cause is the effect and that which is increated is created If the comparison were in it self good yet it is impertinent concluding only concerning the pain of losse taken accidentally not as taken essentially which last must alwaies be remembred to be the sense of the Question Dialogu God doth not forsake the Reprobates so long as they live in this life with such a totall forsaking as he doth after this life yea the very Devils themselves as long as they live in this world being Spirits in the air are not so forsaken of God as they shall be at the day of judgement for as yet they are not in hell but in this air and therefore they have not their full torments as yet Answ Then the pain of losse consists not in the meer want of the favour or love of God for the Reprobates whether men or devils in this life or in the air are alwaies hated of God Gods love and hatred are eternall and immutable Vide Pisc in 2 Pet. 2.4 The devils being deprived of the image of God after which they were created and being under a degree of eternal death in respect of their malice final despair and present sufferings in part their condition doubtlesse is rather a condition of death then of life The Dialogue needlesly here ventureth to tell us that the devils are not in hell though Peter saith God cast them down to hell and John telleth us Rev. 20.3 that the devil was bound a thousand years and cast into the bottomlesse pit the same word with that which is used by the Legion of devils concerning the place they feared when they besought Christ that he would not command them thither Luke 8.31 Dialogu And yet this pain of losse may a little further be explained by opening the term Second death which may be in part described by comparing it with the first death which I have at large described to be our spirituall death or a losse of the life of our first pure nature I may call it a death in corrupt and sinfull qualities as I have opened Gen. 2.17 yea all other miseries which fall upon us in this life till our bodies be rotten in the grave I call them altogether the first death because they do all befall us in this world therefore on the contrary the second death must needs imply a deeper degree of sinful qualities then did befal us under the first death Answ Whether eternall death be called the second death to contra-distinguish it from the death of the body or death in sin or both as the first death As it is not materiall to the point in hand so neither need we labour about it though the Text Mat. 10.28 seemeth rather to oppose it to the death of the body by its separation from the soul as also the coherence Rev. 2.13 20.6 14. And if the first death is taken for death in sin and the full measure of sin as the Dialogue speaketh be included in the second death the opposition lieth rather between a bodily death and eternall death then between the first and second death for so far the first and second death are as two degrees of the same death not two kindes of death whereas bodily death and eternall death are two kindes of death Yea forasmuch as eternall death followeth bodily death and bodily death followeth death in sin there would then be three deaths viz. death in sin death of the body and death of the body and soul in hell and so it should be called the third not the second death Dialogu And thus this very term Second death doth plainly tell us that it is such a degree of death as surpasseth all the degrees of death in this life and that the full measure of it cannot be inflicted upon any man till this life is ended and then their end shal be without mercy Jam. 2.13 Answ The term Second being a word of order teacheth that eternal death in that it is called the second death is in Gods ordinary dispensation inflicted after the first death but it shews not the nature of eternal death The reason why eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body is partly because of the inability of the nature of man in this present state of mortality to endure the wrath of God without separation of the soul from the body but chiefly because this bodily death puts a period to our capacity of having any part in the first resurrection i.e. of regeneration whereby the second death is only prevented Though for these and other reasons the paenall wrath of God viz. eternall death be inflicted after bodily death yet it thence followeth not that the paenall wrath of God cannot be inflicted but according
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
from the words cited by him out of Maimony or yours out of him the Atonement rightly understood is so farre from opposing that it presupposeth satisfaction to divine justice by the surety of the meritorious cause thereof Dialogu If Gods imputing of the sins of the Elect to Christ was the cause of Gods extreme wrath upon him then by the same reason Christ doth still bear the wrath of God for Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much as ever be bare them upon earth Answ Christ on earth suffered the wrath of God that is the execution of divine justice because then he stood as a surety to satisfie the curse due for sin Isa 53.10 But having satisfied it Joh. 19.30 Col 2.14 the same justice that before punished him now acquits him Rom. 8.34 If the debtor be discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the surety is free the same justice that holds the surety obliged to the creditor whilest the debt is unpayed acquits him when the debt is payed CHAP. VII The Vindication of 2 Cor. 5.21 2 Cor. 5.21 God made him to be sin for us which knew no sin Dialogu THe meaning of these words is not that he was made sin for us by Gods imputation but that he was made sin for us that is to say a sacrifice for our sin sin is often used for a sin-offering sacrifices for sin are often called sin the word Made is a word of Election and Ordination Answ He was made sin for us as we were made righteousnesse that is by judiciall imputation without the violation yea with the establishing of justice he was made sin as he was made a curse Gal. 3.13 the Greek used here and there are the same But he was made a curse by judiciall imputation Because he was the sin-offering in truth therefore he was made sin by reall imputation as the legall sin-offering was made sinne by typical Imputation The summe of what you say touching the word Made to be a word of Election or Ordination how improperly soever concluding that God ordained concerning Christ so as he might make his soul a sin-offering concludes not against but consequently for us and against you from the typicall nature of a sin-offering Of which in the fore-going Chapter Dialogu The Apostle doth explain the word Sin Psal 40.6 thus for sin Heb. 10.6 therefore seeing the Apostle doth explain the word Sin by the particle for I may well conclude that Christ was not made sin by Gods Imputation Answ What David expresseth by Sin Psal 40.6 is expressed by For sin Heb. 10.6 both places intend the sin-offering therefore you still argue against your self and for us it is called a sin-offering because sin was typically imputed to it it is said to be for sin because it was offered for the expiation of sin the same offering is said to be a sin-offering in respect of its nature and said to be for sin that is for the expiation of sin in respect of its use the use of a thing destroyeth not the nature of it The particle For besides the taking away of sin notes the manner of its taking away viz. by way of expiation Dialogu The water of purification from sin is called sinne Numb 19.9 the money employed to buy the publique sacrifice for sinne is called trespasse-money 2 King 12.16 and in this sense God made Christ to be sinne Answ The water that did typically purifie from sin is metonymically called sin Numb 19.9 the money that was to buy the sin-offering 2 King 12.16 is also figuratively called sin and Christ who is the tru◠sin-offering is said to be made sin 2 Cor. 5.21 true Therefore For Christ to be made sin is not to have sinne imputed to him Vide Bezam in Gal. 3.13 is a meer non sequitur If Christ be made sin for us in the same sense that the water of purification and trespasse-money are called sinne then Christ is made sinne only figuratively consequently suffered for sin figuratively not properly the elect also are saved figuratively and not properly To say God made Christ to be sin not by imputing their sin to him but by ordaining him to be a sin-offering is as if you should say God made Christ sin not by imputing sin to him but by ordaining him to have sin imputed to him If sin was imputed to him consequently the guilt of sin was imputed which we here affirm and you deny Dialogu Isaiah tells that Christ made himself a trespass or a guilt for us Isa 53.10 and if Christ made himself a trespasse for us by imputing all our trespasses to himself then he must likewise inflict upon himself all the curses of the Law that are due to us for our trespasses Answ If Isaiah tels us Christ made himself a guilt for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubtlesse it is a truth The Hebrew word is not made himself but if his soul shall set it self God chargeth Christ with sin as the supream Law-giver and Judge Christ accepts the charge as a surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of justice which is the part of a surety but doth not execute that justice which is the part of a Judge so Isaiah and Paul do not only sweetly agree with the Leviticall phrase but Isaiah Paul and Moses jointly agree with us against you Paul saith Christ was made sin that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him Rom. 3.26 that is that we might be justified The same Paul saith That the Beleever in Christ is so justified as that God is just which cannot be without a judiciall imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety So when Paul saith Christ is made sin he means by judiciall Imputation of the guilt and punishment of sinne Doubtlesse Paul to the Corinthians agreeth with Paul to the Romans CHAP. VIII The Vindication of Mat. 26.37 Mar. 14.33 Luke 22.53 Dialogu MAthew saith that Christ was sorrowfull and grievously troubled chap. 26.37 Mark saith that he was sore afraid and amazed chap. 14.33 Luke saith that Christ was in an agony chap. 22.53 Christ made all this adoe about a bodily death only Answ If words have their taste as Elihu implieth Job 34.4 then your expression of the dolorous passion and lamentation of the Lord Jesus by that phrase of making this ado for I beleeve it 's not the language of any Orthodox writer ordinarily used by way of diminution and rebuke argueth a minde not affected as becomes a Christian with the sufferings of his Saviour Dialogu But how do you prove this sorrow and complaint to have proceeded ftom the fear of a bodily death only Answ Only do but consider what a horrid thing to humane nature the death of the body is then consider that Christ had a true humane nature and therefore why should be not be troubled with the fear of death as much as his humane nature could be without sin Because Regular affections such
your Exposition were good and full yet it is impertinent unto the argument taken from the first verse The cause of the fainting of his spirit illustrated from a comparison of melting wax was neither only nor chiefly his suffering from the wrath of men but from the wrath of God Dialogu Thou hast brought me unto the dust of death vers 15. God doth not so bring Christ unto the dust of death as he doth other men namely not so as death is laid upon man for sin Gen. 3.19 Answ The Scripture mentioneth no other death then what is inflicted justly for sinne and M. Ainsworth whom the Dialogue often cites seemeth to understand death to be laid upon Christ according to the sense of Gen. 3.19 expresly quoting that Text in his Commentary upon this Verse But do you shew the difference between the death of Christ and the death of other men whence it may appear that death was not laid upon Christ for sin Dialogu But for the better understanding of the true difference I will distinguish upon the death of Christ for God appointed him to die a double kinde of death 1. As a Malefactor and 2. As a Mediatour and all this at one and the same time 1. He died as a Malefactor by Gods determinate counsell and decree he gave the devil leave to enter into Judas to betray him and into the Scribes and Pharisees and Pontius Pilate to condemn him and to do what they could to put him to death and in that respect God may be truly said to bring him into the dust of death Gen 3.19 2. Notwithstanding all this Christ died as a Mediator and therefore his death was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor for as he was our Mediatour he separated his own soul from his body by the power of his God-head All the Tyrants in the world could not separate his soul from his body Joh. 19.11 no not by all the torments they could devise till himself pleased to actuate his own death by the joint concurrence of both his natures Joh. 10.18 Answ The plain meaning of the Authour in this distinction is Christ died as a Malefactor only though unjustly in the Jews account but not as a Mediatour As a Mediatour only in Gods account but not as a Malefactor This distinction in name but in truth a Sophism is used as a crutch to support the halting doctrine of the non-imputation of sin unto Christ Christs death as a Mediatour saith the distinction was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor the Jews are said to put Christ to death because they endeavoured to put him to death but did not separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death so is the distinction expresly interpreted pag. 100. If Christs death was a suffering then the formall cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body so often mentioned by the Dialogue otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter yea and in this case his own Executioner which last the Dialogue it self expresly rejecteth But the Dialogue resuming and insisting further upon this distinction elsewhere let the fuller speaking thereunto be referred till then Though Haman according to the true sense of that Text Est 8.7 be said to lay his hand upon the Jews yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman Abraham is said to have offered up Isaac yet Isaac is no where said to be slain by Abraham as Abraham did sacrifice Isaac so was Isaac sacrificed that is interpretatively or virtually not actually But how often do we reade in Scripture that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews Act. 2.37 4.10 1 Cor. 2.8 By this reason it may be said that the Jews only endeavoured to offer violence unto Christ and put him to smart but did not actually and really because they could do neither without the permission of the Divine nature nor did either without both his Mediatorly permission and consent The Jews accounting of Christ as of a Malefactor or Transgressor was that the Scripture might be fullfilled Mat. 15.28 and was just in respect of God though unjust in respect of them Christ in Gods account suffered not only as a Mediator but also as a malefactor or transgressor i. e. a sinner imputatively in respect of the guilt and punishment of sin he was such a Mediator to whom it was essentiall for the time to be a Malefactor that is to suffer the guilt and punishment of sin The Priesthood was essentiall to the Mediatour To be a sacrifice for sin was essentiall to the Priesthood Isa 53.10 Therefore to be a sacrifice for sinne was essentiall to the office of a Mediatour As Christ was by office so he died Christ died not only as a Mediatour Heb. 8.6 but also as a surety Heb. 7.22 He shall bear their iniquity Isa 53.11 Bajulabit as a Porter bears a burthen and that upon the Tree 1 Pet. 2.24 He was made sin 2 Cor. 5.21 Christ separated his soul from his body as a subordinate cause not as a principall efficient that is as a surety by voluntary yeelding and offering up his life Heb. 9.24 but not as an executioner We reade Joh. 10.18 that Christ laid down his life but not that he took it away by violence the same word that is here used concerning Christ Peter hath concerning himself I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13.37 and John hath concerning Christ and the Saints because he laid down his life for us we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren 1 Joh. 3.16 But it was not lawfull for Peter or the Saints to take away their own lives Though Christ by his absolute power could have preserved his life against all created adversary power none taketh it from me namely against my consent whether I will or not Joh. 10.18 yet by his limited power he could not but as our surety he was bound to permit the course of physicall causes and prevailing of the power of darknesse for the fullfilling of what was written concerning him This is your hour and the power of darknesse Luke 22.53 The Jews therefore doing that which according to the order of second causes not only might but also through his voluntary and obliged permission did take away his life did not only endeavour but also actually kill him Yet suppose the Jews were not instrumentall in the actuall taking away of his bodily life it is a meer non-consequence thence to inferre the non-imputation of sin unto Christ Briefly as this distinction is a meer sophisme and groundlesse so the discourse concerning the Jews endeavouring to put Christ to death but not really putting him to death making Christ to take away his own life and consequently to be his own Executioner is false and impertinent For which though the Jews may owe the Authour some thanks
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
according to Gods determinate counsell was tried through sufferings inflicted upon his body as upon a Malefactor by Satan and his Instruments Answ Neither the merit of Christ without his mediatorly obedience nor his mediatorly obedience without his merit but both conjoyned are the meritorious price whence according to the language of the Orthodox the mediatorly obedience of Christ is the meritorious price of our redemption but this manner of speech the Dialogue declines chusing rather to expresse it self by affected if not ambiguous terms viz. Christ payed the price of our redemption by the merit of his Mediatoriall obedience the meaning of which Sibboleth we shall soon see The Question between the Orthodox and the Dialogue is not whether the Mediatorly obedience of Christ be a meritorious price of redemption but whether the Mediatorial obedience of Christ in the Dialogue be the Mediatorly obedience of Christ So that hitherto you do but beg not state the Question or rather boast of a question begged then state a Question to be disputed That part of the Controversie which concerns Mediatorly obedience shall be truly stated in its due place It is very true that the Mediatorly obedience of Christ is the meritorious and full price of redemption but most untrue in the sense of your Mediatorial obedience for you leave out and reject from thence Christs obedience to the Law of works as God-man his judiciall bearing of sin his suffering the punishment due for sin in way of satisfaction to divine justice Sustinent quidem sed non ita ut usquam satisfaciant justitiae Dei Ursin Ex. plic Catech. par 2. q. 17 and all this as the Surety of the elect without which the Mediatorly obedience of Christ is insufficient and uneffectuall for we cannot bear sin nor endure the punishment of sin so as to satisfie the justice of God nor can we perform legall obedience yet all these must be suffered Gen. 2.17 overcome 1 Cor. 15.17 and done Lev. 18.5 otherwise no salvation Gal. 3.10 otherwise sin still reigns the curse hath dominion and justice remaineth in its full force to the execution of eternall death The Mediatorly obedience of Christ being by your leaving out these essentiall parts thereof made unsufficient there can be no mediatorly sacrifice satisfaction price or any merit therein or therefrom The triall of Christs Mediatorly obedience lay in the greatnesse of those sufferings which as Mediator he was to undergo and was so much greater in respect of God then it was in respect of Satan and his instruments as the sufferings of the soul exceed the sufferings of the body the just charge of all the sinnes of the elect the unjust charges of men and as the righteous wrath of God exceeded the unrighteous wrath of Satan and his agents Dialogu I put as much worth and efficacy in Christs Mediatorial obedience so tried as they do that pleade most for our redemption by his suffering Gods wrath for us Answ If you did not say so your Reader might well dread hearkening to such a Mediatoriall obedience which the Teacher thereof durst not professe to be saving Though you do say so yet if you say not the truth your so saying makes your doctrine never the more safe but so much the more perilous as by such specious pretences it is rendred more apt to be received Aarons Calf was never the lesse an Idol notwithstanding those glorious words spoken of it these are thy Gods that brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt Exo. 32.8 the fictitious Mediatorial obedience of the Dialogue is no whit altered from it self howsoever guilded over with the falsly arrogated attributes of the obedience of Christ Dialogu They place the price of our Redemption in his suffering Gods wrath for us in the full weight and measure as it is due to our sins by the Curse of the Law I place the price of our redemption in the merit of his Mediatorial obedience whereof his Mediatoriall sacrifice of Atonement was the Master-piece Answ We place it not only in Christs sufferings but both in Christs sufferings and Gods acceptation the worth of a thing and the price are to be distinguished Vid. Cham l. 9. p. 121. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Materialiter Formaliter Rhetorf the full worth may be tendred by the buyer but the worth is not a price without the acceptation of the seller Ahab offers the worth of the vineyard 1 Kin. 21.21 but it was not a price without Naboths consent though the obedience of Christ being the obedience of God-man was of infinite vertue in it self yet it could not have obliged God to the acceptation thereof nor make him a debtor thereunto without his consent What to judge of your mediatoriall obedience we saw before which being null its merit price and sacrifice must needs perish with it Dialogu I agree with others in this that divine wrath is fully satisfied for the sins of the Elect by the merit of Christs Mediatoriall obedience I differ from others in this namely in the manner of his satisfaction I say that Christ did not suffer Gods wrath for our sins by suffering the extremity of his wrath neither did he suffer the torments of hell neither in his body nor in his soul nor any degree of Gods wrath at all Answ No no you agree not with us in this that divine wrath is fully satisfied but deal therein like Epicurus who in his disputation concerning the Gods abused the hearers with yeelding that verbally which he took away really so while you yeeld verbally that divine wrath is fully satisfied you steal away the truth from the lesse wary Reader really for in the very next line but one you say Christ did not satisfie Gods wrath for our sins by suffering so much as any degree of Gods wrath at all And though you would seem to qualifie and hide your vast and sad diffâ—rence from us saying you differ from us in respect of the manner yet you cannot but know full well that you differ from us not only in the manner but also in the matter of Christs satisfaction Whilest you deny and oppose what you know we affirm and defend namely Christs suffering of the wrath of God and that in way of satisfaction to divine justice For the confirmation whereof give me leave upon this occasion to insert an argument otherwise somewhat out of its place Such meritorious mediatorly obedience as indebted to God in point of justice to remit the just punishment of sin without any violation of justice nay with the establishment of justice must needs be done in such a way of satisfaction unto justice as includes also a suffering of justice But the meritorious mediatorly obedience of Christ is such meritorious mediatorly obedience whereby God is indebted in point of justice to remit the just punishment of sin If we confesse our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins 1 Joh. 1.9 without any violation of
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
offender Lev. 17.4 Or that which is not his properly but as a legall Surety only So Philemon may put Onesimus his debt on Paul ver 18. or that which though it be not his properly yet is his in a way of grace So the word Impute is used ten times Rom. 4. Distinguish between the nature of sinne and the guilt of sin and there will be no cause to say with Socinus that it is against justice to impute sin understanding thereby the guilt of sin unto an innocent person especially upon these considerations 1. If the innocent be of the same nature with the nocent Ursin Paraeus in Rom. 5. Dub. 5. 2. If he voluntarily undertake the paenal satisfaction of the debt 3. If he can satisfie the punishment 4. If he can thereby free others from the punishment which they cannot undergo 5. If in this satisfaction he looks at the glory of God and the good of man It is therefore not only a perillous untruth but a high blasphemy to say and that without any distinction should God impute our sin to our innocent Saviour he should be as unjust as the Jews were The meer imputation of the guilt of sin doth no more infer a participation with the commission of sin then the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ inferreth a participation in the working thereof Dialogu If our Mediator had stood as a guilty sinner before God by his imputing of our sins to him Then he could not have been a fit person in Gods esteem to do the office of a Mediator for our Redemption Answ As it was requisite that Christ should be without sin i. e. without the commission of sin Heb. 7.26 So it was requisite that Christ should be made fin i. e. that the guilt of sin should be legally imputed to him 2 Cor. 5.21 both were necessary to make him a meet Mediator You erre not distinguishing according to the Scripture Dialogu The common doctrine of imputation is I know not what kinde of imputation it is such a strange kinde of imputation it differs from all the severall sorts of imputing sin to any that ever I can meet withall in all the Scriptures Answ It is a judiciall imputation of that unto a person which is not his properly but made his by way of voluntary and both Legall and Evangelicall account If you know not what kinde of Imputation it is the being of things depends not upon mans knowledge much lesse upon his ignorance but upon the will of God notwithstanding the term of imputation in this sense were not in the Scripture yet the thing intended by it is The terms of essence trinity satisfaction merit c. are not in the Scripture expresly yet are they acknowledged generally to be contained in the Scripture by just consequence because the things contained by those terms are found therein expresly The very term Impute taken for judicial imputation of that unto a person which is not his properly yet reckoned to be his in a way of grace is as was said before ten times used Rom. 4. Your other Reasons for what you assert which you promise immediatly before we shall expect in their place CHAP. IV. The Vindication of Isa 53.4 5. Isa 53.4 Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows Dialogu HE saith not only saith M. Jacob that he sustained sorrows but our sorrows yea the Text hath it more significatively our very sorrows or our sorrows themselves that is to say those sorrows that else we should have born Answ This Exposition of M Jacob understood according to that distinction premised Chap. 1. M. Jacob on Christs Sufferings p 33. is both solid and acute and that this Learned Authour is so to be interpreted his own words sufficiently argue Dialogu The Evangelist Mathew hath expounded this text in a quite contrary sense Mat. 8.17 saying that this Text was fullfilled when Christ did bear our infirmities and sicknesses from the sick not as a Porter bears a burthen by laying them on his own body but bear-them away by his own power Answ That the Prophet in this Text by griefs and sorrows intends sufferings due to us for sinne is plain from the scope of the Chapter and the comparing of the 4. and 5. verses with 1 Pet. 2.24 that by bearing those griefs and sorrows he intends Christs bearing them in our stead appears ver 5 6 8 10 11 12. of this chapter as also from the collation of the two Hebrew words used in this very place for though Nasa he hath born be of more generall use signifying sometimes to bear as a Porter beareth a burthen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes otherwise yet Sabal he hath carried signifying properly to bear as one beareth a burthen restraineth the sense of the former word and limits it to the received interpretation This Text therefore in Isaiah may either be understood as a compound Proposition containing these two truths 1. That Christ should bear our spirituall griefs and sorrows for us 2. That he should heal bodily diseases as a type and figure of his bearing our spirituall griefs and sorrows Piscat in Mat. 8.17 Veritas magis quid quam figura habere debet ficut dicitur plus hic est quaÌ„ Jonas Park l. 3. de Desc n. 63. Dialogu So the word fullfilled in Mathew is true properly of the type or specimen and symbolicaly or typically of the thing signified or the word fullfilled in Mathew is taken figuratively i. e. metonymically viz. the sign namely healing bodily diseases put for the thing signified namely a healing-bearing of spiritual diseases That of your coherence which concerns the question is already answered the rest is either impertinent or uncontroverted Isa 53.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities The chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed These words I confesse do plainly prove that Christ did bear divers wounds bruises and stripes for our peace and healing but yet the Text doth not say that he bare these wounds bruises and stripes of Gods wrath for our sins 1. It was Satan by his instruments that wounded and bruised Christ according to Gods prediction Gen. 3.15 2. Christ bare these wounds bruises and stripes in his body only not in his soul for his soul was not capable of bearing wounds Satan could not wound his soul the Jews fullfilled all his sufferings Act. 13.27 29. Peter expounds the Text of his bodily sufferings only 1 Pet. 2.24 If Peters phrase He bare our sins in his body on the Tree had meant any thing of his bearing Gods wrath for our sinnes the case of his sufferings had not been a fit example to exhort to patience his appeal to God had â—ot been suitable 3. The end was a triall of his mediatoriall obedience and our peace Answ Satan by his instruments did wound and bruise him true but not only Satan by his instruments Satan
essentiall part of our punishment due to us for our sin From your own words I inferre then Christ bare our punishment and our sins either in the account of the Jews or in the account of God Not in the account of the Jews they charged them as his proper crimes without any regard to the sins of the elect therefore he bare our punishment and our sins in the account of God In that then Christ suffered punishment Paraus in Heb. 10. and bare our sin in the account of God it followeth Christ bare guilt in the account of God because guilt and punishment are relates Punishment doth not only signifie a suffering but such a suffering that is suffering for offence in way of justice Had Christ suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment thus whilest you acknowledge Christ to have born punishment and born sin and that by just consequeoce at least in the account of God and yet deny the imputation of sinne you run your self into a contradiction He bare our sins in his body but not only in his body Body is here taken synechdochically both for body and soul a part of the humane nature for the whole he bare them upon the tree that is he bare the curse due to sin Gal 3.13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree he bare the morall curse which was the truth signified by the Ceremoniall curse Deut. 21.23 the morall curse extendeth both to soul and body Dialogu I will shew you how Christ did bear our sins divers waies in several senses 1. When he bare away our diseases as I have expounded Isa 53 4. 2. As our Priest and sacrifice as I have expounded Isa 53.5 3. As a Porter bears a burden as I have expounded 1 Pet 2.24 4. When he did patiently bear our sinful imputations and false accusations and imputations of the malignant Iews Psa 40.12 Psa 69.5 In these words Christ doth not complain or grudge against his father for his imputing of our sins unto him as the common doctrine of Imputation doth make the stream of Interpreters to speak Answ How the Dialogue hath not only not expounded nor only mis-interpreted but corrupted the three former texts viz. Isa 53.4 5. 1 Pet. 2.24 We have seen before 'T is very true that Christ bare our sins as our Priest and sacrifice and as a porter bears a burden yea as a surety but very false that he bare them only in your sense Scripture is in sense and not in sound only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Your calling of the Jews unjust criminations of Christ sometimes our sinful imputations sometimes the false accusations of the Jews sounds too harsh without a distinction 'T is true that Psal 40.12 and Psal 69.5 hold forth a type of Christ complaining under the injuries of the Jews from which their false imputations are not excluded though neither of them only nor chiefly To complain unto God is blamelesse and no grudging To cemplaln against God is a sin and sheweth grudging M. Ainsworth whom you oft make use of in his notes on Psal 69.5 is amongst those who acknowledge sin to be in Christ by imputation yet your conscience herein appealed unto where did you ever reade in him or any other orthodox Interpreter that Christ complained against God as say you the common doctrine of Imputation doth make the stream of Interpreters to speak CHAP. V. The Vindication of Isa 53.6 Isa 53.6 All we like sheep have gone astray we have turned every one to his own way and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all Dialogu THe Lord laid not the sin of the Elect upon Christ by imputation The true manner how the Lord laid all our iniquities upon Christ was the very same manner as the Lord laid the sinnes of Israel upon the Priest and sacrifice and no other Answ If he laid them no otherwise on the Antitype then upon the type then sin was laid typically only and not in truth upon Christ consequently the type and the antitype are confounded and those types are so many untruths yea we are yet in our sins But whatsoever your words are we presume your meaning is The types instanced in did not typically hold forth any imputation of sin unto Christ the antitype How then did the Lord lay the sins of Israel upon the Priest and upon the sacrifice Dialogu The Priest bare the iniquity of the holy things by his Priestly appearing before Iehovah with his priestly apparrell especially with the golden plate Exo. 28.38 he bare the iniquity of the Congregatton by eating the peoples sin-offering in the holy place to make atonement Lev. 10.17 The Lord laid all our sins upon Christ as upon our sacrifice Isa 53.12 where dying bearing sin intercession are Synonima's He bare the sins of men namely by his Mediatoriall sacrifice God laid all our sins upon Christ as our sacrifice of atonement In this sense Paul explaineth the Levitical bearing of sin Heb. 9.26 28. Answ It is not requisite to the nature of a type in all respects to answer the Antitype Similitudo non currit quatuor pedibus Paraeus Log. 122. Figura non habet quodcunque habet veritas but to testifie and according to the pleasure of the Authour to exemplifie the thing typified Logick refers types to similitudes and you know the Proverb Similitudes run not on four feet there is alwaies some dislikenesse between the parts of the comparison Ionah was a type of Christ lying dead in the grave yet Ionah though he lay in the Whales belly did not lye dead there Put case you produce a type which holdeth not forth bearing of sin by imputation in the Antitype except it may appear that the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended you conclude nothing Aaron the High-Priest wearing the golden plate upon his forehead having engraven therupon HOLINESSE TO THE LORD typified rhe perfect holinesse in Christ by reason of the Divine nature whereby he was able effectually to bear and bear away sin What is here against Imputation nay it is implied in the Priesthood of Aaron The Priests Lev. 10.17 by eating the peoples sin-offering declared by that act together with the fore-mentioned appearing in their stead confessing of their sin and offering sacrifice for them that by divine institution they took upon them typically to make atonement for their sin Hereby it is more plainly figured that Christ should bear away our sin by bearing it in our stead This Text maketh against you It is very true God laid our sins upon Christ as our sacrifice Isa 53.12 therefore say we by imputation for Christs sacrifice is his voluntary and obedient yeelding himself unto death according to the Covenant of God in a way of satisfaction to divine justice for sin and meritorious expiation of sin
q. 3. Cyril de rectâ fide ad Theod. Calv. insti l. 2. c. 16. sect 10 11 12. We saith Dr Willet in the name of the Orthodox say then that though in the use and application of Christs sacrifice we speak distinctly that Christs soul was given for our souls his flesh for our flesh as Cyril saith thereby to set forth the proportion of Gods justice which must be satisfied with the price both of body and soul for the redemption of our body and soul yet we do not sever nor divide the power and vertue of Christs sacrifice but ascribe the Redemption of our body and soul jointly and equally to the sacrifice of his body and soul Dialogu This kinde of reasoning is very absurd for as Mr. Broughton well observeth if Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only to redeem our souls and not in his body to redeem our bodies then our bodies are not redeemed Answ The Dialogues kinde of reasoning is worse then very absurd that first puts untruly upon Divines the affirmation of an errour and then censureth them as if that errour were theirs making them first guilty by an untruth and then censuring them as truly guilty Dialogu If Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul to redeem our souls from the eternall curse he must also suffer the wrath of God in his body to redeem our bodies from the eternall curse or else our bodies must still continue under the eternal curse though our souls be redeemed by his soul-sufferings Is not this to make Christ an imperfect Redeemer and to leave a doubting conscience in a Labyrinth of doubts and querg's Answ Whilest you say If Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul what is this but to deceive your lesse attentive Reader into a better opinion of your errour by a scoffing inference for you beleeve not that Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul added to an untruth immediatly fore-going Perkins on the Creed Such weapons discovered will turn upon the Authour We beleeve and have already affirmed that Christ suffered the full wrath of God even the pangs of hell both in soul and body it concerns therefore the Reader to beware of that Dialogue and the Authour thereof to look to himself that whilst it saith To make Christ to suffer the wrath of God only in his soul and not in his body is to make him an imperfect Redeemer and to leave a doubting conscience in a labyrinth of doubts and quere's doth it self deny Christ to have suffered the wrath of God either in soul or body Is not this to make Christ no redeemer and to leave a doubting conscience in a labyrinth not of doubts and quere's but of despair it self Dialogu The truth is I finde much uncertainty amongst Divines what to affirm in this point for first some affirm that Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only Secondly Others affirm that he suffered the wrath of God as well in his body as in his soul to redeem our bodies from Gods wrath as well as our souls Answ That the latter is affirmed by Divines we have already seen we expect to hear from you who are those Divines which affirm that Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only Dialogu Vrsinus doth plainly deny that Christ suffered the pains of the damned in his body in Catech. pa. 487. Printed 1611. These pains saith he he suffered not in his body for the sufferings of his body were only externall therefore saith he he suffered those pains in his soul And yet in the same Catechisme pag. 487. he affirmeth That Christ suffered thè wrath of God both in his body and in his soul to deliver our souls and bodies from eternall damnation Answ There is much difference between a contradiction and a deniall If he denieth that Christ suffered the pains of the damned either in body or soul Christus corpore animâ sentit totalem Dei iram explicat Catechis part 2. qu. 37. q. 1. pag. 256. Idem ibid. qu. 44. pag. 277. as you affirm in so saying he saith the truth with divers others who distinguish between the pains of those who deserved to be damned namely the Elect and the pains of the damned and judiciously resolve that it is better to say Christ suffered the pains of those who were to be damned according to their deserts that is the essentiall punishment due unto the Elect for their sins then that he suffered the punishment of the damned part whereof though not the substantiall but circumstantial is their totall and finall separation from God sinne despair duration of the torments for ever c. none of which Christ suffered Those Divines that thus interpret the Articles of Christs descent into hell concerning soul-sufferings of Gods wrath distinguish the sufferings of Christ into outward intended by them in those words he was crucified dead and buried and inward Nempe omnes poeuae damnatorum his duobus continentur geueribus ut aliae pertincant ad corpus alia ad animam intended in those words he descended into hell which is a distribution in respect of the subject and not of the adjunct as you mistake and is as if they should say The paenall wrath of God or hell-pains which Christ suffered were either outward viz. such as he suffered in body or inward viz. such as he suffered in soul and this article of his descent into hell signifieth his inward pains namely those which he suffered in soul and not in his body Vrsin thus intends and is and ought to be so understood and so agreeth both with the truth and with himself Dialogu The like contradiction may be shewed in sundry other Authours Polanus divides the sufferings of Christ into outward and inward and he applieth his sufferings of hell-torments to his inward soul sufferings only See his Substance of Religion pag. 141.144 Answ As you mistook Vrsin so you mistake Polanus the same answer is to be repeated in the same case Polanus in opposition to Bellarmine and some other late Popish Writers who teach that Christ suffered not the wrath of God in his soul propounds this question v. Whether the alone passion and death of the body of Christ was sufficient punishment for us and the satisfaction of an infinite price and resolveth it negatively proving the satisfactory passion of Christ to be both outward and inward of both body aad soul as is plain to the Reader though the nature of the dispute so requiring he applieth himself principally to prove the soul-sufferings of Christ You have not yet produced an Orthodox Authour that saith Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only Dialogu We see but in part and know but in part God hath some truth to bring to light in every age the common doctrine of imputation hath much obscured the meritorious price of our redemption and justification Answ We doubt not but God doth clear
to this order which is the scope of the Dialogue in this discourse for order of succession is not of the essence of punishment Again the reasons that require this order in the Reprobates in inflicting paenall wrath upon the damned have no place concerning Christ Adde hereunto that according to extraordinary dispensation some of the Reprobates namely those that shall be found alive immediatly before the Judgement 1 Cor. 15.51 shall suffer eternall death without any separation of the soul from the body so as eternall death which is a finall separation of the soul and body from God being opposed to naturall death which is a separation of the soul from the body is not necessarily a second death no not in the Reprobates Dialogu The second part of the tormentt of hell is the pain of sense or the sense of all torturing torments Answ As we did formerly in the pain of losse so now in the pain of sense we are to distinguish between what is essentiall and what is accidentall thereunto Fallacia compositionis div sionis otherwise the Question intending that which is essentiall only but the description including both that which is essentiall and accidentall is apt to deceive the Reader by a fallacy for the better preventing whereof as before the Reader had a description of the pain of losse so let him here if he please take along with him this description of the pain of sense The pain of sense taken essentially is the inflâ—cting of all the substantiall positive evill of the curse flowing from it as such without any respect to the condition of the patient The pain of sense taken essentially and accidentally superaddeth unto the essential punishment fore-mentioned the suffering of such positive punishments as were concomitant effects of justice in respect of the disposition of the patient viz. the evil of sin desperation duration of the pains for ever c. Dialogu As Gods rejection is the principall efficient cause of their damnation so Jesus Christ the Mediatour is the principall instrumentall cause thereof because they beleeved not in him that was promised to be the seed of the woman Answ Gods rejection that is Reprobation as it is the Antecedent not the cause of sin so it is also the Antecedent not the cause of condemnation Reprobation is an act of absolute Lordship and Soveraignty not of Justice Condemnation that is the judiciall senâ—encing unto punishment for sin is an act of Justice not of Lordship no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger because a Reprobate but because a sinner Dialogu Now come we to examine the particulars and whether Christ did suffer these torments of hell for our Redemption 1. Did Christ suffer these torments of hell for our Redemption Did Christ suffer the second death Was he spiritually dead in corrupt and sinfull qualities without any restraining grace and did God leave him to the liberty of these corrupt and sinfull qualities to hate and blaspheme God for his justice and holinesse as inseparable companions of Gods totall separation for these sinful qualities are inseparably joyned to them that suffer hell-torments as the effect is to the cause Did Christ suffer this pain of losse when he said My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Answ Except the Dialogue had laid a better foundation for the disproving of Christs suffering the paenal wrath of God flowing from the curse as such without any consideration of the condition of the Patient that is the essentiall punishment then such a description as disproveth only his suffering of the circumstantiall part of the punishment these vain and reasonlesse interrogatories as so many triumphs before the victory might well have been spared There are that deny that the damned sinne whom though I see not why to consent unto therein yet it concerned such a Questionist though that being done his work had still been to do to have satisfied their objections by the way The sinfull qualities of the damned proceed not from hell-torments as an effect from the cause Parker de descensu lib 3. the torments of hell are an effect and execution of justice whereof God is the Authour sinfull qualities are a defect not an effect therefore have a deficient not an efficient cause therefore of them God cannot be the Authour to to say the contrary were to say God is the Authour of sin which is high blasphemy Sinfull qualities are of the circumstantiall not of the substantiall part of punishment which is manifest 1. Because God is the Authour of punishment essentially but he is not the authour of sin 2. Christ suffered the essentiall punishment but was without sin 3. The Elect sin yet suffer not the punishment due to sinne otherwise they should be both elected and not elected and in the conclusion both saved and damned In that Proposition God punisheth sin with sin the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin it self the infallible and paenall futurition of sin is an effect of justice Sin as sin is not an effect of justice but a defect in man Though the separation of the damned from God is totall and finall yet the separation or rather desertion of Christ was partiall and temporall in respect of the sense of the favour of God and only for a time Separatio quoad substantiam quoad sensum Wilict cen 5. err 3. par 9. q. 3. 1141. There are two kindes of paenall desertion or forsaking one is only in part and for a time so Christ was forsaken the other is totall and finall so the Reprobates in hell are forsaken Totall separation from God is not of the essence of the curse Gen. 2.17 Otherwise the Elect whilst elect could not be ministerially obnoxious to the Curse In a word we must carefully keep in minde the distinction between the essentiall part and the circumstantiall part of the punishment of sin Christ suffered the former not the latter Defects saith Damasoone are either simply miserable or detestable and vitious Christ suffered the former not the latter When our Lord Jesus Christ that man of sorrows cried out upon the Crosse My God My God Austin Damascen Jun. cont 2. l. 4. c. 5. why hast thou forsaken me he suffered the pain of losse understanding alwaies thereby the substantial not the circumstantial pain of losse Dialogu Did Christ at any time feel the gnawing worm of an accusing conscience Was he at any time under the torment of desperation truly if he had at any time suffered the tormets of hell he must of necessity have suffered these things Tho. par 3. q. 46. art 6. Perk. de desc l. 3. n. 53. Willet cen 5. err 3. par 6. q. 3. 1129. Neque enim in eo questionis hujus cardo vertitur an inhaesivè verum an imputativè tantum peccatis nostris pollu us Christus dicendus sit Dialogu for they are as nearly joyned to those that suffer the torment of hell as the effect is
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
for the whole and compleat cause The valour and preciousnesse of the obedience of Christ though it depends principally yet it depends not wholly upon the eminency of his person but also upon the quality of his obedience and Gods gracious acceptation thereof the absence of any of these would render Christ an insufficient Redeemer Had not he been such a person his obedience could not have been satisfactory and though there were such a person yet without such obedience unto the Law there can be no satisfaction The immutable truth of God Gen. 2 17. and his inviolable justice Rom. 1.32 require obedience in the Mediatour the Law requireth obedience both active Lev. 18.5 and passive Gal. 3.10 else there can be no life The Dialogues frequent reiteration of the same objections forceth the reiteration of the same answers The firstling of the Asse must either be redeemed or destroyed Exod. 34 20. Christ was appointed of God to be a common and more effectuall principle of Redemption then Adam was of destruction Rom. 5.14 16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 15.22 Dialogu Christ at one and the same time died both as a Mediatour actively and as a Malefactor passively as I have explained the matter Gal. 3.13 and in other places also Answ Christ both was and died such a Mediatour as was also a Malefactor imputatively in his death he was both active and passive how we shall soon see in due place The errour of this distinction in the sense of the Dialogu hath been already shown in the place mentioned Dialogu But for your better understanding of the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ consider 2. things 1. Consider what was the Priestly nature of Christ and 2. Consider what was his Priestly action 1. His Priestly nature was his Divine nature for he is said to be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck of whom it is witnessed that he liveth or that he ever liveth Heb. 7.8 Answ None that beleeveth the Scriptures doubts of Christs being in respect of his Divine nature a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck but that Christs Priestly nature was his Divine nature only that is that Christ was only a Priest according to his Divine nature which the language of the Dialogue seemeth to hold forth is a great errour the common principles of Religion tell us that the Priesthood is a part of the Mediatorly office Christ as Mediator is God man therefore as Priest he is God-man Parts are of the same nature with the whole Necessary it is say the Catechisms that the Mediatour should be both God and Man he must be man else he could not be a meet sacrifice he must be God or else his sacrifice could not have been effectuall Christ was both Priest Sacrifice and Altar The humane nature only suffered therefore most properly was the sacrifice yet so as in Personal union with the Godhead the Divine nature was that which upheld the humane The person consisting of both natures was the Priest Christ offered up himself before his humane nature was dissolved by death which consideration might have prevented that objection in this place though the union of the body with the soul was dissolved by death Dawascen de fide orthodox l. 3. cap. 7. yet the union both of soul and body with the second Person continued undissolved the separation of the soul from the body loosed not the union of both with the Divine nature Tho. par 3. qu. 5. ar 4. Gerh. suppl 104. they were locally separated the one from the other but both united hypostatically i. e. personally with the Deity Neither the soul nor the body of Christ ever had any subsistence but in the Word The word He in the Scriptures alledged signifieth not either Nature apart but the person consisting of both Natures as the Mediator was not nor is not God alone nor man alone but God-man so he merited not as God alone or man alone but as God-man and as Christ merited the application of the good of Redemption so God applieth it not for the sake of the Divine nature alone nor the humane nature alone but for the sake of God-man Mediatour The Scripture so attributes the infinite value and efficacy of the works of the Mediatour unto the Divine nature denoted by the word Spirit as it also ascribes those works unto the Person i. e. whole Christ consisting of both natures signified by the word Who How much more shall the bloud of Christ who through the eternall Spirit offered himself without spot to God Synops pur Theol. disp 26. Thes 18 19. purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God Heb. 9.14 Because the actions of the Mediatour were the actions of Christ who is God-man in them the Divine nature was the principal the humane nature the lesse principal and instrumental cause If upon a supposition this untruth were a truth yet 't is impertinent to the question being neither beneficial to the tenet of the Authour nor prejudiciall to the tenet of the Orthodox Dialogu But yet withall take notice that the term He Gen. 3.15 doth comprehend under it his humane nature as well as his divine yea it doth also comprehend under it the Personal union of both his Natures Answ Then the term He Gen. 3.15 notes the Person consisting of both natures therefore not the Divine nature onely but the person consisting of both natures was the Priest The Term He in the other Scriptures being by your own acknowledgement of the same sense with the term He Gen. 3.15 you hereby unsay what you just now said or otherwise what was said was nothing to the purpose Dialogu Consider what was his Priestly action and that was the sprinkling of his own bloud by his own Priestly nature that is to say by his divine nature Isa 53.12 namely by the active power of his own divine Priestly nature Heb. 9.14 that is to say he separated his soul from his body by the power of his Godhead when he made his soul a trespasse-offering for our sin Isa 53.10 and the manner of sprinkling of bloud by the Priests upon the Altar must be done with a large and liberall quantity and therefore it is called pouring out and this sprinkling with pouring out did typifie the death of the Mediatour a large quantity of bloudshed must needs be a true evidence of death Answ Christ considered as a Priest was obliged in the state of his humiliation to fullfill the Law in our stead and consequently the sacrifice that he offered as our Priest was the whole work of his active and passive obedience the Priests who were a type of Christ stood severally charged with the custody of the Ark wherein the Decalogue distinguished into two Tables was laid up Duties of active as well as passive obedience are ordinarily called Sacrifices Heb. 13.16 The Priest that offered this Sacrifice was not the Divine nature alone but the Person of Christ consisting
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
as Christs were are moved according to the nature of the object so much therefore as bodily death is a lesse evil then eternall death so much is the regular trouble of humane nature conflicting therewithall lesse then that trouble which it is capable of suffering in case of its conflicting with eternall death All mankinde ought to desire and endeavour to preserve their naturall lives as much as lies in them in the use of means Dialogu and therefore seeing Christ as he was true man could not prevent his death by the use of means he was bound to be troubled for the sense of death as much as any other man Answ But it was more then manifest that his trouble exceeded the trouble of any other man as concerning meer naturall death Other men conflicting with death by reason of sin do not conflict only with death other men conflicting with naturall death conflict also often with eternall death Christ according to you conflicted only with a naturall death how do you say then without any distinction he was bound to be troubled with fear of death as much as any other man Christs meer inability as man to prevent death by the use of means or other mens inability thereunto and that at such times when they were not wanting on their part neither was it their duty to endeavour continuance of life but on the contrary to give up themselves to death such as was the present case of Christ and was long before the case of Isaac and oftentimes hath been the case of the Martyrs who notwithstanding have given up their lives with joy cannot be looked at as a reason of his or their being bound to be so troubled with the fear of death Dialogu These were the true causes why Christ was so much pained in his minde with the fear of death not only that night before his death but at other times also even long before Answ It 's true Christ often in his life time made mention of his passion but it 's most untrue that he looked at a bodily death as the only matter of it the two causes alledged were not the true causes why he was so much pained with fear Luk. 12.50 sheweth Christ not only to be held back with the fear of his sufferings on the one hand but also that he was urged forward with the remembrance of the counsell of God and the good of the Elect on the other hand between these was he straigthned whilest it was accomplished whereunto Calvins interpretation of the place agreeth Dialogu But Mathew and Mark in the place cited speak only of these sorrows which fell upon him in the night before his death Mathew saith he began grievously to be troubled i.e. he began afresh to be troubled with a neerer apprehension af his death then formerly M. Calvin in his Harmony upon those words speaks to this effect We have seen saith he our Lord wrestling with the fear of death before but now saith he he buckleth his hands with the temptation Matthew cals it the beginning of sorrow Answ Be it so that he began to be troubled with the nearer approach of his death then formerly this maketh nothing to prove your assertion viz. that the death approaching was a bodily death onely The sufferings that fell upon Christ before his sufferings in the garden because they were in degree much lesse then those that followed are conveniently distinguished from them that fell upon him in the garden and afterward Calvins meaning is that he conflicted before with the fear of death but now with the sight of death he meaneth not a meer bodily death only as you say but such a death as wherein saith he he took upon him the curse and wherein our sins whose burthen was laid upon him pressed him with a mighty weight and wherein he felt that he had to doe with the judgement of God Those words of Mathew c. 24.8 All these are the beginnings of sorrow are spoken either in reference to the destruction of Jerusalom or the end of the world but not to the passion of Christ Dialogu By these sentences out of M. Calvin we may see that Christ was deeply touched with the fear of death for he wept and groaned in spirit and troubled himself for the death of Lazarus Answ Though Calvin speaking of those words John 11.38 inclineth to think that Christ by occasion of Lazarus death called to minde his own death yet you deceive your self not a little in conceiving thence as if Calvin thought that the death of Christ was no other then a bodily death and such as the death of Lazarus Upon this occasion therefore and the rather because of your so frequently quoting of Calvin it may be seasonable to present you with Calvins judgement in this point that so it may appear how well Calvin and the Dialogue agree herein The Dialogue saith Christ made all this adoe about a meer bodily death only and that he suffered not any degree of Gods wrath at all Calvin saith but whence is there both heavinesse Vnde autem illi maeror c. Calvin in Mat. 26.36 Atque hic rursus tanti maeroris Idem Instit l. 2. c. 16. s 10. anxiety and fear upon him except because he conceived something more sad and horrible then the separation of the soul from the body And here again we ought to call to minde the cause of so great fear for neither would the death of the Son of God by it self have so tortured him except he had perceived that he had to do with the judgement i.e. the divine justice of God Christs death had been of none effect if he had suffered only a bodily death And truly if his soul had not been partaker of pain he had been only a Redeemer of our bodies The same Authour speaking upon Isa 53.6 saith that he was put instead of the wicked doers as a surety and pledge yea and as the very guilty person himself to abide and suffer all the punishment that should have been laid upon him Calv. instit l. 2. c. 16. s 13. Moreover in answer to some who being confuted leaned as he saith to another cavillation that though Christ feared death yet he feared not the curse and wrath of God from which he knew himself to be safe After other discourse he useth words to this effect whereby it appeareth saith he that those triflers against whom I now dispute boldly babble upon things they know not because they never earnestly considered what it is or of how great importance it is that we be redeemed from the judgement of God thus far Calvin Dialogu I cannot apprehend that he was afraid of the wrath of God for our sin in the night before his death for then he could not have said as he did I have set the Lord alwaies before my eyes he 's at my right hand Psa 16.8 therefore I shall not be moved I cannot apprehend that his troubled fear