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
A DISCUSSION of that Great Point in DIVINITY THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST And the QUESTIONS about his Righteousnesse Active Passive and the Imputation thereof Being an ANSWER to a DIALOGUE INTITULED The Meritorious Price of our Redemption Justification c. By JOHN NORTON Teacher of the Church at Ipswich in New-England Who was appointed to draw up this Answer by the Generall Court Rom. 3.26 To declare I say at this time his righteousness that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus London Printed by A.M. for Geo. Calvert at the Sign of the half Moon and Joseph Nevill at the Sign of the Plough in the new Buildings in Pauls Church-yard 1653. The STATIONER to the READER FOr the better understanding of the following Treatise the Reader is desired to take notice 1. That the three Fundamental Truths therein asserted confirmed and cleared are these 1. The Imputation of the disobedience of the Elect unto Christ 2. That Christ as God-man Mediator and our Surety fulfilled the Law by his Original conformity and active and passive obedience thereunto for the Elect. 3. The Imputation of that Obedience unto the Believer for Justification 2. That the three opposite Tenets of the Dialogue as they are held forth therein are proved and concluded to be Heresies Heresie being taken for a Fundamental Error that is such as he that knowingly liveth and dieth therein cannot be saved To the much Honoured GENERAL COURT OF THE MASACHUSETS Colonie Now sitting at Boston in New-England Right Worshipfull Worshipfull and much Honoured in our Lord Jesus THat this weak Treatise cometh forth under your Name cannot seem strange to him who remembers Natures Off-spring by instinct sheltring it self under those wings from whence it received life and breath Reluctances from personall unfitnesse to undertake this Service Religion forbad me to hearken after whilest I considered the call of the Court thereunto to be the call of God and how unworthy it would be for any of Aarons Sons so far as lieth in them to fail Moses leading on and calling to follow in a Cause immediately concerning the Lord Jesus especially at such a time when to be silent were not only to deny a joynt-witnessing with you to the truth but in appearance tacitely to strengthen the adversary in bearing false witnesse against the power of the Christian Magistrate concerning the Defence of the Truth Seeing Donatus now crieth aloud again Quid imperatori cum Ecclesiis What hath the Emperor to do with the Churches Notwithstanding that position concerning the Magistrates power in matters of Religion be attested to by Civill-Law Common-Law Nature Scripture Reason and Testimony both old and new The lawfull Administrations by the Kings of Judah touching the custody of the first Table they did not as Types of Christ but as Servants of Christ otherwise what was done by the Type must be fullfilled by the Anti-type but Christ never exercised any act of Civil Government Again the coming of the Anti-type is the abolishing of the Type consequently then it should be unlawfull for Civil power now to assist the Cause of Religion The reason given of such administrations was not typicall but morall viZ. to put away evil from Israel the moral reason is of like force now as then the reason of the Law and the Law live and die together 1 King 20.42 2 Chron. â—3 11 Ahab King over an Apostate Church dieth for not putting Benhadad to death for Blasphemy When Jehojada put the Crown upon Joash his head he gave the Testimony into his hand The King of Nineveh proclaimeth a Fast Jon. 3.7 Dan. 3.29 Nebuchadnezzar makes a Decree against Blasphemy Ezra 1. Cyrus giveth out a Proclamation for the Buiiding of the Temple Dan. 6.29 Darius the Mede makes a Decree for the acknowledgement of the true God Ezra 7.13 The like doth Artaxerxes for the beautifying of the House of the Lord. These being Heathen Princes could not be Types of Christ as Kings of Judah In the times of the Gospel Act. 21.28 23.29.24.5.6.25.8 19.20.26.3 Paul in a matter of Religion appealeth unto Caesar which neither Lysias Felix Festus nor Agrippa decline the audience of As Religion was the cause of the Warre purposed between the nine Tribes and a half and those on the other side of Jordan So Religion shall be the cause of the War both purposed and performed by the ten Kings against the Man of Sinne Rev. 17. â—â— which supposeth Civil Authority acting therein Isa 49.23 The Prophets speaking of the times of the Gospel assure the godly that Kings shall be their Nursing Fathers and Queens their Nursing Mothers and that false Prophets shall be thrust through with a Sword Zec. 13.3 This power then of the Magistrate expires not together with the Legall dispensation of the Covenant From the premises appears the vanity as well as ignorance of their evasion who acknowledge the power of the Magistrate in the time of the Old yet deny it in the time of the New Testament The adaequate end of the Magistrate is to procure that the people may live a peaceable life in all godlines and honesty 1 Tim. 2.2 Magistrates are called Gods strange Gods who take no care of godlinesse 'T is a carnal and unworthy position that limits the Magistrate to the Corporall and restrains him from the care of the spirituall good of the Subject thereby spoiling this Olive of its choicest fatnesse wherewith it rejoyceth both God and man That licentious and pestilent Proposition The care of the matters of Religion belongs not to the Magistrate is a Stratagem of the Old Serpent and Father of lies to make free passage for the doctrine of devils an invention not unlike Sauls Oath the trouble of Israel and escape of the Enemy a sad errour that fosters all errour a Satanicall device tending to undermine the policy of God attempting to charm that Sword with a fallacy whose dexterous and vigorous use instrumentally puts away evill from Israel and turneth every way in its manner to keep the path of the Tree of life The rusting of this Sword of divine execution in the Scabbard hath been more destructive unto truth then the drawing of the Sword of Persecution Persecution hath slain Thousands but the deadly Sea of false doctrine hath slain ten Thousands See Mr Cottons Answer to Mr W. ch 33. Might this Imposture prevail then rejoyce ye Heretiques Idolaters Seducers Ranters c. but wo be to the Sheep of the slaughter whose Possessours may slay them and pleade themselves Not-guilty at the civil Barre Both Swords make up a compleat Medium of all our good and remedy of all evil and are of speciall use each to other mutually as well as of necessary use unto the people joyntly The Magistrates need the Ministery to fix them in the Consciences of men and the Ministers need the Magistracy to preserve them from men that have no Conscience
intimation to premise briefly certain Propositions four Questions five Distinctions with some few Arguments The Distinctions serving to Answer some chief Objections The Propositions Questions and Arguments tending to clear and confirm the Truth Prop. I The Lord Jesus Christ as God-man Mediator according to the will of the Father and his own voluntary consent fully obeyed the Law doing the command in a way of works and suffering the essential punishment of the curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto Divine justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant which active and passive obedience of his together with his original righteousness as a Surety God of his rich grace actually imputeth unto Beleevers whom upon the receipt thereof by the grace of Faith he declareth and accepteth as perfectly righteous and acknowledgeth them to have right unto eternal Life More fully and particularly Prop. II God in the first Covenant the substance whereof is Do this and thou shalt live Lev. 18.5 But in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Gen. 2.17 proceeded with man in a way of justice Prop. III Justice in God is either Essential whence God can do no wrong Or Relative in respect of the creature viz. Gods constant will of rendring to man what is his due this is the free constitution of Gods good pleasure whose will is the first and absolute rule of Righteousness Prop. IV Relative justice supposeth somewhat due from God to man in a way of debt so as if God should not perform it he should be unjust That which thus obligeth God in a way of Reward is called Merit in a way of Punishment Demerit yet so as the word Merit is ordinarily used promiscuously Prop. V Merit is either Absolute so God cannot be a Debtor to the creature no not to Christ himself or By Way of free Covenant so God hath in case made himself a Debtor to man Justice then consisting in rendring to every one their due and Gods will being the rule of Justice it followeth that and only that to be the due desert merit or demerit of man which God hath willed concerning him The Moral Law it self that eternal rule of manners The recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience The punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience are all the effects of Gods good pleasure Merit by vertue of free Covenant notes such an obedience whereunto God by his free Promise hath made himself a debtor according to order of Justice Demerit notes such disobedience whereunto by force of the Commination death is due according to the order of Justice Merit or Demerit is a just debt whether in way of reward or punishment the genus of merit is debt i. e. To indebt or make due its form in a way of Justice Prop. VI The demerit or desert of man by reason of sin being death according to Relative justice the rule of proceeding between God and him Justice now requireth that man should dye As God with reverence be it spoken of him who cannot be unjust in case man had continued in obedience had been unjust if he had denied him life so in case of disobedience he should be unjust in case he should not inflict death Prop. VII The elect then having sinned the elect must diâ—â— if they die in their own persons Election is frustrate God is unfaithfull if they die not at all God is unjust the Commination is untrue If elect men die in their own persons the Gospel is void if man doth not die the Law is void they die therefore in the man Christ Jesus who satisfied Justice as their Surety and so fulfilled both Law and Gospel As Gods will is the rule of righteousness so Gods will is the rule of the temperature of righteousness Prop. VIII Though God by his absolute power might have saved man without a Surety yet having constituted that inviolable rule of relative justice In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die he could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this rule but man having sinned man must die and satisfie the Law that man may live Justice requireth that the Surety should die thâ—â— the Debtor may live That he might be just and the Justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Rom. 3.26 God suffereth multitudes of sins to be unpardoned but he suffereth not one sin to be unpunished Quaere 1 What is Vindicative justice strictly taken Answ It is an execution of relative justice rewarding sin with the punishment due thereunto according to the Law Justice in God as was said before is either essential which is in him necessarily hence he can do no wrong Or relative which is in him freely that is it hath no necessary connexion with the Being of God This Relative or Moral justice is an act of Gods good pleasure whence flows his proceeding with men according to the Law of righteousness freely constituted between him and them Quaere 2 What is the supream and first cause why justice requireth that sin should be rewarded with the punishment due thereunto according to the Law Answ The free constitution of God The principal and whole reason of this mystery depends upon the good pleasure of God Nam hujus mysterii summum imo tota ratio independit quis negat potuisse Deum alio quovis modo providere saluti hominuÌ„ sed hoc voluit nec nisi hoc Cham. de Descensu To. 2. l. 5 cap. 12. for who can deny that God could have saved man in another way but he would save him thus and no otherwise then thus This great principle is all along to be kept in minde and occasionally to be applied serving not as a sword to cut but as a leading truth to loose many knots of carnal reason The good pleasure of God is the first rule of Righteousness the Cause of all Causes the Reason of all Reasons and in one word all Reason in one Reason Quaere 3 Wherein consists the sufficiency and value of the obedience of Christ as our Surety Answ In three things 1. In the dignity of the person obeying 2. In the quality or kinde of his obedience 3. In the acceptation of this obedience The person obeying was God-man The first Adam was by Gods institution a publick person hence in him sinning the world sinned The second Adam is not only by Gods institution a publick person but also an infinite person because God This publick and infinite person doing and suffering was as much as if the world of the Elect had suffered If the first Adam a finite person was by Gods institution in that act of disobedience A world of men why should it seem strange that the second Adam being an infinite person should be by Gods institution in the course of his obedience As the world of the Elect He being an infinite person there needed no more then Gods pleasure to have made him The world of men yea
Distinguish between such a measure of punishment and the particulars whereby that measure is made up Parker de Desc lib. 3. n. 55. Such a measure is necessary but that this measure should be made up by suffering these or those particulars is arbitrary Distin 5 Distinguish between a Local hell and a Penal hell Bonavent li. 3. in Sent. dist 22. q. 4. Rivet Cathol Orthod Tom 1. Tract 2. qu. 60. Willet Synops Cent. 5. gen contr 20. p. 5. q. 3. Christ suffered a Penal hell but not a Local he descended into hell Virtually not Locally that is He suffered the pains of hell due unto the Elect who for their sin deserved to be damned Arg. 1 Either Christ suffered the justice of God in stead of the Elect denounced against sin Gen. 2.17 or God might dispense with the execution thereof without violation of his justice But God could not dispense with the execution thereof without the violation of his justice What was sometimes spoken of the Law of the Medes and Persians holds true at all times concerning the Law of God that it altereth not for the confirmation of this truth Christ solemnly engageth his truth Verily I say unto you Till heaven and earth passe one jot or one tittle shall in no waies passe from the Law till all be fulfilled Matth. 5.18 This sentence was universal given to Adam as a publick person and holds all his posterity whether elect or reprobate in case of sin guilty of death Hereby the omnipotent hath so limitted himself as that now he cannot do that which else he could do in respect of his absolute power The command being given out for Lots preservation God could not destroy Sodom till Lot was secured Gen. 19.22 for the Decree being passed and the word gone out of his mouth God cannot deny himself Hence in the case of execution of justice 't is not only a truth that God spared not the Angels 1 Pet. 2.4 nor the old world vers 5. but it is also a truth that he spared not his Son Rom. 8.28 Unto this purpose Piscator well interprets those words of our Saviour If it be possible c. Matth. 26.39 Confer Piscat Analys Observ in Matth. 26. Davenant in Col. 1.20 p. 105. That is saith he If in respect of the righteous will of God the father there could be any other way found to save the Elect without Christs suffering of the wrath of God for their sin he praieth that then the cup might passe from him but because that could not be he submits his will to his Fathers will the summe whereof is God sheweth by the example of his Son that he having constituted his Law the rule of relative justice between him and man the dispensation with the exemption from punishment in case of sin was impossible Arg. 2 Either Christ suffered the wrath of God i. e. the punishment due to the sins of the Elect or else God is untrue in that Commination he that sins shall die because the Elect themselves do not suffer it But God is true The strength of Israel will not lie 1 Sam. 15.29 God cannot lie Titus 1.1 Arg. 3 He that was the Surety of the Elect was bound to pay their debt and consequently to satisfie the Law for them Polon â—ynt lib. 6. c. 36. But Christ was the Surety of the Elect Heb. 7.22 By so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better Covenant Neither is the Argument at all infringed by saying he is our Surety in regard of the Covenant of grace here called a better Covenant but not in respect of the Covenant of works for besides that the word better is not to be referred unto either Covenant it self but to the manner of the dispensation of the Covenant of grace under the Gospel we are to know that the Covenant of grace it self obligeth us to fulfill the Covenant of works in our Surety Faith establisheth the Law Rom. 3.31 We cannot fulfill the Covenant of works or the righteousness of the Law in our Surety by believing if it were not a truth that he fulfilled the Covenant of works for us Arg. 4 Either Christ suffered the punishment due to the Elect for sin or the Law remaineth for ever unsatisfied for it is as true as salvation it self that the Elect satisfie it not in themselves Arg. 5 If the Gospel save without satisfaction given to the Law then the Law is made void by the Gospel and the Law and the promises are contrary But neither of these are so Rom. 3.31 Gal. 3.21 Therefore Arg. 6 If Christ suffered not the punishment due to the Elect then the Elect must suffer it in their own persons man hath sinned therefore man must die Therefore in his own person if not in his Surety Arg. 7 If Christ did not suffer the wrath of God a punishment due unto the Elect for sin then there can be no justification of a sinner without Christs suffering of the punishment due to sin i.e. his passive obedience there can be no remission of sin without obedience there is no reason to acknowledge his active obedience whence we are accepted as righteous this being in vain without that if there be neither passive obedience nor active then there is no remission of sins nor acceptation as righteous and consequently no justification Arg. 8 If justifying faith establish the Law then Christ the object of faith hath established that is fulfilled the Law for otherwise the Law cannot be established by faith But justifying faith establisheth Rom. 3.31 Do we then make void the Law through faith God forbid yea we establish the Law Willet Synops Cent. 5 gen contr 20. Christ suffering the essential punishment of the curse i.e. the wrath of God containeth nothing derogatory from the worth of his person nor prejudicial unto Redemption The denyall then of Christ to have satisfied the wrath of God in that it renders the Mediatorship of Christ insufficient takes away the being of the Justification of a sinner and leaves the elect to suffer the wrath of God in their own persons which who can exempt to use Peters words from the charge of a damnable heresie and if so in that it so denies Christ to have suffered the wrath of God as therewithall it not only exceedingly diminisheth the love of God and the love of Christ but also imputes injustice and untruth unto God leaves the Law for ever unsatisfied made void by the Gospel and not established by faith one and the last of which Paul looketh at as abomination Rom. 3.31 I see not how it can be pronounced lesse then both an abominable and damnable heresie These premised come we now to the Dialogue it self beginning with its beginning viz. the stating of the Controversie CHAP. II. The stating of the controversie Dialogu I Hold that Jesus Christ our Mediatour did pay the full price of our Redemption to his father by the merit of his mediatorial obedience which
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
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
faith can admit of any better interpretation Christ in his death was made sin imputatively that is he suffered the guilt and punishment of sin a chief part whereof was this divine paenall desertion his death was joyned with the curse made up of the pain of sense and the pain of losse If the pain of losse be not joyned with the pain of sense there can be no sufficient cause given of so bitter and lamentable a cry for that person who was God man therefore it follows by good consequence that Christ doth complain Psa 22. that God had forsaken him in anger for our sinne Dialogu Our Saviours complaint must run thus Why hast thou left me into the hands of my malignant adversaries to be used as a notorious malefactor It 's not so fit a phrase to say Why hast thou forsaken me into the hands of my malignant adversaries as to say Why hast thou left me into the hands of my malignant adversaries Answ Our Saviours complaint runs so in your interpretation namely as concerning men but it runs not so according to truth either only or chiefly He was not only a notorious malefactor though unjustly according to men as you would have it but he was a notorious malefactor having upon him the guilt of the sinnes of the Elect by imputation and that justly before God It is as fit a phrase to say Why hast thou forsaken me in the hands of my malignant adversaries as to say Why hast thou left me into the hands of my malignant adversaries The words of the Psalmist are Why hast thou forsaken me or Why hast thou left me and no more the addition fit or unfit is the Dialogues paraphrase not the Psalmists phrase Dialogu God forsakes the damned totally and finally because there is no place of repentance left open to them but he did not so forsake his son neither did he forsake his son by any inward desertion as he doth sometimes forsake his own people for the triall of their grace but he left his son only outwardly when he left him into the hands of Tyrants to be punished as a malefactor without any due triall of his cause Answ Rather there is no place of repentance left open to the damned because they are forsaken totally and finally we say that Christ was forsaken paenally yet partially and temporally not totally and finally Christ was forsaken in way of trial though not only nor principally in way of triall Luke 22.28 Heb. 2.18 4.15 And he was in all points tempted like unto us Dialogu Therefore the complaint of Christ lies fair and round thus Why hast thou left me in my righteous cause unto the will of my malignant adversaries to be condemned and put to death as a wicked Malefactor Answ This is but the same in effect in more words with what you lately said in fewer words and therefore receiveth the same answer Dialogu John Hus appealed to Jesus Christ for justice saying My God My God why hast thou forsaken me Ammond de la Roy Martyr in the time of his torments said Lord Lord why hast thou forsaken me Answ It 's a most lame and sick consequence The Martyrs or others in the time of their desertions under the castigatory wrath of God complained in these words therefore Christ suffered not paenall desertion As weak is the other consequence God for the manifestation of his glory in the witnessing of his truth for the good example of others the discovery of the tyranny of Antichrist forsook David and others with a castigatory desertion therefore he forsook not Christ with a paenal desertion for the manifestation of the glory of his justice Dialogu Christopher Carlile upon the Article of Christs descent into hell saith not one word of the suffering of his fathers wrath yet he makes use of Psal 22.1 and of M. Calvins judgement in other points though he doth differ from him in his exposition of Psa 22.1 Answ If he doth differ from him without reason we may oppose Calvins authority with reason against his without it It 's not the authority of Calvin that concludes for much lesse the authority of Carlile that concludes against but the reason of either according to truth that determines the question Dialogu The holy Ghost hath indited this Psalm by the Prophet David in the Person of Christ If so then all the words of this Psalm must have relation to the person of Christ The Psalm it self hath two principal parts the first is from ver 1. to 21. in all which Christ doth complain to his father of his unjust usage by his malignant Adversaries the 2d part of the Psalm is from the 22. ver to the end Answ The inditing of the Psalm by David with the distribution thereof nothing disproveth the desertion mentioned vers 1. to proceed from the wrath of God In this Psalm Christ complaineth of his unjust usage by his malignant adversaries but not of that only nor principally The passions whereof Christ complaineth in this Psalm may be conveniently distributed into four heads The suffering the wrath of God ver 1.2.11 The grief of his spirit by reproaches ver 6 7 8 17 18. His fear from the cruelty of his enemies vers 12 13 16 20 21. The torture of his body by crucifying ver 14.15 16 17. the greatest whereof was the sense of the wrath of God Dialogu Therefore seeing Christ in this place doth double the term of his affiance in God saying My God My God it proves evidently that God had not forsaken his Son in anger for our sins but that God was still his hope and that he would at last turn all his sufferings but unto the tryal of his perfect obedience Answ Of forsaking and anger we have distinguished before where we saw that God forsook Christ temporally and partially in executing upon him as our surety the vindicative justice due to the elect for their sins all which consists fully With this stedfast and unshaken affiance in God Therefore his sufferings were not only in way of testimony but also in way of satisfaction to divine justice Dialogu Why art thou then so far from my help and from the words of my roaring Why dost thou leave me unto the will of my malignant adversaries notwithstanding my prayers and my righteous cause Answ You wrong the Text in restraining it unto the wrath of man Christ principally if not wholly herein looks unto the wrath of God Our Lords complaint here expressed by a Metaphor of roaring is by the Evangelists called crying with a loud voice Mat. 27.46 Mar. 15.34 Luke 23.46 By Paul strong crying Heb. 5.7 This last Text M. Ainsworth cites to the same purpose whose judgement the Dialogue seems much to account of Dialogu My heart is melted in the midst of my bowels that is to say the evil spirit that is in my malignant Adversaries and their doctors do make my humane affections to melt in the midst of my bowels Answ If
of the eternall curse in ver 10.2 Of an outward temporary curse in ver 14. such as all men do suffer who are hanged upon a tree the Apostle brings in this latter curse in a Rhetoricall manner only saying thus Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law namely from the eternall curse at the very self-same time when he was made not that curse but a curse for us according to Deuter. 21.23 Answ The Apostle ver 13. according to the stream of Interpreters answers an Objection arising out of vers 10. thus If every one be cursed that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them it followeth then that all are accursed because no one continueth in all things which are written in the book of the Law to doe them No saith Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 activè est sententia execratoria passivè significat execrationis poenā transgresso ribus legis statutam Paraeus in loc for notwithstanding all are accursed in themselves yet Christ hath redeemed us that beleeve not only freed us as you corruptly turn it by laying down a just price from the curse of the Law i.e. from the sentence of the Law called a curse actively and the execution of justice according to that sentence called the curse passively How By being made a curse i.e. that morall curse for us But how doth that appear For it is written viz. Deut. 21.23 Cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree The Apostle speaks of the eternall or morall curse vers 10. and of both the eternall and ceremoniall curse ver 13. what more frequent then to hold forth a reall truth by Rhetoricall terms yet here the Apostles stile is simple not Rhetoricall Your needlesse affecting a Rhetoricall stile in this Text brings to minde the words of Beza speaking of Erasmus Imò verò in eo positae est tota nostra spes Vide Bezam in Gal. 3.13 seeking also a Trope in this place Christ being made a curse for us Nay verily saith he in that is our whole hope laid up in that appeareth the infinite love of God in that is our salvation placed that our God pour'd out all his wrath upon his own Son properly and without any trope he cursed him as he was our surety properly and without any Trope The word when whereby you wrest that unto the time which is spoken of the manner how we are redeemed is of your own putting in and not in the Text. Dialogu I confesse that D. Luther was a rare instrument in the Church of God in his daies and he hath expounded the Epistle to the Galatians better then many others but yet I beleeve he is far from the Apostles meaning in this matter and it seemeth to me he had some doubt also about his Exposition But he thinketh that the latter curse may well be expounded of his sacrifice for the Curse and yet that Exposition is not right neither for this latter Curse is no other then an outward temporary curse For the Text in Deut. runs thus If there be in a man a sin worthy of death and thou hang him upon a Tree c. then he that is hanged is the curse of God Answ 'T is true that Martin Luther as you immediatly before said commenting upon this Text speaks as follows And although these sentences may be well expounded after this manner Christ is made a curse that is to say a sacrifice for the curse and sin that is a sacrifice for sin yet in my judgement it is better to keep the proper signification of the words because there is a greater force and vehemency therein as also that in the conclusion he affirmeth that Christ bare all our sins by imputation and that he bare the curse of the Law really for us and in respect of bearing our sins by imputation he saith that Christ was the greatest thief blasphemer c. But because you so alledge him as if he were not so much against you nor for us in this controversie as indeed he is and both of them so clearly and fully as no man more that the Reader may have a true taste of Luthers spirit and judgement in this point I shall transcribe what he writes soon after what you have cited Paul therefore saith he handleth this place with a true Apostolicall spirit there is neither Sophister nor Lawyer nor Jew nor Anabaptist nor any other that speaketh as he doth for who durst alledge this place out of Moses accursed is every one that hangeth on a tree and apply it unto Christ like as Paul then applied this sentence unto Christ even so may we apply unto Christ not only the whole 27 Chapt. of Deut. but also may gather all the curses of Moses Law together and expound the same of Christ for as Christ is innocent in this generall Law touching his person so is he also in all the rest and as he is guilty in this generall Law in that he is made a curse for us and is hanged upon the Crosse as a wicked man a blaspemer a murderer and a Traitor even so is he also guilty in all others for all the curses of the Law are heaped together and laid upon him and therefore he did bear and suffer them in his own body for us he was therefore not only accursed but also was made a curse for us This is to interpret the Scriptures truly and like an Apostle Thus Luther There is not the least appearance that I can observe why Luther should seem from what he writes on this Text to doubt of his Exposition but very abundantly much to the contrary That Luther and others who conclude from this Text Christ to have suffered the wrath of God have the true meaning thereof will appear by proving that the person hanged upon a tree and accursed Deut. 21.23 was a type of Christ for if the Type bare the Ceremoniall 't is then manifest that the Antitype bare the morall that is the eternall curse If not only the malediction of every one that is hanged upon a tree be held forth but also Christs redemption of us from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us be both held forth and foretold Deut. 21.23 then the Text Deut. 21.23 hath not only a proper but a typicall signification The malediction of every one that hangs upon a tree is contained in the Text properly Christs redemption of us from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us is another thing and cannot be contained therein properly but only typically Who without the peculiar inspiration of the Spirit could have found that truth in that Text But not only the malediction of every one that is hanged upon a Tree is held forth but also Christs redemption of us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us is both held forth and foretold Deut. 21.23 The Minor is the Apostles as
for our sins therefore necessary that remission of sins might be without any prejudice to the truth and justice of God Paul telleth us that God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation Rom. 3.25 The word is observed to signifie a just and propitiatory expiation of sin Ezek. 18.20 argueth for not against the justice of the death of Christ The soul that sinneth shall die Good Man sinned ergò man died Christ was a sinner imputatively though not inherently and the soul that sinneth whether inherently or imputatively shall die Mors animae absoluta vel bypothetica The death of the soul is either absolute so none die but such as are inherently guilty or Hypothetical viz. Cautionary in way of a Surety that undertakes for the satisfaction of justice so Christ suffered death Mors non conditionis sed criminis Park l. 3. n. 87. Willet cont 5. Err. 3. part 3. quaest 3. Austin calleth it a death not of condition but of crime It is clear according to this Text that every one shall bear his own iniquity Who seeth not saith Dr Willet that the Prophet maketh exception of the person of the Mediatour for the Scripture testifieth of him that he bare our iniquities Isa 53.11 Therefore as he bare our sins in himself so also in Gods justice he was to bear the punishment for the same Yet neither according to this Rule nor any other Rule of justice can either the torments of hell or any other no not the least punishment be inflicted upon a person simply innocent Christ though he was innocent in himself yet he was not innocent as our Surety until the guilt imputed to him was satisfied for It is no way repugnant to the justice of God saith Vrsinus and after him Paraeus that a person innocent in himself should die for the sin of another upon such conditions as were mentioned Chap. 3. Dialogu And as God doth tye himself to this Rule of iustice touching the everlasting state of mens souls so he doth appoint civil Magistrates to observe this Rule of iustice touching the bodiet of sinfull Malefactors they may not punish an innocent for a guilty person but that man only that sins must die as 2 Kin. 14. doth expound the meaning of the iudicial Law in Deut. 24.16 I hold it a point of grosse iniustice for any Court of Magistrates to torture an innocent person for the redemption of a grosse Malefactor Answ It is manifest that as God according to his own free constitution doth not so man according to Gods Law may not punish a person that is simply innocent concerning such an one that Law holds Deut. 24.16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers Every man shall be put to death for his own sin But we must here distinguish between an inherent judiciall guilt and an extrinsecal judiciall guilt if Thomas be judicially guilty of a capitall crime inherently though Peter be guiltlesse thereof inherently yet if he be guilty thereof extrinsecally it seemeth to be no injustice for the Magistrate in case to put Peter to death for Thomas his crime In some cases saith D. Willet Willet cen 5. gen cont 20. part 7. qu. 3. by the Law of God the surety gave life for life as the Prophet sheweth unto Ahab by this Parable A man was taken in battel and committed to another to keep under this condition If he be lost thy life shall go for his life or else thou shalt pay a Talent of silver A price of equall value to his life that went away But in the application of this Parable the Prophet leaveth out the Talent because God cannot be waged with money and saith unto Ahab precisely thy life shall go for his life 1 Kin. â—0 39.42 The justice whereof Ahab himself not yet considering it to be his own case readily acknowledgeth and pronounceth sentence accordingly ver 40. Hostages or pledges whose lives with their consenr are legally engaged for the security of the faith of that state whereof they are members may lawfully be put to death in case the state whose fidelity they are to secure break their faith for the consequence or inconsequence of securing or not securing the fidelity of States is a greater good or evil then the life or death of a pledge Besides that the part oweth it self unto the preservation of the whole That this position is subscribed unto by the common consent of Nations may be gathered from their carriages concerning and executions of Hostages diverse of which though they may be disputable or blameable yet they all serve to be founded on this generall truth namely that there are cases wherein a pledge though innocent in himself yet guilty by the legall contract of the violation of the state upon himself may be justly put to death The people of Spain howsoever inclined to joyn with with the Romans against the Carthaginians Tit. Livij hist lib. 22. lib. 24. yet durst not for fear they should lament the guilt of their defection in the bloud of their sons then pledges in Hannibals custody The Romans put to death the pledge of Tarentum for making an unlawfull escape out of custody Keepers of prisons engaged to the Common-wealth that the prisoners shall be forth-coming to satisfie justice in case of the escape of the prisoners through their default though the fault be in it self inconsiderable yet by reason of the circumstances may justly be put to suffer the punishment due to such an offender escaped and that the Romans thought so may well be collected from Act. 12.19 though Herods command in that place is unjust He that is legally guilty of a capital crime the Civil Magistrate may justly put to death but a person though inherently guiltlesse yet extrinsecally and judicially guilty of a capitall crime is legally guilty of a capital crime Therefore a person inherently guiltlesse and innocent but extrinsecally and judicially guilty may be put to death Neither do Histories afford instances only in publike but also in personal cases wherein the surety hath suffered the punishment of another and by so suffering delivered the person suffered for and that not only in inferiour grievances Quint. Declam 5. 9. Idem Declam 6. but even in the matter of life it self Quintilian makes mention of one friend that redeemed another by vice-labour i. e. by doing that servile work in his friends stead which he was to have done l and in another place of a son that redeemed his father by vice-handywork that is by doing with his own hands that work which his father was to have done Cham. de desecnsu l. 5. c. 21. Greg. lib. Dial. c. 37. referente Estio 1 Jo. 3.16 And Chamier reports out of others of one Paulicus Nolanus who enslaved himself unto the King of the Vandals for the redemption of a certain widows son Gregory telleth us of
Orthodox writer say faith justifieth in stead of the Law their meaning is we are made partakers of the righteousnesse of the Law Evangelically that is to say by faith which we cannot be partakers of legally that is to say by works The righteousnesse of Christ in respect of which faith is said to justifie consisting both of originall righteousnesse and actuall obedience justifieth us as well from originall as from actuall unrighteousnesse We receive by faith the righteousnesse of the Law namely that righteousnesse which the Law requireth Rom. 8.3 4. And so Evangelicall righteousnesse or the righteousnesse which is by faith is given to us in stead of Legall righteousnesse We are through sin uncapable of the righteousnesse of the Law legally Haec propositio side justificamur legaliter intollecta cum papistis non est vera sed blasphema-correlative autem accepta est vera Ursin exp Cat. in the stead whereof we are made partakers of the righteousnesse of the Law Evangelically without which we cannot attain eternall life Faith justifieth not properly as a work or quality but relatively for the objects sake namely the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended thereby This Proposition We are justified by faith saith Vrsinus understood legally with the Papists is not true but blasphemous but taken correlatively that is evangelically it is true The true manner how the Law taught sinners to get righteousnesse by faith When a poor humbled sinner brought his sacrifice of atonement to the Priest to be offered for him upon the Altar he must lay both his hands with all his might upon the head of the sacrifice of atonement This kinde of imposition was ordained by God to teach and typifie unto sinners how they must by faith rest and depend upon the sacrifice of Christ as the onely meritorious procuring cause of the Fathers atonement for their full and perfect righteousnesse Answ That he laid on his hands with all his might cannot be proved nor doth the proving thereof prove any thing of the Question Of it hath been already spoken in its proper place The atonement of the Dialogue being disproved it is therewithall disproved That the laying on of hands typified their relying upon the sacrifice of Christ for such atonement Dialogu Vers 25. Whom God hath fore-ordained to be a propitiation or a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his bloud The Apostle explains the matter by another sentence Rom. 5.11 by whom we have received the atonement The Apostle doth imply three things in this sentence 1. That Christ is the Mediatour by whom sinners do receive 2. The main thing which they do receive by him is the Fathers atonement 3. That the means or manner by which they receive the Fathers atonement is the grace of faith Answ The Apostle Rom. 3 25. alludeth unto the Mercy-seat Exo. 25.22 as appeareth by Heb. 9 5. where speaking of the Mercy-seat in Exodus he calleth it by the same word in Greek which is used here teaching us thereby that the Mercy-seat was a Figure of Christ by whom our transgressions of the Law are forgiven and covered the Mercy-seat covered the Ark of the Testimony that is the Ark wherein was the Law which was the testimony of Gods will concerning the duty of man The Atonement of which Rom. 5.11 is to be understood of reconciliation applied according to the sense of the latter reconciliation mentioned vers 10. and notes a change in respect of dispensation on Gods part and a change in respect of state relation and disposition on our part See more Sect. 2. Chap. The Greek words are not the same and may in respect of their signification if we seclude the meritorious cause of atonement from atonement be distinguished as the whole and the part his bloud signifieth his passive obedience the meritorious cause of the forgivenesse of sin faith is the instrument by which we receive it Atonement or remission of sins is a principall good received by faith yet it is not righteousnesse But the Dialogues atonement is neither principall nor lesse principall but a meer fiction Dialogu Vers 25. To declare his righteousnesse by the passing over sins that are past through the forbearance of God 1. God declares his righteousnesse toward sinners by ordaining Jesus Christ to be a propitiation 2. By ordaining the grace of faith as the instrument of the spirit whereby poor sinners might be enabled to beleeve in the Mediators propitiatory sacrifice and receive through him the Fathers atonement for their righteousnesse Answ Then God declared justice as well as mercy in the forgivenesse of or passing over sin A truth much opposed throughout a great part of the Dialogue which contradiction had it been attended to doubtlesse the Authour would have provided against it by some Socinian evasion or mis-applied distinction The Fathers Atonement is received by faith but not for our righteousnesse This errour of the Authours especially in his sense is oft annexed unto some foregoing truth or words that are capable of a construction according to truth by a formall repetition of the question without so much as a threed of reason to hold them together But I hope saying the same thing frequently and boldly though sometimes with the word Therefore inserted without any tolerable inference of reason is not enough to deceive the Reader Dialogu And therefore justified persons have need of new justice to their consciences every day Answ Very true if understood of the sense of their justification but not true if understood in regard of a new Justification Justification is an individuall act which receiveth not more or lesse in respect of it self though in respect of the sense of it it receiveth more or lesse Paul was as much justified the first instant of his beleeving as he is now in glory Because the righteousnesse of Christ which is the matter of justification is the same CHAP. VII Of the Enumeration of the causes of Justification according to the Dialogue and according to the Orthodox Dialogu ANd now for a conclusion I will summe up the Doctrine of Justification into six heads 1. The subject matter of Justification is beleeving sinners of all sorts both Jews and Gentiles all the world over 2. The formall cause of Justification or of a sinners righteousnesse is the Fathers atonement pardon and forgivenesse 3. The meritorious procuring cause of the Fathers atonement for a sinners Justification is Christs Mediatoriall Sacrifice of atonement 4. The next instrumentall means by which a sinner doth receive and apprehend the Fathers atonement for his Iustification is faith in Christ 5. The only efficient cause of all the former causes and effects is Gods free grace and mercy in himself 6. The end of all is the glory of Gods free grace and mercy in the beleeving sinners justification and salvation Answ Divers Orthodox Divines handling the doctrine of justification distribute the matter of justification into the matter taken actively that is one of the essentiall causes by which we
himself layeth both his hands upon the live goat and confesseth over him the iniquity of the children of Israel Lev. 16.21 which confession of sin though it be only expressed in the case of the Scape-goat yet it is judged to have accompanied imposition of hands upon the sin-offering From the collation of the texts with Lev. 5.56 as also because there is like reason in all Calvin in Lev. 1.1 Junius in Lev. 1. Ainsworth Lev. 1.4 Willet in Lev. 1. qu. 9. 4.10 16.23 Annot. in Le. 16.21 Ita per fidem oportet nos peccata nostra imponere Christo h.e. certò staâ—uere quòd illa ei impofita sint â Deo ut ea expiaret Orthodox and judicious Expositors seem rather to understand that the rite of imposition of hands did typifie the profession of their faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for sin imputed to him and that the present sacrifice or beast slain was a type thereof then that it did typifie the Lords laying our sin upon Christ by imputation there is difference between an act typifying Gods imputation of sin unto Christ and an act testifying our faith concerning Gods imputation of sin unto Christ You should have produced your Expositors for they do not generally so speak the man saith M. Ainsworth that brought the offering was to lay or impose his hands thereby testifying his faith in Christ the true sacrifice to be slain for sin But it being granted that Expositors did so understand it how doth the Dialogue disprove their exposition A private mans imposition cannot represent Gods act the imposition of the hands of the Elders cannot for the Elders actions represent the Churches astions neither can the imposition of the Priests and High-Priests they were types of Christs Priestly nature and not of the father Answ If these Reasons were good for what they are alledged yet they are impertinent as not reaching the minde of Expositors at least generally upon the place There is nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing but that the act of a private person was capable if God so pleased to become a type of Gods act which is also true concerning the Elders Priests and High-Priests The act of an Israelite though a private person in letting his Hebrew servant go free for nothing either at the seventh year Exo. 21.2 or at the year of Jubilee Lev. 25.40 figured or represented God the Fathers gift of free redemption by Jesus Christ Cyrus as every King or Emperour which receiveth his office from the people was Persia's representative yet in letting the Jews go without price and reward he typified our free salvation which is the act of God the Father the putting of Gods name upon the children of Israel by Aaron and his sons Num. 6.27 was saith Ainsworth a sign that the name and blessing of God was imposed upon them It 's improper to say the Priests were types of Christs Priestly nature they were types of his Priestly office or if you please of the Priestly part of his office whereof the person consisting both of divine and humane nature was the subject Dialogu Imposition of hands with confession of sins upon the head of the sin offering signified the owners faith of dependance Then it signified the owners faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for our sin imputed to him for besides that this notion of faith in particular is included in the faith of dependance as the part is in the whole he that asserteth the faith of dependance asserteth therewithall the object thereof for faith and its object are Relates a part of which object and that directly intended in these texts is this truth to wit That Christ did bear and take away the guilt and punishment due to the elect for sin In your reasoning against the doctrine of Imputation from the Text alledged omitting any other you commit these two errours 1. You put upon us an interpretation which is not ours nor hath our doctrine need of it our conclusion sufficiently proceeding from these Texts according to the Exposition given The Question is not whether this rite of Imposition of hands with confession uf sin doth represent Gods laying of the sins of the Elect upon Christ but whether the sins of the elect were laid upon Chtist by God 2. In disputing for these rites to signifie faith of dependance you do not only not dispute against us but in conclusion against your self because the faith of the truth controverted is included in the faith of dependance nor do you in your whole discourse concerning it interpose a syllable to the contrary to provide against the retorting of your Argument upon your self The conclusion then you argue for being for us though we approve not your arguments we think it best to passe them by and ease the Reader of so much impertinence only minding you that your assertion so often used viz. that they imposed hands and leaned upon the sacrifice with all their might is groundlesse whatsoever you refer us to in Ainsworth out of Maimony neither the Hebrew text nor any other reason countenancing of it Dialogu If you make the act of laying on of hands on the sin-offering to signifie Gods laying our sins upon Christ by imputation then the same act of laying on of hands with confession of sins upon the Scape-goat must also signifie that God did impute our sin to Christ as well after he was escaped from death by his resurrection and ascention as when he made his oblation here upon earth and thus by this doctrine Christ is gone as a guilty sinner into heaven We have already said that we make not this act a type of Gods laying sin upon Christ the live-goat and the scape-goat were both types of Christ that of him dying this of him delivered from death sin was laid upon the scape goat not after but before its escape and signifieth that notwithstanding his bearing of sin typified by both goats yet after he had suffered which was typified by the killed goat he then should be delivered from those sufferings which were typified by the scapegoat and thus by the doctrine of the Scapegoat Christ is risen again ascended and sits at the right hand of God the Father acquitted from all sin Dialogu But the Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition of hands with confession of sins of Gods imputation but they understood it to be a typicall sign of the faith of dependance upon Christs sacrifice of Atonement and so much the prayer of the High-Priest imports See Ainsworth Lev. 16.21 Answ M. Ainsworth on this very place saith that this act shewed how our sins should be imputed unto Christ it is not likely therefore he so understood the Hebrew doctors otherwise we might well think he would either have forborn a needlesse citation contrary in his judgement to the truth or would have taken notice thereof Neither is there any reason so to interpret their meaning