God though some acknowledge not this word to afford an argument thereof K. James Translators as they reade piety in the margent which you mention so they reade fear in the Text which you mention not M. Tyndall and M. Overdale though they translate the Greek as you say yet how far that translation is from helping your cause or prejudicing ours will fully appear in the sequel of this chapter If the Greek word be translated Godly Fear Heb. 5.7 it may only thence be inferred that this word affords not an argument but it no way weakens the cause which hath Arguments enough beside Dialogu The Greek word doth properly signifie such a fear as makes a man exceeding wary and heedfull how he toucheth any thing that may hurt him Answ Cartwright in Rh. Test Heb. 5.7 Your explication is too generall to give the property of the word the word signifieth both Reverence and fear but the proper signification of this word being saith Cartwright never severed from fear and yet sometimes disjoyned from reverence It followeth that the property of the Greek word serveth better for to note fear then reverence Dialogu I come now to explain the very thing it self from which Christ prayed to be saved which was that he might be delivered from death and this petition was the masterpeece of all his prayers Answ He prayed that he might be delivered from death Good but this death was the death of the crosse for unto it his strong cries refer Mar. 14.37 the principall matter whereof was the curse viz. the wrath of God wherefore also out of this verse from the word Death if not from the word translated Fear it is truly argued that Christ suffered the wrath of God Not Christs salvation out of his sufferings but the glory of God in the salvation of the Elect was the master-piece of his prayers Joh. 17. Dialogu But for the better understanding the very thing it self that he did so often and so earnestly pray to be delivered from we must consider him with a twofold respect 1. As he was true man so he prayed to be saved from death conditionally Mat. 26.39 2. We must consider him in this Text as he was our Mediatour and so he prayed to be saved from death absolutely namely to be saved from his natural fear of death when he came to make his oblation for he knew well enough that if there had remained in him but the least naturall unwillingnesse to die when he came to make his oblation it would have spoiled the mediatorial efficacy of his oblation Answ To consider Christ as man distinct from the consideration of Christ as Mediatour is to consider the Mediatour without the consideration of him as man that is to consider the Mediatour as not a Mediatour for it is essentiall to Christ as Mediatour to be Godman That praier of Christ Mat. 26.39 was as much the praier of the Mediatour as this Heb. 5.7 neither was the manhood more concerned in that then in this To understand by death Heb. 5.7 his naturall fear of death and by that his fear of offending God by his naturall unwillingnesse to die for so you expound your self beside the manifest and fearlesse violence offered thereby unto the text is that you may wave the true cause of his fear namely the wrath of God together with your silencing the wonted cause asserted by you namely the fear of bodily death to devise a new cause of the fear of Christ viz. lest he should offend God i. e. lest he should sin choosing rather to say that Christ was afraid of the evil of sin then of the evil of punishment for sin That which it was impossible for Christ to be touched with that Christ was not afraid of But to offend God by his unwillingnesse to die was impossible for Christ to be touched with Therefore Christ was not afraid of unwillingnesse to die Unwillingnesse to die in Christ had been a sin he having received a command to lay down his life Damasc de fide orthod l. 3. c. 23. Joh 10.17 Heb. 4.15 Naturall fear is either pure and without vice this was in Christ or impure adverse to reason this was not in Christ So Damascene long since This spoiling of the mediatorly efficacy of this oblation is a supposition of impossibility therefore could not be an object of fear to him who was only subject to pure and reasonable fear Significat timorem rationabilem Cham. de descen l. 5. c. 5. Dialogu The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is noted to signifie a reasonable fear For he had from eternity covenanted with his father to give his soul by his own active obedience as a mediatoriall sacrifice of atonement for our sins Joh. â—0 17 18. therefore he must not die a positive death by the power of man but he must die as Mediator by the actuall and joynt concurrence of both divine and humane nature no man could force his soul out of his body by all the torments they could devise but he must separate his own soul from his body by the joint concurrence of both his natures Answ If he covenanted only to suffer a bodily death as you say you must needs think very unworthily to say no worse of him that was God whilest you put upon him so great fear of breaking covenant upon so small temptation Notwithstanding he covenanted to suffer spirituall death i. e. the wrath of God yet because he was God it was impossible that he should break his word and consequently impossible that he should fear an impossibility He laid down his life as a surety whicâ— none could have taken away against his will but he took not away his life as an executioner If he had covenanted to take away his own life as an executioner neither then could he have broken his word because he was God nor had so covenanting opposed but engaged him to the suffering of the wrath of God his death being the cursed death of the crosse Dialogu Christ made his oblation an exact obedience unto Gods will both for matter manner and time and this mediatorial action of his was the highest degree of obedience that the father required or that the son could perform for mans atonement and redemption Answ True But in our sense not yours of which afterwards Dialog His obedience in his death was not Legall but mediatoriall Answ It was both mediatorly and legall It was the obedience of the Mediatour as such unto the Law Such a person obeying and such obedience from that person were both requisite for the meritorious procuring of our atonement and redemption Dialog 2. He prayed also to be delivered from the dominion of death after he had made his oblation and God heard him and delivered him by his resurrection on the third day Act. 2.24 27. Answ By death then here we are not only to understand the fear of death which elsewhere you seem to say He prayed to be delivered
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
and brings salvation though it self be invisible and in the heart For with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Dialogu And in this sense all Sacrifices of Atonement are called Sacrifices of Righteousnesse not only as they are the procuring cause of the Fathers Atonement for a sinners righteousnesse but also because they must be offered in righteousnesse Mal. 3.3 that is to say in faith because poor beleeving sinners do by faith receive the Fathers atonement for their full and perfect righteousnesse Answ This is in effect but what was objected and answered before Dialogu And it is further evident that faith doth no otherwise justifie a sinner but as it is that grace or instrument of the Spirit whereby a sinner is enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers atonement by the Apostles discourse in Rom. 3.21 22 23 24 25. all which Verses I will br efly expound unto you First The Apostle in these words doth teach us the true nature of a sinners justification he cals it the righteousnesse of God He doth not call it the righteousnesse of Christ but the righteousnesse of God the Father because the formall cause and finishing act of a sinners righteousnesse or justification doth come down from God the Father upon all beleeving sinners A sinner cannot be made righteous by the works of the Law as the former verse doth conclude For by the Law men come to know themselves to be sinners and they that are sinners are ever sinners in themselves therefore if ever sinners can be made righteous they must be made righteous by such a kinde of righteousnesse as it pleaseth God the Father to bestow upon them and that can be no other righteousnesse then a passive righteousnesse proceeding from Gods mercifull atonement pardon and forgivenesse Answ The righteousnesse whereby a sinner is justified is called the righteousnesse of God because he is the authour of it it is as much as called the righteousnesse of Christ Rom. 5.18 where it is called the rigteousnesse of one which one is Christ The imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ is the formall cause of our justification and is the act of God the Father The word Father not being taken personally for the first person in the Trinity but essentially for all the three persons God the Father Son and holy Ghost Because all works wrought upon the creature are the works of the three persons equally A sinner is not justified by the works of the Law namely by works that we have done Tit. 3.5 For to such a work four things are requisite viz. that it be wrought 1. By vertue of the grace of the first Covenant 2. By our own persons 3 With exact obedience to the Law 4. Under the promise of justification unto continuance therein But yet a sinner is justified by the works that Christ hath wrought though not by the works that we have wrought If that Proposition be absolutely true that they that are once sinners are ever sinners then either the Saints in glory were never sinners or they are and ever shall be sinners and consequently neither are nor ever shall be perfectly blessed See Ephes 5.27 Neither the justified persons continuance to be a sinner which is the condition of all in this life nor the dependance of justification upon Gods free pleasure nor the passivenesse of the soul in receiving justification do at all inferre atonement much lesse the atonement of the Dialogue to be our righteousnesse The good pleasure of God is the cause why the righteousnesse of Christ imputed and not atonement is our righteousnesse Dialogu But yet the Apostle doth further describe this righteousnesse of God ver 21. by two other circumstances 1. Negatively 2. Affirmatively 1. Negatively he saith that this righteousnesse is without the works of the Law He doth plainly affirm that the works of the Law have no influence at all in the point of a sinners justice or justification Answ We are justified without the works of the Law that is without the works of the Law done by us but not without the works of the Law done by Christ We are justified freely it costeth us nothing Buchan loc 31. q. 16. yet we are justified justly it cost Christ the laying down of a full price Dialogu He doth affirm that this righteousnesse of God whereby sinners are made righteous is such a reghteousnesse as is witnessed by the Law and by the Prophett It is witnessed by the Law namely by that part of the Law which did teach and typifie unto sinners how they might be sinlesse by Gods atonement through their sacrifice of atonement as the procuring cause thereof as I have opened the matter more at large already Answ Willet in loc q. 27. The Apostle in those words by the Law Rom. 3.21 doth not intend the Law of works nor the Ceremoniall Law only but the Law of Moses Moses wrote of me Joh. 5.46 The ceremoniall Law did not typifie our being made righteous by atonement much lesse by the atonement of the Dialogue as it is to be seen in the answer of the places you referre unto Dialogu Faith it self is not a sinners righteousnesse and therefore it cannot be accounted as a sinners righteousnesse in stead of the righteousnesse of the Law as some would have it For if faith were a sinners righteousnesse no otherwise but in the place or stead of the righteousnesse of the Law then faith could not justifie a sinner any further then the Law would do if it could be supposed that a sinner could by any means attain to the righteousnesse of the Law and then truly faith would be but a poor righteousnesse to cover a sinners nakednesse For if a sinner could keep the whole Law in every circumstance of it from his birth unto his death yet it would not be sufficient to justifie him from his originall sin Answ It doth not follow though faith is not therefore atonement is a sinners righteousnesse None of us say that faith is a sinners righteousnesse otherwise then relatively for the sake of the object apprehended by faith and so the Apostle saith expresly Abrahams faith was accounted to him for righteousnesse Yea the Dialogue if atonement might passe for righteousnesse acknowledgeth that faith for the atonements sake received by it is accounted for righteousnesse No marvell though the Dialogue denieth faith to be accounted a sinners righteousnesse in stead of the righteousnesse of the Law the righteousnesse of the Law being righteousnesse properly and truly so called which the Dialogue simply denieth to have any influence into the matter of justification There is no need unto meer justification that faith should justifie a sinner further then the Law requireth yet faith doth not onely justifie a sinner which the Law could not Rom. 8.3 4. but also justifieth him in some respects in a more excellent manner then the Law could have justified an innocent person Dialogu If any
doubtlesse parts of Evangelicall atonement or reconciliation But whether justification precisely considered be a part or necessary antecedent and means of Reconciliation as there is no need of discussing in order to the resolution of the present question so is it freely left to the judgment of the Reader or to any after disquisition only adding that satisfaction for an offence is an antecedent and means rather then a part of the reconciliation following thereupon between such as are made friends after variance Quamvis reconciliatio potius quiddam consequens justificationis effectus sit Syn. pur Theol. dis 33. n. 6. Reconciliation say the Leiden Divines is rather a consequent and effect of justification And both that Text God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them 2 Cor. 5.19 and the Analogy of faith may as well bear an interpretation agreeable hereunto as any other thus God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself how by not imputing their trespasses unto them so as the not-imputation of sinne may seem to be an antecedent and means rather then a part of atonement or reconciliation Dialogu Therefore his forgivenesse of sin is not only a bare acquittance of the fault but it doth comprehend under it his receiving of sinners into favour And I do also grant that his receiving of sinners into favour must be distinguished as another part of Gods Atonement Answ Here you do not obscurely what before you did in effect expresly viz. make forgivenesse and receiving into favour parts of Gods atonement yet pag. 154. lin 19. you make them effects of the Fathers atonement If they be parts they cannot be effects if effects they cannot be parts because the part is before the whole i. e. it s integrum but the effect is after the cause you may as well make the same thing before and after it self as make these stand together Dialogu This also must be remembred that no other person in Trinity doth forgive sins formally but God the Father only Mar. 2.7 Col. 2.13 he of his free grace did ordain the Mediatour as the meritorious procuring cause of his forgivenesse and therefore it is said that he doth forgive us all our sins for Christs sake Ephes 4.32 sometimes Christ is said to forgive sins Col. 3.3 but still we must understand his forgivenesse to be in a Mediatoriall way not formally Answ The acts or works of God are of three sorts Essentiall whose principle is the divine essence subsisting in the relative properties of Father Sonne and holy Ghost its object the creature Personal whose both principle and object or term is one or more of the three persons or mixt the principle whereof is the divine essence the object or term one of the persons such is the Incarnation having the divine essence for its principle the second person for its term or object The externall essentiall works of God are wrought jointly immediatly and formally by all the persons because the principle of them is the divine essence Essentiae in personis non discrepat potentia Aug. in Joan. tract 20. which is common to all the three persons the Son is God of himself the holy Ghost is God of himself the deniall herof argueth no little ignorance of the nature of God The Father father being taken essentially forgiveth sinne formally and authoritatively as the Supreme Lord Christ as Mediatour formally and authoritatively by an authority derived as a subordinate Lord. When we say Christ forgiveth sin formally the meaning is he actually taketh away sin by an authoritative and judiciall discharging the sinner from the guilt and punishment thereof and doth not only declare the forgivenesse of sinne as the Ministery doth Dialogu And whereas I have oftentimes in this Treatise made Gods atonement to comprehend under it our Redemption from sin as well as our justification and adoption I would have you take notice that I do not mean that Gods atonement doth contain under it Redemption as another distinct point differing from justification but I make our redemption and freedom from sin by the Fathers atonement to be all one with our justification from sinne Answ Redemption is taken actively Luk. 2.38 for the purchasing of grace and glory for the elect by laying down of a price so Redemption is the meritorious cause and atonement is an effect Or passively for the good of Redemption applied Rom. 8.23 so redemption is the whole and atonement is the part but atonement whether it be taken for reconciliation or for freedom from sin can in neither sense be the same with redemption Forgivenesse of sin Eph. 1.7 Col. 1.14 is mentioned as a principall but neither there or elsewhere as the totall good of redemption Dialogu The Fathers Atonement or Reconciliation is the top-mercy of all mercies that makes poor sinners happy Answ The great act of mercy is the gift of Jesus Christ to be our Head and Saviour He is the Gift of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 4.10 How shall he not with him also freely give us all things Rom. 8.32 No benefit following the Gift of Christ is to be compared with Christ himself Dialogu But the truth is a sinners Atonement must be considered as it is the work of all the Trinity 1. The Father must be considered as the efficient and as the formal cause of a sinners atonement 2. The Mediatour must be considered as the only meritorious procuring cause of the Fathers Atonement Rom. 5.10 3. The holy Ghost must be considered as the principal instrumental cause of the Fathers atonement by working in sinners the grace of faith by which sinners are enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers atonement Or thus The Father must be considered as the efficient cause the Son as the Mediatoriall procuring cause and the holy Ghost as the principall instrumentall cause of all blessings that poor believing sinners do enjoy Eph. 1.3 Answ The will of God which is an immanent act is the efficient cause but a created effectuall transient motion of the Spirit the formall cause of the working a sinners Atonement By that God from Eternity willeth the infallible being of atonement By this God in time worketh atonement according to his will The Universall efficient cause of all things is uncreated but created acts of God whether permanent or transient done in time or aeviternity are the formall causes of things i. e. of giving to them their actuall being All the external essential works of God i. e. all his works concerning the creature viz whatsoever being or thing is besides God are wrought jointly immediatly equally and formally as was said before by all the three persons because essentiall works universally both internall and externall proceed from the essence it self subsisting in the three Persons Father Son and holy Ghost not from the manner of the essence i. e. the persons as persons The order and manner of the working of the three
Persons upon the creature is answerable to the manner of their subsistence in the divine nature The Father worketh of himself the Son worketh from the-Father Joh. 5.19 30. and 8.28 The holy Ghost worketh from the Father and the Son Joh. 16.13 hence though all the works of God concerning the creature are wrought jointly by all the three persons yet is the work principally ascribed to that person whose manner of subsistence doth most eminently appear therein Beginning works as creation are ascribed principally to the first person the carrying works on to perfection as redemption to the second person the perfecting of them as the application of redemption under which last work the grace of justifying faith is contained unto the third person To make the first person an efficient and the third person an instrumentall cause in the working of reconciliation or faith were by consequence to affirm some inferiority of the third person in respect of the fiâ—st consequently an inequality between the persons which were to inferre an inequality in God because every person is God which leaving the consideration of more dangerous inferences to the intelligent Reader is inconsisting with the perfection of God so unsafe is it to speak unadvisedly in these mysteries The second person in the Trinity is to be considered as in himself so he is only God and not man or as subsisting in personall Union with the manhood so he is God-man The second Person in the Trinity considered in himself works together with the Father and the holy Ghost jointly and equally in all essentiall works consequently as concerning faith atonement c. as we have already seen The Mediatorly obedience of Christ i. e. of God-man consisting of the divine and humane nature in one person called by the Father unto that service is the procuring and only meritorious cause of the Fathers atonement and all other spirituall blessings that beleeving sinners do enjoy Dialogu To conclude If thou hast gotten any spirituall blessing by any thing that I have said in this Treatise Let God have all the glory Answ To conclude Herosis in capite Pol. Syn. l. 7. c. 22. Vide Par. 1. Cor. 1.11 and 11.19 Ames Cas Con. l. 4. c. 4 Val. tom 3. dis 1. q. 11. punct 1 2 3. Taking heresie for a fundamentall errour that is such as whosoever liveth and dieth in cannot be saved The Dialogue containeth three Heresies The first denying the imputation of the sin of the Elect unto Christ and his suffering the punishment due thereunto contrary to 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 Isa 53.5 6. and Other Arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative Thereby leaving the Elect to perish in their sinne 1 Cor. 15.17 18. This Heresie is maintained in the first part The second denying that Christ as God-man Mediatour obeyed the Law and therewith that he obeyed it for us as our surety contrary to Galat. 4.4 5. Matth. 5 17 18. Heb. 10.7 compared with Psa 48.7 8. Rom. 3.31 and Other arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative Thereby rendring Christ both an unfaithfull and an insufficient Saviour and spoiling the elect of salvation This Heresie is maintained in the former Section of the second part The third 1. Denying the Imputation of Christs obedience unto justification Contrary to Rom. 4. Rom. 5.19 Phil. 3.19 and the arguments in the answer proving the affirmative Thereby leaving all that be ungodly under an impossibility of being justified 2. Destroying the very being of a sinners righteousnesse by taking away the obedience of Christ unto the Law and imputation which are the matter and form that is the essentiall causes of justification 3. Placing a sinners righteousnesse in a fictitious Atonement or pardon of sin such as in effect manifestly doth not only deny it self to be the effect of but denieth yea and defieth the very being of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ to the Law for us This Heresie is maintained in the second Section of the second part The first holdeth us in all our sin and continueth the full wrath of God abiding upon us The second takes away our Saviour The third takes away our righteousnesse and our justification What need the Enemy of Jesus grace and souls adde more This threefold cord of Hereticall doctrine so directly and deeply destructive to the truth of the Gospel and salvation of man We desiring after Christs example to distinguish where there is cause between Peter and Satan reserving all charitable and compassionate thoughts according to rule touching the compiler thereof who we hope did it ignorantly do principally impute to him who is not only a lyar but also a murtherer from the beginning Now the good Spirit of Grace that great Defender and Teacher of the Truth as it is in Jesus who in his rich mercy causeth all then whom he loveth to beleeve the truth that they may be saved and in his righteous judgement giveth up such who receive not the truth in the love of it to beleeve a lie that they may be damned Grant that truth may look down from heaven in this hour and power of the spirit of errour so perilously prevailing to deceive if it were possible the very elect Preserve the Reader from every false way and leade him into all truth Magnifie his compassion in the pardon and recovery of the Authour a person in many respects to be very much tendred of us in so saving of him though as by fire as that his rising again may be much more advantageous to the truth comfortable to the people of God and honourable to himself then his fall hath been scandalous grieving or dishonourable And lastly Inspire us all with a discerning and conscientious spirit as concerning the mystery of piety working in the way of truth and the mystery of iniquity working in the way of lying so as that in these evil daies wherein errours and heresies must be we may manifest our selves approved and to be acted vigorously and efficaciously by the spirit of him who sealed that good confession before Pontius Pilate saying To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world that I should bear witnesse to the truth Christian Reader if as sometimes through grace it was with Augustine concerning the Heresie of Pelagius by occasion of this Dialogue and other perilous Treatises with which this hour of temptation abounds threatning it it were possible to deceive the very elect thou hast been stirred up more to search into and hate the unsound tenets contained therein and more to search into and love the sound doctrines contrary thereunto Remember to glorifie that God which brings Light out of Darknesse by his good Spirit leading all those whose Names are written in the Book of Life of the Lamb into all truth teaching them to abhorre the wine of deadly errours notwithstanding they are presented in a golden cup and to discern Satan though transformed into an Angel of Light Glory be to God in Jesus Christ.
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
exceeded the bounds of naturall fear Answ His confidenee that he should not be moved by his sufferings either from his hope state or the good hoped for but that it should be with him as ver 10. sheweth us his certainty of victory which doth not oppose but rather suppose the matter of his sufferings which the Scripture manifests to be the wrath of God Neither can we apprehend that Christs fear exceeded the bounds of naturall fear understanding by natural fear regular fear in which sense this distinction is used by Divines after Damascene who distinguished fear into a fear according to nature this was in Christ and a fear besides nature adverse to reason this was not in Christ Dialogu These sentences of M. Calvin may advise us how we do attribute such a kinde of fear to Christ as might disorder his pure naturall affections which doubtlesse would have fallen upon him if he had undergone the pain of losse for our sins such as the damned do feel in hell as the common Doctrine of Imputation doth teach Answ It is vain labour to write so much out of Calvin to prove against us that the fear which was in Christ was pure and not impure it being the professed and known judgement of all the inference of impure and vicious fear in Christ from his undergoing of the pain of losse for our sins is your own Institution lib. 2. c. 16. s 10. See Willet synops and an errour nor have you any greater adversary then Calvin therein who not only affirms the fear and affections in Christ to be pure according to your citations but also that in his soul he suffered the terrible torment of the damned and forsaken men Yet because the sufferings of the damned differ in some things from the sufferings of Christ later Writers choose rather upon just reason to say he suffered the punishment of the elect who deserved to be damned then that he suffered the punishment of the damned Dialogu And if he had died without manifesting fear of death it would have occasianed wofull heresie yea notwithstanding the evident proof given of his humane nature sundry hereticks have denied the truth of his humane nature it was necessary therefore that he should be pinched with the fear of death as much as his true humane nature could bear without sin as Calvin well observeth Answ There 's difference between manifest fear and excessive fear to have feared naturall death with excessive fear and that such as never man or woman manifested was to have manifested something lesse then man It was a sufficient manifestation of Christ to be man that he was touched with the feeling of our infirmities that he was in all points tempted like to us His words are these speaking on Matt. 26.39 Sed quantū ferri potuit sana integra natura hominis metu percussus anxietate constructus fuit Dialogu yet without sin So far as I can finde in Calvin for you have not pointed to the place you put in the word Therefore and so force both it and the whole sentence to confirm your own premises contrary to his minde which is directly against you See Calv. Comment on Ver. 2.28 of the chapter mentioned If the fear of death which he expressed to his Disciples in the night before his death had risen on the sense of his fathers wrath inflicted upon him for our sinne then you must also say that he suffered his fathers wrath for our sins six daies before this for six daies before this he spake those words Luk. 12.50 where our Saviour doth expresse as much distresse of minde as here yet I know no expositor that ever gathered so much from this place of Luke Answ Expositors do generally agree that as in Mathew and Mark so also Luke 12.50 Christ speaks of his passion as likewise that the wrath of God was the principal matter thereof in Luke he 's troubled at the remembrance of his future passion of his fathers wrath the sense of that wrath had at present in great degree taken hold upon him Christ doth not expresse so much distresse of minde in Luke as here he saith he was straightned but here he professeth his sorrowfullnesse unto death together with consternation and expavefaction of which straightway Dialogu Our Saviour tells the two sons of Zebedee they must drink of his cup and be baptized with his baptism by these two expressions which are Synonima's or equivalent our Saviour doth inform the two sons of Zebedee what the true nature of his sufferings should be viz. no other but such only as they should one day suffer from the hands of tyrants Answ Herein is a fallacy confounding such things as should be divided this Text saith Piscator is to be understood with an exception of that passion in which Christ felt the wrath of God for the Elect Quod tamen intelligendum est cum exceptione passionis illius quâ Dominus pro electis sensit iram Dei Pisc in loc Dialogu Christ suffered both as a Mattyr and as a satisfier the sons of Zebedee drank of the cup of Martyrdom not of the cup of satisfaction or redemption James and John the sons of Zebedee were asleep whilest Christ was drinking of that cup. His son was not touched with any sufferings from Gods wrath at all except by way of sympathy from his bodily sufferings only Answ If his soul was touched with Gods wrath by way of sympathy then his body was touched with the suffering of his wrath properly then Christ suffered the wrath of God by your concession These sufferings in the soul were not by way of sympathy his soul suffered properly and immediatly Isa 53.10 Mat. 26.37 the cause of his sufferings required that his soul should suffer as well as his body we sinned in soul properly therefore our surety must suffer in soul properly The greatest of the sufferings of Christ were spirituall and such as immediatly seized on his soul As his active obedience was as properly spirituall as bodily so his passive obedience was as properly spirituall as bodily Much rather is their judgement to be embraced who say The body suffered by way of sympathy because the soul is sensible of sufferings without the body but not the body without the soul Dialogu If the circumstances of his agony be well weighed it will appear that it did not proceed from his fathers wrath but from his naturall fear of death only because he must be stricken with the fear of death as much at his true humane nature could bear he must be touched with the fear of death in a great measure as the Prophets did foretell Adde to these pains of his minde his earnest prayers to be delivered from his naturall fear of death the fear of death doth often cause men to sweat and earnestly pray as he was man he must be touched with the fear of death as he was Mediatour he must fully and wholly overcome his naturall
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
his truth more and more in every age neither do we doubt of fundamentall truth continuing the same to his in all ages As at the coming of Christ Satan opposed the true Christ with raising up false Christs so at the breaking forth of the light he opposeth the true light by false lights If the doctrine of the Dialogue brought to the fiery triall be found to be darknesse and ours to be light it deeply concerneth the Authour timously to remember that of the Prophet Wo be to them that put darknesse for light and light for darknesse Isa 5.20 Dialogu Others alledge the Article of Christs Descent to prove that Christ suffered the torments of hell in his soul for our Redemption but the truth is the Article speaks only of his souls passage from his body to Haides which hath a double lot when it is applied to the souls departed a place of joy and a place of torment so that all souls both good and bad go to Haides as soon as they are separated from the body the bad do go to the place of torment in Haides and the good go to the place of pleasure in Haides therefore seeing Christ was a good man even the Holy One of God he must needs go to the place of pleasure in Haides even to the Paradise Luk. 23.43 and that Haides doth comprehend in it a double lot as Britain doth comprehend England and Scotland is evident by the use of the Greek word in sundry Greek Authours and according to this sense M. Robert Wilmot hath expounded this Article wherein he doth also approve of the judgement of M. Broughton in his Exposition of this Article Answ This Article of the Creed is not found in the Scripture in terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sym. Apos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sym. Atha Nempe quia essentia illorum est per se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 status 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 locus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jun. cont 2. l. 4. c. 14. though the Orthodox sense of it is taught therein clearly and plentifully The Learned observe above threescore Creeds of the most ancient Councels and Fathers that want this clause and amongst them the Nicene Creed The Article of the Creed saith not that Christ descended into Haides but into Hades It is true that Haides in respect of its Etymology is used in a large signification by both divine and secular Authours for an invisible place and condition and in this sense it is applicable to all souls departed whether good or bad because the Being State and Place of both are invisible to us The Authour of the Dialogue perceiving the large use of the word very unwarrantably ventures to say the Article of the Creed speaks only of his souls passage from his body to Haides Sciendum sanè est quod in Ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non habetur additum de scendit ad inferos sed neque in orientis Ecclesiis habetur hic sermo vis tamen verbi eadem videtur esse in eo quod sepultus dicitur For 1. The word in the Creed is doubtlesse to be interpreted according to some sense wherein it is used in the Scripture where it is taken for the grave Act. 2.27 for hell Rev. 20.13 14. but never in this sense used by the Dialogue 2. From the incongruity of the words so understood It were not proper to say he descended but he ascended into the place of joy viz. the celestiall Paradise Lastly the Ancients though they knew the large use of the word Hades yet did not take it in the Creed according to the exposition of the Dialogue Ruffinus saith directly that these words He descended into hell are not found in the Creed of the Romane Church nor used in the Churches of the East and if they be that then they signifie the buriall of Christ CHAP. XIII Of the Dialogues arguments taken from the description of the torments of hell and from the place of suffering the torments of the damned Dialogu BY describing the torments of hell you shall be the better able to judge whether Christ did suffer the torment of hell for our Redemption or not The torments of hell are usually divided into two paerts 1. Into the pain of lesse 2. Into the pain of sense The pain of losse is the privation of Gods favour by a everlasting separation Answ The rule which Logicians give concerning definitions is to be attended to concerning descriptions which are imperfect definitions A little errour in the beginning in a short time becometh a great one Error definiendi exiguus brevi fit ingens and encreaseth as the Dispute encreaseth Pain of losse and Pain of sense make up the torments of hell Pain of losse then being but a part of the curse or punishment the part is to be distinguished according to the whole as the punishment is taken either essentially for such executions of justice as flow from the curse as such viz. the not enjoying of ought of the good of the promises and the suffering of all the substantiall positive evill of the curse without any respect unto the condition of the Patient or accidentally for such executions of justice as are inseparable concomitants of the state of the damned yet flow not from the simple nature of the curse but in respect of the condition of the patient viz. total and final separation from God c. of which oft above The Favour of God is taken largely for the effects of his common bounty so the wicked are for their sin separated from the favour of God or it is taken properly for the speciall love of God namely Election so the wicked cannot be said to be separated from him the Legall discovenanting of the Reprobate for their sin which they have committed is the effect of justice that being discovenanted they fall into the bottomlesse pit is also an effect of justice but totality and finality of their disunion with God without recovery by the covenant of grace is a consequent of Reprobation This premised the errour of the description is manifest which holds only concerning the pain of losse as it is an accidentall part of punishment and belongs to the Reprobate but not as it is of the essence of punishment in which sense it is only true of Christ The description of the pain of losse viz. that it is the privation of Gods favour by an eternall Separation is untrue imperfect and impertinent First It is untrue because 1. It affirmeth a privation of Gods favour where Gods favour never was which is as if we should in Logick suppose a privation where never was an habit 2. Because it supposeth Gods not loving i. e. his hatred of Reprobation to be an effect of justice for pain of losse is an effect of justice whereas Reprobation is an act of Lordship not of Justice Secondly It is imperfect leaving out the privation of the good of the promises wherein consists the
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
of Ch. 19.31 There being therefore so much reason to conclude the theeves were buried before Sun-set it is very inconsiderately affirmed that they were alive at Sun-set It is also very inconfiderately affirmed that the theeves did continue alive in their torments till after the time that Ioseph of Arimathea had begged our Saviours dead body of Pilate when Iohn telleth us that the Jews besought Pilate that their legges might be broken and that they might be taken away and after that their legges were broken and Christs side was pierced with a spear Ioseph of Arimathea besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus Ioh. 19.31 34 38. but much more unadvised is it to say that the theeves were alive at Sun-set there being so much reason to conclude they were buried before Sunset The Margine note concerneth not us who acknowledge but two Evenings nor oppose the Hebrews or Jews beginning the first with the sensible declining of the Sun after its being in its altitude at midday the latter at Sunset between which two evenings that is in the space after the beginning of the first and before the beginning of the second the Lamb was slain Exo. 12.6 Christ died after three of the clock Mat. 27.45 50. the theeves were taken down and buried out of the way before Sunset and 't is probable Christ and they were taken down together whose body being wound up in linnen clothes with the spices and carried into Iosephs own sepulchre in a garden upon the same mount must necessarily take up some time neither is there reason to think they would put themselves upon any danget of entrenching upon the Sabbath The case thus standing and it being not set down what space there was between the death of Christ and of the theeves the Dialogue ventures too far in saying Christ died not only long but three hours before them But be it what it was let us see what the Dialogue infers from thence Dialogu What then was the true reason why Christ died three hours before the theeves had he lesse strength of nature to bear his torments then they or did the Roman souldiers adde more torment upon his body then upon the two theeves or did the Fathers wrath kill him sooner then the two theeves as some think surely none of all these things did hasten his death before the two theeves but the only true reason was because he did actuate his own death as a mediatorial sacrifice of atonement at the just hour appointed by his Father by the joint concurrence of both his natures Answ That Christ was dead a notable space before the theeves is manifest and Pilate marvelled if he were already dead Mar. 14 4◠But that he died three hours before them cannot appear Christ had lesse strength of nature left to bear his torments then the theeves had therefore they compelled a man of Cyrene Simon by name to bear his Crosse that is to help him bear it Illusio conspuitio Christi post latam in eum mortis sententiam a ministris a mediâ nocte usque ad horas matutinas fuit producta Gerh. harm 73. He is a very negligent Reader of the History of the Passion that observeth not many sufferings inflicted upon Christ by men more then were upon the thieves His restlesse vexation the night before by their carrying of him first before Annas Joh. 18. then to Caiaphas ver 24. where they spit in his face and buffeted him others smote him with the palms of their hands Mat. 27.67 Again they cover his face and buffet and say unto him Prophesie Mar. 14.65 and thence they carry him to Pilate early in the morning Mat. 27.1 2. thence to Herod Luk. 23.7 and Herod with his men of war set him at naught and mocked him and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe and sent him again to Pilate where the souldiers of the Governour took Jesus into the Common Hall and gathered unto him the whole Band of souldiers and they stripped him and put upon him a scarlet Robe and when they had platted a Crown of thorns they put it upon his head and a reed in his right hand and they bowed themselves before him Thom. part 3. qu. 46. vid. Gerh. harm in loc saying Hail King of the Jews and spit upon him and took the reed and smote him on the head Mat. 27.27 28 29 30. adde hereunto their casting lots upon his vesture reviling of him wagging their heads at him and mocking of him as well by the better as by the meaner sort whilest he was hanging upon the Crosse and all this besides what was extraordinary in his scourging you forget his sorrow unto death mortall of it self in time his agony in the garden besides the full sense of the wrath of God upon the Crosse no wonder if all these exhausted the spirits of the Manhood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold the man and if these things still seem lesse to the authour of the Dialogue yet know they seemed great both to David that spake of them and to Christ that felt them Reproach hath broken my heart Psa 69.20 My heart is like wax it is melted in the midst of my bowels my strength is dried up like a potsherd Psa 22.14 15. Dialogu Surely none of all these things did hasten his death before the two theeves but the only true reason was because he did actuate his own death as a mediatoriall sacrifice of atonement at the just hour appointed by his Father by the joint concurrence of both his natures Answ Of Christs fear hath been spoken particularly and I hope sufficiently upon Heb. 5.7 In regard of the Personal union and unction of Christ whereby he received all possible created fitnesse for the execution of his office it is inconsisting with his perfection to suppose the least unreadinesse either in respect of fear or whatsoever else to perform any Mediatorly service in the time thereof Iohn telleth us the true reason why Christ died then and not before nor after because then and not untill then his work of Mediatorly obedience both active and passive was finished and whatsoever was written concerning him was fullfilled When Iesus therefore had received the Vinegar he said It is finished and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost CHAP. V. Of the Dialogues distinction of Christs dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor Dialogu I Have already shewed you that Christ dyed a twofold death for he died both as a Malefactor and as a Mediatour at one and the same time as a Malefactor he died a passive death but as a Mediatour he died an active death and the Scripture doth often speak of both these deaths sometimes iointly and sometimes severally when the Scripture doth mention his passive death then it saith that he was put to death killed and slain But secondly the Scripture doth sometime speak iointly of his passive death and of his Mediatorly death together in one sentence as
any efficiency of it self Non-subsistence saith nothing nothing cannot act of it self but of this I spake before That Law which faith in Christ a Saviour establisheth that Law Christ as God-man Mediator establisheth but the Law of works is that Law which faith in Christ a Saviour establisheth Rom. 3.2 therefore the Law of works was established and consequently obeyed by Christ as God-man Mediator for the establishing of the Law includes Legall obedience He who as God-man Mediator is the perfecting end i.e. is he in whom the Law hath its perfecting end of the Law performed obedience to the Law but Christ i.e. God-man Mediator as such is the perfecting end of the Law so is the plain and acknowledged sense of the Greek word Rom. 10.4 therefore Christ as God-man Mediator performed obedience to the Law The Law is fullfilled as concerning them that are saved Gal. 3.10 either by the obedience of Christ God-man Mediator or by the personal obedience of the Beleever not by the personal obedience of the Beleever Rom. 3.3 Gal. 3.10 therefore by the personal obedience of Christ God-man Mediatour Dialogu The suffrage of the Godly Learned hereunto is known and acknowledged Polan l. 6. c. 14. Park de desc l. 3 n. 52 53. Rivet in Psa 40. Consideratio deitatis alia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polan syntag lib. 6. c. 12. Inequalitas officiorum non tollit aequalitatem naturae aut personarū Ursin expl catech par 2. qu. 33. q. 6. Christ Jesus saith Polanus from the time whereat he took upon himself the form of a servant began to pay the price of our redemption Christ is such a Mediator as is a debtor to keep the whole Law to that effect it was necessary saith Rivet that seeing Christ was our surety he should be made under the Law The divine nature considered absolutely in it self is not subject unto the Law as subsisting in personall union with the humane nature it is subject in respect of voluntary dispensation the humane nature is subject absolutely and properly being a creature The sum is Christ i.e. the person who is God man Mediator was subject unto the Law absolutely as touching the humane nature in respect of voluntary dispensation and office as concerning the divine nature it 's a received rule given for the understanding of this mystery that inequality of office taketh not away equality of nature and persons First God appointed the Mediatour to fulfill the Law of works I mean so much of it as fell within the compasse of his humane course of life not as a proper condition belonging to the Law of Mediatorship as Mediator but as true man only for he was bound to observe the Law of works as he was true man as much as any other Jew by a native right Gal. 4.4 Answ That God appointed the Mediator to fullfill the Law of works as a proper condition belonging to the Law of Mediatorship as Mediator and not as man only is already proved Of the difference between the obligation of Christ and another Jew to Legal obedience there is no need here to speak they were both bound by native right and otherwise but not altogether upon the like grounds and for very unlike ends the obedience to the Law whereof Paul speaks Gal. 4.4 was the obedience of Christ not as man only but as Mediator which is plain in that it was to redeem us that were under the Law ver 5. Dialogu Secondly Though I make this Legall obedience to be no more but humane obedience yet I grant that he was thereby qualified and fitted to make his soul a Mediatorly sacrifice for he could not have been the Lamb of God without spot if he had not been exact in the performance of so much Legal obedience as fell within the compasse of his humane course of life Heb. 7.26 Answ Rhetorf de gra exerc 1. c. 2. Righteousnesse or obedience in Christ hath a double consideration either it is considered in him as in such a person and not our surety or as in such a person and our surety righteousnesse in his person qualified him for the service of a surety Legal Mediatorly obedience or his personall and surety-obedience are distinguished only notionally not really i. e. it is one and the same obedience considered according to two notions Dialogu Thirdly The rewards which his father did promise him for his Mediatorly obedience do far exceed the rewards which he doth promise to Legall obedience for I cannot finde that ever the Father did promise to reward any mans Legall obedience with such speciall rewards as he doth promise unto Christs Mediatoriall Obedience I will give thee the end of the earth for thy possession Psa 2. And He shall see his seed and prolong his daies when he shall make his soul a trespasse-offering Isa 53.10 Answ The terms Legal and Mediatorly intend not two kindes of obedience but one and the same obedience under two denominations called Legal in respect of the Law which is the Rule of obedience and Mediatorly in respect of the office of the person who performed this obedience unto it both the promises instanced and all other of like kinde are made Dialogu Fourthly Christ was not bound to fulfil personal obedience to every branch of the Law of works for he had not wife and children to instruct c. but he was bound to fullfill every branch and circumstance of the Law of Mediatorship he must not be wanting in the least circumstance thereof if he had been wanting in the least circumstance he had been wanting in all Answ Legal obedience consists not in performing personal obedience to every branch of the Law formally But in performing all that the Law requireth as the Law requireth actually or habitually The Law of works and the Law of the Mediator differ not as two Laws but as the whole and the part of the same Law The will of God concerning the Mediator was that he should obey the Law of works Quando igitur quaeritur qualem obedientiam Deo praestiterit Pareus in loc Rivet in Psal 40.8 and more Pareus commenting upon those words Heb. 10.8 speaks thus If it be enquired saith he what obedience Christ performed unto God we must answer both the universal obedience of the whole Law given to man and the special obedience imposed upon the Mediator alone Christ faileth not of fulfilling the least iota unto either By the Law Psa 40. saith Rivet he understands as well all the Commandments of God common to all men as the singular command of laying down his life Dialogu M. Calvin observeth rightly that some of the actions of Christ were proper to his God-head only and some of his actions were proper to his humane nature only and some of his actions were common to both his natures and this observation saith M. Calvin shall do no small service to assoyl many doubts if the Reader can but fitly apply
our righteousnesse and justification This the Reader is desired to take full notice of it in the Dialogues corrupt sense being that Helena in defence whereof a good part of the ensuing discourse spends it self and the just confutation whereof here given and kept in minde may serve as an answer to the after frequent repetitions of the same thing That Atonement or pardon of sin only especially such as denieth the Legal Obedience of Christ imputed cannot be the righteousnesse of a sinner is proved thus The difference of the nature of justice and pardon of sin manifests that pardon of sin only is not justice or righteousnesse Pardon and sinlessenesse take away deformity in respect of the Law but righteousnesse consists in a conformity unto the Law Pardon of sin is an effect of that which is the sinners righteousnesse For the clearing whereof three distinct notions in the justification of a sinner are to be attended to 1. Righteousnesse it self i. e. the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed called by some justification taken actively or the application thereof on Gods part 2. The receiving of this gift of righteousnesse by faith Rom. 5.17 whereby we are just called by some justification taken passively or the application thereof on our part 3. Vid. Buch. loc 31 q. 6. Remissio peccatorum est pars nostrae justificationis sed non est pars nostrae justitiae Polan syntag p. 1493. The judicial pronouncing of the beleever in the Court of conscience hereupon to be just by the vertue of the promise of the Gospel for the merit sake of Christ this Divines call our justification because we are now declared to be just and are judicially just that is the Beleever now made righteous by faith is judicially discharged and declared to be discharged from the condemning guilt and punishment of sin and accepted as righteous unto eternall life The first is our righteousnesse or justice it self The second is our being justified The third is the judiciall pronunciation that we are justified so that pardon of sin is not a part of righteousnesse it self but a part of the judiciall sentence concerning one that is righteous and because he is righteous To say pardon of sin is righteousnesse is self is to confound the effect with the cause Whence the reason is plain why notwithstanding both righteousnesse or justice and the pardon of sins be by Divines frequently made ingredients into the definition of justification yet righteousnesse and pardon of sins are not to be looked at as the same thing Such definitions are not nor is it by the Authour thereof so intended perfect definitions adequate to thing defined but they are descriptions or imperfect definitions so expressed as best seems to communicate the truth unto the capacity of the reader Again Justification is an accident now Logicians teach us such definitions of accidents to be oftentimes helpful to the understanding that make use of other terms besides those which are essentiall If pardon of sin were a part of a sinners righteousnesse yet being but a part it could not be the whole Pardon of sin cannot compleat righteousnesse because righteousnesse doth not only consist in being sinlesse but also in being just the heavens are sinlesse yet they are not just the Law is not satisfied with negative obedience Not only he that doth do what the Law forbiddeth shall die Gen. 2.17 but he that continueth not in the things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 Being sinlesse acquits from obnoxiousnesse unto hell but being just giveth a right unto heaven There is an observable difference between being unjust Injustus non-injustus non-justus justus not-unjust not-just just The sinner yet not a beleever is unjust the unreasonable creature is not-unjust Adam in innocency was more then not-unjust yet was not just The Beleever is just There is no such pardon of sin as the Dialogue affirms namely such a pardon of sin as doth not only disown the Legal obedience of Christ imputed as its cause but also disclaims the very being of it The being of the Dialogues pardon is the not being of Christs active and passive mediatorly obedience to the Law It is such a fiction as the Authour of it and that at his conclusion undertaking to shew its being from the causes thereof Dial. p. 133. telleth us the formal cause is the fathers atonement pardon and forgivenesse but the subject matter is beleeving sinners of all sorts the subject matter are the persons receiving justification which some Divines call the matter of justification taken passively yet adding therewith the Legall obedience of Christ which they call the matter of justification taken actively namely that which is the matter whereby a person elect and called is justified but if you enquire after the essential matter of justification amongst the causes enumerated by the Authour behold the Dialogue is speechlesse and presents you with a form without a matter such a being as is neither created nor increated If Christs Legal obedience was the expiation of sin that is if Christ in way of obedient fulfilling the Law was a person accursed the sacrificing of whom in way of satisfaction to divine justice was necessary to the taking away of sin Then there is no pardon of sin without Christs Legal obedience so fulfilled and imputed But Christs Legal obedience was the expiation of sin which appeareth thus The Legal offerings of atonement were typical expiations of sin Exod. 29.36 ch 36. Lev. 16. therefore Christ was the reall expiation of sin He in way of obedient fulfilling of the Law Heb. 10 9. Psa 40.8 Mat. 5.7 was a person accursed and that with a paenal and eternal curse Gal. 3.13 which is already proved in the fore-going vindication of the Text. The sacrificing of whom in way of satisfaction to divine justice was necessary to the taking away of sin Isa 53.10 Rom. 3.26 Heb. 9.22 where bloud is understood synechdochically part of his suffering put for the whole his bloud was shed together with the wrath of God because it was shed as the bloud of a person accursed And he went a little further c. fell on his face c. praied saying O my Father if it be possible Let this cup passe from me to the same effect he praied the second time and the third time Mat. 26.39 42 44. If it be possible If it be possible If it be possible hereby the definitive way of God being set concerning the salvation of the Elect Christ abundantly sheweth there was no other possible way of redemption but by his drinking up the cup of his Fathers wrath for us whatsoever the Dialogue saith to the contrary God doubtlesse will not own those pardons for disobedience unto his Law which will not own Christs meritorious obedience to that Law and that as the cause of pardon If our very pardons minister matter of condemnation how great is that condemnation Who can lay
unto God the reverence of the truth dread of so pestilent an untruth to the perill of the Reader that distinguisheth not between ostentation and reason and to the vexing and just indignation of him that doth engageth the godly in all ages from the beginning of the world the practice of all sacrifices before the Law and under the Law the doctrine of the Prophets and of the New Testament to witnesse that fiction of the Authour to be a truth which includes an impossibility in nature a contradiction in reason and an abomination in Divinity Dialogu It is evident that our first Parents were well acquainted with the doctrine of a sinners iustification by Gods Atonement for as soon as ever God had told them that the seed of the woman should break the devils head-plot he explained unto them the manner how the seed of the woman should do it namely by his Mediatoriall sacrifice of Atonement Answ It is out of doubt with us that our first Parents were acquainted with the doctrine of justification and that it was taught unto them by that first and famous publication of the doctrine of the Gospel Gen. 3.15 wherein the person office and victorious efficacy of Christ together with the victory of all Beleevers in him over Satan and all other both his and their enemies was fully held forth but we deny the doctrine of the Dialogue to be the doctrine of justification made known to Adam which was here undertaken to be proved but is onely said and not proved Dialogu After the floud when Noah offered a sacrifice of Atonement Jehovah smelled a smell of Rest Gen. 8.21 and to that resting of God in the promise the sweet smell of rest which God smelt in Noahs sacrifice did look The word Rest implieth that now Gods Spirit was quieted and that he did rest satisfied and well pleased in the sacrifice of Christ which was thereby typified confer to this Eph. 5. the fathers by faith saw Christs sacrifice Answ It is also out of doubt with us that Noahs sacrifice typified the sacrifice of Christ and that God did and doth rest satisfied and well pleased in the Antitype Your task undertaken is to prove that Noahs sacrifice witnessed Christ to be a sacrifice in the sense of the Dialogue and that Noah so understood it Dialogu By this means Noah knew and beleeved that he was made righteous or sinlesse by Gods mercifull Atonement procured by Christs Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement Answ Here indeed you implicitly say again that Atonement is our righteousnesse and confound being righteous and sinlesse but you do but say the one or the other yet you begge but prove not the Question Dialogu For the God of glory Iesus Christ appeared to him that is to Abraham whilest he dwelt at Ur of the Caldees Act. 7.2 no doubt but Iesus Christ did then tell him in what a miserable lost condition he was and how he should be that seed of the woman that should break tht devils head-plot by his sacrifice of Atonement and how he should thereby procure his Fathers Atonement to all poor broken-hearted sinners All which Abraham beleeved and so his sinnes were done away by Gods Atonement which he received by his faith and so he was made perfectly iust and righteous in Gods sight Answ Your often repeating the same thing forceth us to tell you again that your Atonement is but a fiction 2. That Scripture Atonement is an effect of our righteousnesse not a part much lesse the whole thereof That which Abraham was made perfectly just and righteous by was that which was accounted unto him for righteousnesse That which was accounted unto him for righteousnesse was that which he beleeved namely the righteousnesse of Christ his head The rest that is here said if rightly understood is true if in the sense of the Dialogue 't is false But whether true or false hitherto all is but said nothing is proved as concerning the doctrine of sinners righteousnesse in the sense of the Dialogue Dialogu The doctrine of a sinners iustification or righteousnesse was abundantly taught under the Law by their sacrifices of atonement namely by their burnt-offerings sin-offerings and trespasse-offerings in Lev. 1. Lev. 4. Lev. 5. c. as I have explained their use above Answ No doubt it was But whether as you have explained is the Question nor may we yet take your word for a reason they were called sacrifices of Atonement or sin offerings to make atonement because they typically did expiate sinne pacific wrath and procure reconciliation to the sinner which was really done by the bloud of Christ Heb. 2.17 in such manner as hath been formerly both said and proved Dialogu The doctrine of a sinners justification or righteousnesse by the Fathers Atonement was taught and explained by the Prophets The Prophet David saith in the Person of Christ I have preached thy Righteousnesse to the great Congregation Ps 40.9 what righteousnesse was it that he by himself and by his Officers preached to the Church of the first born Was it his Legal Righteousnesse made theirs by his Fathers Imputation no the Text denieth that and saith that it was such a righteousnesse as he obtaineth by his sacrifice of Atonement saying Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire and then said I Lo I come I delight to do thy will O my God Ps 40.8 By the doing of which will saith Paul we are sanctified from sin or made perfectly righteous Answ If Righteousnesse be obtained by his Sacrifice of Atonement then Atonement is not Righteousnesse Righteousnesse as formally performed is an ingredient into the meritorious cause of justification Righteousnesse as it is imputed not formally as it is an ingredient in the meritorius cause but virtually in respect of its efficacy is the matter of the justification of a sinner It were better said Atonement is obtained by the sacrifice of Righteousnesse then that Righteousnesse is obtained by the sacrifice of Atonement The obedience of Christ both active and passive is the cause and sacrifice of atonement atonement or pardon of sin is an effect thereof Those words by which will Heb. 10.10 signifie the will of the Father who appointed his son to take our nature upon him to make satisfaction for our sins or we are to understand will with its correlate viz. the fullfilling thereof by the obedience of his Son we are sanctified that is we are made perfect Sanctification here is taken largely for all the benefits of Christ Dialogu Or thus Christ purchased or procured such a righteousnesse of his Father for sinners as shall last to all Eternity by the same way and means by which he purchased their eternal redemption but he did not purchase their redemption and freedom from sin by his active Legall Obedience but by his active Meditoriall Obedience when he made his soul a Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement for poor sinners Compare Heb. 9.12.14 with Dan. 9.24 therefore Christ purchased and procured such a
in them or no. Answ The Dialogue here takes off it self from further acting the part of an opponent against the imputation of Christs Legall obedience both active and passive unto justification and now proceeds to act the part of a Respondent unto certain Arguments of M. Forbes alledged to prove that sinners are justified by the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ in his death This it doth not as adhering to us wherein M. Forbes dissents for it agreeth with him wherein he disagreeth but as opposing him wherein he consents with us in the doctrine of imputation That the answer therefore may be as full in the Vindication as the Dialogue pretends to be in the refutation of the Doctrine of the Orthodox we shall examine the Dialogues examination and impertinences omitted consider all that and only that which herein concerns the Question Dialogu Nothing saith M. Forbes is made of God to be a sinners righteousnesse but Jesus Christ alone and his righteousnesse and this he proves by 1 Cor. 1.30 Jer. 23.26 with other places The Apostle saith that Christ was made of God unto us righteousnesse but how not as the doctrine of imputation speaketh but thus God made him to be our righteousnesse in a Mediatoriall way by ordaining him to be the only meritorious procuring cause of his atonement which is a sinners onely righteousnesse Christ is not a sinners righteousnesse any otherwise but in a Mediatoriall way only as I have oft warned Christ is called Jehovah our righteousnesse but still it must be understood in a Mediatoriall way and no otherwise We have seen already that Atonement is not righteousnesse it cannot then be a sinners only righteousnesse That which the Dialogue cals a Mediatorial way is indeed no way but is destructive unto the true way and consequently an hereticall way denying of and inconsisting with the Mediatorly obedience of Christ unto the Law The Legall obedience of Christ is to be considered formally and virtually as considered formally it is an ingredient into the meritorious cause of our justification as considered virtually it is the materiall cause thereof Of which before Dialogu And thus Christ is our Righteousnesse in one respect the Father in another and the holy Ghost in another Each person is a sinners righteousnesse in severall respects The manner how Christ should justifie the many was by bearing their iniquities and how else did he bear their iniquities but by his sacrifice of Atonement and in this sense Christ is said to justifie us with his bloud Rom. 5.9 that is to say by his Sacrifice of Atonement therefore his righteousnesse cannot be the formall cause of a sinners righteousnesse it is but the procuring cause of the Fathers atonement which is the only formall cause of a sinners righteousnesse Answ That Proposition Christ bare our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement is an equivocal proposition capable of diverse construct ons in the sense of the Orthodox 't is true in the sense of the Dialogue false both which senses are sufficiently known by the foregoing discourse The Apostle Rom. 5.9 speaketh of the meritoritorious cause part thereof being put for the whole Synechdochically Upon this occasion let us observe both the intent and consent of such Scriptures as speak diversly of the cause of justification We are said to be justified by grace Rom. 3.24 i. e. as the efficient cause By his bloud Rom. 5 9. i. e. as the meritorious cause By his obedience Rom. 5.19 i. e. as the materiall cause By imputation viz. of his obedience Rom. 4.6 i. e. as the formall cause By faith Rom. 5.1 i. e. as the instrument Your inference Christ bare our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement therefore his righteousnesse cannot be the formall cause of a sinners righteousness is impertinent and argues that you understand not our doctrine We say not that the obedience of Christ is the formall but the materiall cause of a sinners righteousnesse and that imputation is the formall cause thereof Dialogu The Father is a sinners righteousnesse 1. Efficiently 2. Formally His Atonement so procured must needs be the formall cause of a sinners full and perfect righteousnesse Answ To say the Father is a sinners righteousnesse formally sounds too near Osianders errour who held that we were justified by the essentiall righteousnesse of God But the following words shew you mistake or at least inconveniently use the term formally and intend no other then your former error The efficient cause of a sinners righteousnesse is the Father Father taken not personally but essentially for God the Father Son and holy Ghost Dialogu The holy Ghost also doth make sinners righteous instrumentally by fitting preparing and qualifying sinners for the Fathers Atonement by quickening their souls with the lively grace of faith by which grace sinners are enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers Atonement Answ Faith is the instrument or instrumentall cause of justification 'T is also true that the grace of faith as the application of all other benefits of redemption unto the Elect is the effect of the holy Ghost and because a finishing work it is ascribed to the third Person yet according to that received Rule All the works of God upon the creature are wrought in common by all the three persons notwithstanding the work be principally ascribed unto that person whose manner of existence doth most eminently appear in it 'T is a great errour both in Divinity and Logick to say the holy Ghost who is God and onely God is an instrumental cause which alwaies notes inferiority Dialogu It is well that your Authour will grant remission of sins to be righteousnesse in effect if remission of sins be a sinners righteousnesse then I pray consider whose act it is to forgive sins formally I have already proved it to be the Fathers act to forgive sin formally and not Christs he doth forgive sin no otherwise but as a Mediatour by procuring his Fathers pardon and forgivensse Answ Righteousnesse is taken strictly for the matter and form of justification only or largely for justification as consisting of its causes Rom. 10.10 remission of sins is an immediate and inseparable effect of the former but a part of the latter Imputation which is the formall cause of justification is a transient act and is the effect of the Father taken essentially Our Question is not concerning the formall but the materiall cause of justification Dialogu M. Forbes is put to his shifts to declare that Christs passive Obedience is the matter of a sinners righteousnesse by a distinction between Christ as he was our Lamb for Sacrifice in his humane nature and as he was our Priest in his divine nature for else he did foresee that he should run into an exceeding grosse absurdity if he had made any action of Christs God-head or Priestly nature to have been a sinners righteousnesse by imputation Therefore to avoid that absurdity he doth place a sinners righteousnesse in his passive
to the cause Answ Guilt is either taken for the personal commission of sin or for a personall obligation unto punishment upon our voluntary taking thereof for the sin committed by another in the last sense only Christ was guilty of sin that is he was guilty imputatively not inherently as Christ was guilty of sin so also he was sensible of an accusing Conscience If Christ saith D Willet truly bare our sins he sustained also the grief of conscience for them which is the inseparable companion of our sin The question is not Whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently but only whether he may be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively Desperation is not of the essence but accidental in paenal wrath The rest is but a repetition of what was said and also answered a little before Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in the proper place of hell seeing none can suffer the torments of hell as long as they live in this world none can suffer the second death till after this life is ended Answ The place of punishment is not of the essence of punishment as the place of the third heaven is not of the essence of blessednesse so neither is the place of the damned of the essence of misery As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joys of heaven out of the place of heaven if not at other times as Luk 9.28 yet after the Resurrection so might it suffer the pains of hell out of the place of hell The prison is no part of the essentiall debt The most Popish enemies of Christs soul-sufferings of the wrath of God whilest though in their erroneous asserting the locall descent they affirm an actuality concerning Christs being in the place of hell without the pains of hell cannot with any reason deny a possibility of being in the pains of hell without the place of hell Vide Rivet â—athol orth â—o 1. tract â— q. 60. Christ was in a paenall hell not in a locall hell the distinction between a paenall hell and a locall hell is nor only acknowledged unto this day by the Orthodox but was long ago taught by sundry of the Learned and sounder Schoolmen The dispensation of God is either extraordinary or ordinary according to the ordinary dispensation of God the full pains of hell are not suffered in this life but according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not only could but did suffer the pains of hell in this life Many Reprobate suffer the pains of hell here in a degree The Reprobate as was said before that shall be found alive 1 Cor. 15.51 shall passe into the pains of hell without any separation of the soul from the body Dialogu Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his body as well as in his soul to redeem our bodies as well as our souls from the torments of hell Answ We have already seen that Christ suffered the torments of hell in his body as well as in his soul as it is evident that Christ suffered the torments of hell for kinde in his soul so who can deny but he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of hell though not inflicted after the same manner August de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 10. All the flames of hell are not corporeall and materiall witnesse that fire wherein the rich man was tormented such as his eyes and tongue were such was the flame Luk. 16.23 24. Willet syn 20. gen cont qu. 3. par 4. Those flames of hell which torment the bodies of the damned though justly acknowledged to be materiall are materiall after a spirituall manner They therefore are not to be heard who object against Christs suffering hell-pains in his body because there was no visible instrument of such bodily pain If any say his bodily pains were not equall to the bodily pains of them that are in hell that being granted to them therein which they are unable to prove it is sufficient to integrate and make up the execution of the full measure of wrath upon Christ that if his bodily torments were not equall to the bodily torments of the damned yet what was not executed upon his body was executed upon his soul The measure of hell-pains is made up without bodily pains in the Angels that fell and if haply some mindes labour concerning the capacity of the soul of a meer man to hold such a measure of torment they may remember that the soul of Christ who is both God and Man is above that objection exceeding the capacity of all Men and Angels by reason of his personall union Dialogu How long did he suffer the torments of hell was it for ever or how long did he suffer them and when did the torments of hell first seize on him and when was be found freed from them or did he suffer the torments of hell at severall times or in severall places or but at one time or place only Answ His sufferings though temporall in respect of duration were eternall in efficacy in respect of the eminency of the Person it was more for an infinite person to suffer for a time then for all finite persons to suffer for ever Christ suffered the torments of hell upon the Crosse where he bare the moral curse Gal. 3.13 and in the garden Mat. 26. though his sufferings in the garden and upon the Crosse are the principal and therefore called the Passion emphatically yet the rest of his sufferings from his conception unto his passion are integral parts thereof that is such without which his passive obedience is not compleated He was freed from them at his death Job 19.30 he was freed from the sensible part of his sufferings at his death from sufferings simply at his Resurrection That Christ suffered the torments of hell is revealed which is the question though many circumstances of time and place are not revealed These are impertinent and captious quere's Dialogu Was he tormented without any forgivenesse or did Abraham deny him the least drop of water to cool his tongue Answ Christ was tormented without any forgivenesse God spared him nothing of the due debt Rom. 8.32 Mat. 26.39 but God gave him a discharge when the debt was paid Isa 53.10 Col. 2.14 He had not then so much as the least drop of water to ease him of the least particle of suffering due unto him according to justice but was wholly forsaken in respect of any participation of the sense of the good of the promise for the time Mat. 27.46 Dialogu Did Christ inflict the torments of hell upon his own humane nature was his Divine nature angry with his humane nature or did his Divine nature forsake his humane nature in anger as it must have done if it had suffered the torments of hell if so then he destroyed the personall union of his two natures and then he made himself no Mediatour but a cursed damned sinner Answ The second Person of the
Trinity is to be considered according to his subsistence in the Divine nature only or as he subsists in personall union with the man-hood In the first consideration He together with the Father and the holy Ghost did inflict the torments of hell upon the humane nature All the works of the Trinity upon the creature whereof this is one Isa 53.10 Mat. 26.31 are undivided that is they are wrought by all the persons jointly In this consideration also the divine nature was angry not only with the humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him and forsook him with a temporall and partiall desertion But hence in no waies followeth the dissolution of the personall union as the body and soul of Christ separated one from the other continued in personall union so the soul and body separated from all participation of the good of the promise for the while were without dissolution of the Personall Union The execution of the evil of the curse denieth communion but not union with God The evil of the commination denounced and incurred as touching our legall obnoxiousnesse thereunto dissolveth not the union of the Elect with God in the everlasting covenant of grace nor doth the denouncing incurring the danger and undergoing of the punishment dissolve the union of the election of Christ Isa 42.1 much lesse doth it dissolve the personal union The Second Person considered as subsisting in personall union with the manhood Mediatio propriè analogicè Wolleb and as Mediatour is properly Christ and so though the manhood only suffered yet the Person that suffered being God-man the person of the Mediatour and consequently the Divine nature by way of voluntary dispensation was subject to the Divine nature considered absolutely and in it self Dialogu These and such like grosse absurdities the common doctrine of imputation will often fall into Answ That the received and common doctrine of imputation standeth firm and upright upon the Scriptures of truth without falling or leaning to into or unto any absurdities or inconveniences hath we hope been sufficiently cleared That such and the like unworthy aspersions wherewith the great doctrine of imputation through the grace of Christ generally received amongst all that are worthy to be called Christians and therefore truly though not without appearance of too much irreverence by this discorse called Common is frequently and ignorantly blasphemed in the Dialogue may be shook off as Paul shook off the viper so as the Common doctrine of imputation may hereby shine more gloriously as a part of the Common faith Tit. 1.4 is the further blessing of God That the Authour of this Treatise may arise not only out of those absurdities but also out of those heresies into which the Dialogue sheweth him to be fallen is and shall be our praiers and the rather are we encouraged that God will have mercy upon him herein because we hope he did it ignorantly and through an erring conscience Dialogu Christ could not suffer any part of the Torments of hell as long as he lived in this world because the very devils as long as they live in this air do not suffer the torments of hell as it is evident by the fearfull crying out to Christ Mat. 8.29 Answ The full torments of hell are not inflicted upon the devils before the day of Judgement Mat. 8.29 yet how can he that reades Jam. 2.19 2 Pet 3.4 Jude 6. deny the torments of hell to be inflicted in part upon them before the day of judgement the cause why the devils suffer not the torments of hell fully or in part is not because they are in the air but from the wise dispensation of God But why the Authour of the Dialogue who thinks the place of hell to be on high before the Throne of the Lamb yea so near to the place of the blessed as that the blessed and damned may talk together should look at the air as a priviledged place from torment or as uncapable to become a place of torment I see no colour of reason The rest is but a repetition of what hath been said before and answerd before Dialogu M Broughton in a Manuscript saith thus No words in all the Bible do expresse any thing that Christ suffered the wrath of God for our sins therefore it is no small impiety for men from generall metaphoricall terms to gather such a strange particular none that ever spake Greek Spirit or man gathered hell torments for the just from Haides or from any other Greek or Hebrew Text. Again the same Authour affirmeth in Rev. 11.7 that hell-place and torments are not in this life Answ That Christs suffering of the wrath of God is by just and manifest consequence plentifully held forth in the Scriptures is to us undoubted and I hope fully and clearly evinced the deniall whereof is not only no small but a great impiety Though the place of the damned who suffer the wrath of God be included in Haides taken in its largest signification both by divine and secular authors as any that know not already may soon if they please inform themselves yet that ever any Orthodox indifferently-learned writer thence gathered hell torments for the just I do not beleeve is any where extant except in that Manuscript or the Dialogue We acknowledge readily the gifts of God in M. Broughton and that he was an excellent Linguist yet we do not beleeve that Greek and Hebrew dwelt with him Isaiah speaking Hebrew by the Spirit of God telleth us that Christ suffered the wrath of God Chap. 53. the like doth Paul speaking Greek from the same spirit 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 Doubtlesse Isaiah could speak Hebrew and Paul who spake with tongues more then they all could speak Greek as well and the Spirit of God by which they both spake could speak both Hebrew and Greek better then M. Broughton Sure the Authour is not of his minde whom Erasmus observeth to have said openly that Paul was ignorant of the Greek Grammar Dialogu And truly it seems to me that the holy Scriptures do confine hell-torments to the proper place of hell it self which is seated on high before the Throne of the Lamb Rev. 14.10 and Solomon doth tell us that all mens souls both good and bad do ascend Eccl. 3.21 and the Hebrew Doctors hold generally that hell is above as well as heaven and Learned M. Richardson doth probably conjecture in his Philosophical Annotations on Gen. 1. that hellplace is seated in the Element of fire and why may it not be so seeing its place is next before the Throne of the Lamb where John doth place it Rev. 14.10 And it is certain by Lukes Parable that hell is seated near unto heaven or else the comparisons that Luke useth to describe their neernesse were absurd 1. He describes their neernesse by two persons talking together the one in heavenplace and the other in hellplace 2. He describes their neernesse by seeing each others