Nec putemus in verbis scripturarum esse Evangelium sed in sensu Hieron in Ep. ad Gal. ca. 1. If most pestilent doctrines have oftentimes been communicated in the language of the Scripture marvell not then that they are communicated in a language which doth not unbecome the Orthodox Neither let us saith Hierome speaking against the heresies of Ebion Photinus Marcion and Bafilides think the Gospel to be in the words of the Scripture but in the sense Who is ignorant that the Arrians speak heresie by that Text The Father is greater then I Joh. 14.28 or that the Papists idolatry by that Proposition This is my Body Mat. 26.26 And they who please may reade Pelagius by those words For that all have sinned or In whom all have sinned Rom. 5. August contra Julian l. 6. c. 12. 12. breathing forth no small seeds of Pelagianism so interpreting or rather corrupting of them as that he acknowledgeth not the meaning of them to be that all sinned in Adam wherein the Dialogue followeth him thereby laying a ground for the deducing the corruption of nature not to be by propagation as a penal effect of Adams sin but by way of imitation An error or heresie expressed by the words of the Scripture or the words of the Orthodox is never the lesse erroneous though so much the more dangerous This admonition here may suffice to preserve the Reader against the infection of the unchanged doctrine of the Dialogue notwithstanding the change of its voice Mediatorly obedience and atonement following thereupon being both according to the sense of the Dialogue and the sense of the Orthodox sufficiently understood out of what hath been said before CHAP. IX Of Atonement or Reconciliation Dialogu THe Fathers Atonement comprehendeth under it justification and adoption These two parts of the Fathers atonement or reconciliation are evident by the effects which all the Sacrifices of atonement under the Law did procure to poor beleeving sinners for all sacrifices of atonement under the Law did typifie Christs Sacrifice of atonement and they procured the Fathers atonement which hath a threefold effect towards poor beleeving sinners 1. All Sacrifices of Atonement in generall were ordained to procure a savour of rest unto Jehovah namely to procure a savour of rest to God the Father 2. The sin-offerings which were Sacrifices of atonement were ordained by God to procure Gods merciful atonement pardon and forgivenesse to poor beleeving sinners by which means only sinners are made sinlesse that is to say just and righteous in Gods sight 3. The burnt-offerings which also were Sacrifices of Atonement were ordained of God to procure his favourable acceptance towards poor beleeving sinners by receiving them into speciall favour as Adopted sinners Answ The Dialogue throughout all its Discourse concerning Atonement Par. 2. seemeth to understand pardon of sinne by atonement See pag. 151. and 162. here it seemeth by Atonement to understand reconciliation and so indeed it is to be understood The Reader is here desired to keep in minde that our Question is not Whether justification and Adoption are parts of Atonement The affirmative whereof the Authour therein following M. Wotton asserts in this place But whether the obedience of Christ be the matter of a sinners righteousnesse Although therefore that the Dialogue here said the truth yet it is impertinent according to the sense of the Orthodox neither making for nor against as concerning the matter of the controversie Atonement or Reconciliation as also Justification and Adoption are joint effects of the same cause viz. the Mediatorly obedience of Christ which was the Sacrifice of Atonement but it doth not therefore follow that Justification and Adoption are parts of atonement one joint or fellow-effect because a fellow-effect is not therefore a part of its fellow-effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though the Hebrew word that signifieth to cover sin and to expiate sin be translated atonement which Translation the Dialogue hath formerly followed and the Greek word signifying propitiation which is the same in effect with reconciliation be generally ascribed unto Chrsst Rom. 3.25 1 Joh. 2.2 and 4.10 the cause put for the effect because Christ is our propitiation causally Heb. 2.17 yet neither covering of sin nor the expiation of sin nor Christ himself is our reconciliation properly and formally pardon of sin is a necessary and inseparable antecedent Christ is the procurer and expiation holds forth the manner of procuring reconciliation but none of them are reconciliation it self Reconciliation in generall Reconciliation what Ex hoc colligimus duplicem reconciliationem in Scripturis confiderari unam generalem applicabilem in cruce peractam alteram particularem applicatam Dav. in Col. 1.23 is the restoring of friends after offence given and taken or taken though not given into the same condition of friendship wherein they were before the offence was given or conceived to be given The Scripture mentions reconciliation under a double notion either as procured Rom. 5.10 2 Cor. 5.19 Col. 1.20 or as applied Rom. 4.11 Colos 1.22 we speak of it in the last notion only Because man by reconciliation though he be restored into a better yet is not rrstored into the same estate formally wherein he was before the fall for then though he was a son Luke 3.38 and in a state of favour with God yet he was not just nor was his condition immutable but now being reconciled he is not only just but also in a state of speciall favour a son and his condition immutable hence it may be described thus Evangelicall reconciliation is a transient act of Gods special grace whereby a beleever for the sake of Christ who is the propitiation for our sin received by faith is restored into an estate of everlasting favour son-ship and one-ness of spirit Reconciliation notes a change of the parties reconciled August in Joan. tract 110. and consequently a change both in respect of God and man on Gods part it infers no change in respect of affection but in respect of the manifestation of his love and dispensation God alwaies loveth the persons of the elect Lomba l. 3. dist 19. dist 32. Thom. p. 3. q. 49. art 4. ad 2. Calv. instit l. 2. c. 16. sect 2 3 4. Dav. Col. 1.20 the love of God is an immanent act and is nothing else but God himself loving To affirm any change in God in respect of his affection were to affirm that God is unconstant and mutable to deny his immutability and by consequence to deny him to be God By reconciliation Gods affection is not changed but Gods dispensation and our condition and disposition That is taken away by the Mediatorly obedience of Christ in respect of which God might justly have been angry with us for ever and proceeded against us unto just condemnation In respect of man it notes a change in regard of state relation and disposition A state of favour and adoption are essentiall unto therefore
Authorities also are incomparably for us it is not mans Authority but Scripture and reason from thence deduced that conclude the question Dialogu It passeth my understanding to finde out how an Angel could support our Saviour under the sense of his fathers wrath Can Angels appease Gods wrath or can Angels support a mans soâ—â— to bear it It 's absurd to think so God will not afford the least drop of water to cool any mans tongue that is tormented in the â—ames of his wrath therefore that cannot be the reason why God sent an Angel to comfort him Answ Veteres dicunt Angelus confortat sed non portat Ger. Harm Had you accepted of that saying of the Ancients viz. the Angel comforted him but carried none of his burthen you might have spared the Reader these Quaeries The cause of the Angels apparition and consolation was to support the humane nature from utter fainting before the time and to strengthen it not only at present but so as it might be able to undergo the sufferings that remained the necessity whereof argueth his conflict to have been greater then could be caused by the fear of a meer natural death 'T is true God will not afford the least drop of water to cool any mans tongue that is tormented in the flames of his wrath viz. that is totally in torment He had a taste of consolation at present but but there were times wherein he had not a drop of consolation as In his totall desertion in respect of sense upon the crosse Christ had his interims of respit and here an intervall of consolation otherwise he could not have fullfilled that which was written of him It is no good argument to say he drunk not the cup off at once ergò He drunk it not up He tasted of it in the garden he drunk it off upon the crosse The pain of losse and pain of sense which make up the full measure of the essentiall wrath of God met both together in full measure upon him on the crosse Dialogu But on the contrary it 's evident that God doth often use to comfort his people against the fear of death by the Ministry of Angels Answ It followeth not Men have needed the consolation of Angels against the fear of death therefore Christs consolation by an Angel was only to support him against the fear of a naturall death who can say it was only the fear of death that men were allwaies in such cases comforted against there are other concomitants of death viz. the sting of death the curse guilt unbelief that are more terrible then death it self Though Angels comfort sometimes against the fear of death yet not only against the fear of death but according to other temptations and necessities of those whom they are sent to minister unto 1 Kin. 19.5 7 8. Dan. 10 17. Mat. 4.11 Dialogu The fathers sending of an Angel to comfort his son in his agony was not an evidence that the father was angry with him for our sin but it was a sure evidence to him that his Father was highly well-pleased with him even in the time of his agony Answ Those sufferings whence he needed an Angel to he sent unto him interpreted according to analogy of Scripture are an evidence that his father was angry with him for our sins As the love of God unto the person of Ghrist and the wrath of God that is the execution of justice upon him as a surety consist together so may evidence of that love and partiall execution of that wrath answerably consist and meet together Dialogu Good reasons there were why Christ should be more afraid of death then many Martyrs have been namely for the clear manifestation of his humane nature and also for the accomplishment of the predictions that went before him touching his sufferings if he would he could have suffered lesse fear of death and shewed more true valour then ever any Martyrs have done but then his death would not have been so usefull to his children which for fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage Answ You make Christ not only more afraid of naturall death then many Martyrs but to shew more fear of death then any man yea then any Malefactor Your reasons are but deceptions what clearer manifestation of the truth of his humane nature can be desired then that he was in all things like unto us except sin It 's a fiction to assert any divine prediction that Christ should only suffer a bodily death There can be no reason given why the Martyrs or other men having received from Christ but a drop of that spirit which was in him out of measure should endure with joy the same death which he himself entring but into the Porch and suburbs of Cartwright in Rhem. Test Mat. 27.46 through anguish of his soul had clods rather then drops of bloud streaming down his blessed body a thing which neither was seen or heard before or since The true reason thereof is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternall death The Martyrs died justified cheared with the sense of the love of God and conflicting only with a temporall death It is more usefull unto those who for fear of death i.e. eternall death are all their life time subject unto bondage that Christ conflicted with that death wherwith they principally conflict then otherwise CHAP. IX The Vindication of Heb. 5.7 Heb. 5.7 Christ in the daies of his flesh when he had offered up praiers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death and he was heard in that which he feared Dialogu I Reverence your Authours who expound the word Fear to mean the Fear of Astonishment at the feeling of Gods wrath for our sin but I must tell you that there are other Learned and Godly Divines that are contrary to them in their interpretation of the word Fear K. James his Translators do reade it thus in the margent He was heard because of his piety M. Tyndal and M. Overdale translate thus He was heard for his reverence And the Geneva in other places translate the same Greek word Godly fear as in Luke 2.25 Act. 8.2 Heb. 12.28 and in this very sense must this Greek word be translated in Heb. 5.7 Answ It is sufficient that Christs suffering of the wrath of God be taught in other Scriptures though not in this it may be taught in this verse though not in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated In that which he feared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a word that signifieth both Fear of reverence and a fear of evil impending notwithstanding the received rule of interpretation which orders such words to be expounded according to the nature and circumstances of the place many godly learned have taken it some one way some another yet all generally acknowledging that Christ suffered the wrath of
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
of justice The person who suffered being God is so far from opposing his sufferings to have been in a way of satisfaction unto justice as that it was absolutely requisite thereunto Let not the Reader be moved with the multitude of Scriptures misalledged but know the private and erring interpretation of them all to be but a very fallacy of putting that which is not a Cause for a Cause namely that which is not a Divine Testimony for a Divine Testimony the letter of the Scripture alledged not according to its sense is not the Scripture That saying of Christ The Father is greater then I Nulli haeretici aut heterodoxi unquam citarunt aut citant verbum Dei Keck theo lib. 1. c. 9. in Joh. 14.28 cited according to the sense of an Arian is not Scripture These words This is my body Mat. 26. cited according to the sense of the Papist is not the word of God neither is that Text 1 Cor. 6.20 nor any of the rest cited for the confirmation of Mediatorly obedience in the sense of the Dialogue the word of God So true is that Proposition No hereticks or heterodox as such ever cited the Word of God Dialogu It is evident by another typical ceremony of Redemption that Christ hath redeemed us by a price only and not by bearing the Curse of the Law for us Lev. 25.25 39. Answ A Type is a person or thing having or not having some Physical aptnesse thereunto instituted of God to signifie a spiritual truth Of types some do signifie but not exemplifie as Hosea's three children whose name signified but did not exemplifie the truth to be fullfilled in the Antitype of such as both signifie and exemplifie some exemplifie without any sense or feeling of the thing exemplified Figura non habet quodcunque habet veritas ut nec imago regia quae Rex Vid. Park lib. 3. de Descen as Jeremies Girdle Chap. 13. some exemplifie with suffering yet so as holding lesse proportion with the truth signified so the wounding of the Prophet prefigured the death of Ahab 1 King 20.37 some hold more proportion as the present Lamb slain and rosted typified Christs sufferings of the wrath of God yet still so as the Antitype hath more then the type The Paschall Lamb typically sacrificed not only for the good but also in stead of the severall families and the Lamb of the daily offering typically sacrificed not only for the good but also in stead of the people the killed Goat upon which sin was laid typically slain not only for the good but in the stead of the sinfull owner Lev. 16. The ram slain in stead of Isaac the Lamb in stead of and for the Redemption of the firstling of the Asse or for the firstling of any other beasts synechdochically all these signified our Redemption by Christ not to be a redemption by laying down a price only or acceptilation but by way of suretiship where that which doth Redeem is put in the place of the Redeemed Though in many typicall redemptions for it was not so in all no price could exempt the Paschall Lamb or the Lamb for the daily sacrifice or the killed goat God acepted of a price and spared life yet not so in the Antitype Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers but with the precious blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot 1 Pet. 1.18 19. If this Argument be of force as it is here propounded without any limitation then Christ need not have redeemed us by his death but by money or money-worth and so it holds against the Dialogue it self and not only against us Though all types of Christ put together hold forth all the essentials of Mediatorly obedience yet such an universall significancy is not requisite to the nature of a single type single types signifie the truth or truths intended thereby concerning the Antitype some one or more some another according to the intention of the Authour Dialogu It is a dangerous errour in the tenet of the Lutherans to say that one drop of the bloud of Christ is sufficient to redeem the whole world Answ As some Papists and Calvinists so it is no wonder if there be found some Lutherans who speak unsoundly concerning concerning the satisfaction of Christ they that see cause to peruse Chemnitius Gerhard Cramerus and the generality of the Lutherans shall finde their judgement contrary to what here is imputed to them CHAP. III. Of that wherein the true meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ lieth Dialogu THe true meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ lies not in this that it was a part of the corporeall substance of the Lamb of God without spot nor in this that he suffered his bloud to be shed by the Roman souldiers in a passive manner of obedience but it lieth in this that it was shed by his own active priestly power by which means only it became a Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement Answ What the Dialogue in the beginning of the second part called Mediatorly obedience annexing this note withall upon the Margent the thing of price which Christ paid for our Redemption was his Mediatorly obedience is here expressed by the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ The Reader therefore is here to be desired to keep in minde that the matter intended by these terms is the obedience of the Mediatour that so the alteration of the words may not insensibly steal away his attention to the question nor abuse him into a better opinion then there is cause of this part of the discourse which vilifieth the sufferings of Christ under a specious pretence to magnifie the bloud of Christ nor occasion him to drink in the minde of the Dialogue concerning our Redemption by the death of Christ only according to its interpretation it being more aptly if not subtlely insinuated under these words the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ then under the phrase of Mediatorly obedience whereof the shedding of his bloud only was a small part They that desire to speak properly distinguish thus between Value Equality Merit and Efficacy in the point of Mediatorly obedience Value respects the sufficient worth of it Equality respects the full and adaequate satisfaction thereof unto Divine justice Merit is that whereby the good of Redemption is due for the sake thereof unto the Elect according to the order of justice Efficacy intends the actual application of the benefit thereof unto the Elect. But understanding in this place with the Dialogue the Value and Worth of the Obedience of the Mediator by the meritorious efficacy of his bloud the fallacy of this assertion lieth in putting that which is not the Cause namely Causae partiales in toto concursu stant pro unâ a partial and insufficient cause to produce the effect of it self alone
any thing to the charge of them that God justifieth but what shall it avail for the Dialogue to justifie any whose very pardons God will condemn The Popes pardons and the Dialogues how differing soever in their nature may go together in respect of their efficacy Dialogu And in this very sense all sacrifices of Atonement are called sacrifices of Righteousnesse Deut. 33.19 Psa 4.5 Psa 51.19 Answ This is the same with what was before where the contrary is proved and the interpretation of the phrase is also given Dialogu And in this sense Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10.4 Answ Christ is the perfecting end of the Law by fulfilling the duties required in the moral c. the truth signified by the Ceremonial Law Dialogu And thus I think I have explained the true nature of a sinners righteousnesse justice or justification which I have described to be nothing else but the Fathers mercifull atonement pardon and forgivenesse so that I may more fitly call a sinners righteousnesse a mercifull justice put upon poor beleeving sinners by Gods fatherly pardon and forgivenesse then a strict Legall righteousnesse imputed to us from Christs obedience as our actuall righteousnesse as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach Answ Whether you have rightly explained a sinners righteousnesse it is with the Reader to judge To exclude justice from Justification which is in effect to say God is not just but only merciful in justifying a Beleever what is it else but to contradict the Apostles saying God is just and the justifier of him that beleeveth Bucha loc 31. 4. 28. Paraeus Rom. 5. dub 7. Willet med l. 1. c. 20. Rhet. ex 2. cap. 3. Twiss de praed l. 1. dig 3. s 4. cap. 5. Dialogu The received doctrine of Imputation holdeth not forth mercy only but both justice and mercy tempered together in the justification of a sinner they receive abundance of grace there is mercy c. of the gift of righteousnesse there is justice Rom. 5.17 Justice in respect of Christ mercy in respect of the Beleever that Christ satisfied the Law is justice that this satisfaction was for us and is given to us is mercy And indeed the righteousnesse which God the Father bestowed upon poor beleeving sinners in making them sinlesse by this Atonement is an example of the highest degree of mercy Answ True yet not of mercy only but of mercy tempered with justice and in some sense with the highest degree of justice The Geneva note on Psa 130.3 is excellent Dialogu c. speaketh thus he declareth that we cannot be just before God but by forgivenesse of sins for Gods forgivenesse is a part of his merciful Atonement Answ Forgivenesse of sin is inseparable from our righteousnesse being the immediate effect thereof We saw before that Atonement is sometimes taken for the forgivenesse of sins strictly sometimes it is taken for the expiation of sin comprehending both the forgivenesse and the meritorious cause thereof The Atonement mentioned in the Geneva Bible is to be interpreted according to the doctrine of Geneva which acknowledgeth and teacheth the meritorious satisfaction of Christ to divine justice to be the cause of the pardon of sinne a truth which the Dialogue denieth Dialogu Hence it is evident that Gods Atonement pardon and forgivenesse communicated to poor beleeving sinners must needs be the formal cause of a sinners righteousnesse Answ That this is not evident yea that the contrary is evident c. shall God assisting be made yet more evident in its proper place I doubt not CHAP. V. Whether the Iustice and Righteousnesse of a sinner doth lie only in Gods merciful Atonement Dialogu THe justice and righteousnesse of a sinner doth not lie in his own righteous nature nor in his own iust actions nor yet in the righteousnesse of Christ imputed but it doth lie only in the Fathers righteous atonement pardon and forgivenesse procured by the meritorious Sacrifice of atonement and conveyed by the Father through the Mediatour to every beleeving sinner as soon as they are in the Mediator by faith This doctrine of a sinners righteousnesse hath ever been well known and witnessed among the godly in all ages from the beginning of the world 1. It is witnessed by the practices of all sacrifices of Atonement before the Law 2. It is witnessed by the practices of all sacrifices under the Law 3. It is witnessed by the doctrine of the Prophets 4. It is witnessed by the doctrine of the New Testament and it was never so much obscured as it hath been of late daies by the doctrine of imputation Answ Because in the ensuing prosecution of the heads of Arguments here propounded the Dialogue makes frequent mention of Mediatorial sacrifice and atonement in the right understanding of which expressions according to the minde of the Scripture lieth the truth and in the differing understanding thereof lieth the controversie both parties agreeing unto the being of Mediatorly sacrifice and atonement but disagreeing concerning the nature of them Let the Reader here once for all being reminded keep in minde what the Orthodox and what the Dialogue understands by Mediatorly obedience and the fathers atonement or that so often as the phrases do occurre in the next following pages he may neither be at a losse nor deceived by these dark and equivocal terms of the Dialogue but being informed beforehand of both our meanings thereby passe on with more ease and judge accordingly Mediatorial obedience according to the Dialogue are certain actions performed by Christ not in way of obedience unto the Moral Law but by him as God-man and especially after thirty years of age the master-piece whereof was his yeelding himself to suffer a bodily death Atonement or pardon of sin according to the sense of the Dialogue is such as not only denieth it self to be the effect of Supra pag. 105. but also denieth the very being of the satisfactory and meritorious obedience of Christ unto the moral Law Mediatorly obedience according to the Orthodox what see Atonement or pardon of sin according to the sense of the Orthodox both acknowledgeth the being of and it self to be the effect of the satisfactory and meritorious obedience of Christ both active and passive unto the moral Law We have seen before 1. That Atonement or pardon of sin and righteousnesse differ in their natures to take away unrighteousnesse from a sinner is not to give righteousnesse to a sinner 't is an impossibility for that which is not justice to be justice 2. That the righteousnesse of the Dialogue is such a thing as consists of a form without any essentiall matter and is indeed a Non-ens such a thing as is a nothing 3. That 't is such an Atonement as denieth it self both to be from and also denieth any being of the Legall meritorious Obedience of Christ Behold then the presumption of the Dialogue that forgetting just conscience
justice that he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Rom. 3.36 yea with the establishing of justice Do we then make void the Law by faith God forbid Yea we establish the Law ver 31. Therefore the meritorious mediatorly obedience of Christ was performed in such a way of satisfaction unto justice as included also a suffering of justice You disagree with the truth and us and scarcely agree with your self Dialogu Secondly Though I say that Christ did not suffer his Fathers wrath neither in whole nor in part yet I affirm that he suffered all things that his Father did appoint him to suffer in all circumstances just according to the prediction of all the Prophets even to the nodding of the head and the spitting of the face as these Scriptures do testifie 1. Peter told the Jews that they had killed the Prince of Life as God before had shewed by the mouth of all the Prophets that Christ should suffer and he fullfilled it so Act. 3.17 18. 2. Christ did expresly by his Disciples tell that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things of the Elders and cheif Priests and Scribes and be killed and raised again the third day Mat. 16.21 3. After his resurrection he said to the two Disciples O fools and slow of heart to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken Ought not Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory Luk. 24.25 26. and in ver 44.46 he said thus to all his Disciples These are the words which I speak unto you that all things must be fullfilled which are written in the Law of Moses in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning me thus it is written and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day 4. Paul told the men of Antioch that the Rulers of the Iews condemned him because they knew not the voices of the Prophets concerning him and therefore though they found no cause of death in him yet they desired Pilate that he should be slain and when they had fullfilled all things that were written of him they took him down from the tree and laid him in a sepulchre Act. 13.27 28 29. mark this phrase They fulfilled all things that were written of him if they fulfilled all his sufferings then it was not Gods wrath but mans wrath that he suffered 5. The Lord told Adam not only that the promised seed should break the devils head-plot but also that the devil should crucifie him and pierce him in the foot-sole Gen. 3.15 the devil did it by his instruments the Scribes and Pharisees by Pilate and the Romane souldiers Answ He that saith Though Christ did not suffer his Fathers wrath in whole nor in part yet he suffered all things that his Father appointed him to suffer saith that his Father did not appoint him to suffer his wrath either in whole or in part That you say thus cannot be denied but with what reason you so say let the Reader judge by what follows None of the Scriptures alledged by you confirm though some of them alledged by you deny what you affirm Christ sheweth that he must suffer many things by the Elders chief Priests and Scribes Matth. 16.21 true yet he doth not there shew that he must not suffer the wrath of God God fullfilled those things which he had before shewed by the mouth of all his Prophets that Christ should suffer Act. 3.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to this sense the Greek Text is to be read and not as you seem to mistake it this may include but certainly excludes not the suffering of the wrath of God Luke 24.25 26. concludes that Christ was to suffer the word All ver 26. includes the suffering of divine justice the word All Act. 13.27 28 29. is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fullfilled by the Romanes and the Jews as the instruments thereof not absolutely for all things whatsoever he was to suffer from any They fullfilled all things that he was to suffer from them true but it doth not therfore follow that they fulfilled all things he was to suffer The meaning of those words Thou shalt bruise his heel Gen. 3.15 is that Christ chiefly and with him beleevers that live godlily both which are the seed of Eve shall suffer affliction and persecution by Satan and his malignant agents which are the seed of the Serpent Notwithstanding what you have hitherto said touching the stating of the matter controverted that the Reader who shall be pleased to cast his eye upon this poor paper may not be at a losse but may with the more facility clearnesse and distinctnesse go along with us in the following discourse he is desired here to take just and seasonable notice that the whole controversie between you and us consisteth of four parts 1 Concerning Christs suffering the wrath of God due to the elect for sin 2. Concerning Gods imputation of sinne to Christ 3. Concerning the nature of Mediatorly obedience or the meritorious price of redemption 4. Concerning the Justification of a sinner The Dialogues method wherein though in respect of the two first immethodical for the second should have been first the answer is constrained to observe and accordingly to begin with the first viz. Whether Christ suffered the wrath of God due to the Elect for their sins we assert the Affirmative you endeavour to prove the Negative and that first by disproving the received interpretation of Certain Texts alledged by the Orthodox for the proof of the Affirmative which we are now Christ assisting to consider with you CHAP. III. The Vindication of Gen. 2.17 Gen. 2.17 In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death Dialogu YOu say that the term Thou is thou in thine own person and thou in thy posterity thus far I approve of your exposition but whereas you extend the term Thou unto the Redeemer this last clause I dislike for the death and curse here threatned cannot extend it self unto the Redeemer in the manner of his ing out our redemption Answ For the better understanding this Text the misunderstanding whereof seemeth not a little to have mislâ—d the Authour and the true understanding whereof may be of good use to preserve the Reader Consider these three things 1. What is here intended by death 2. The distribution of death 3. The application of that distribution The Death here spoken of is the wages of sin Rom. 5.21 and 6.23 That is all evill the evil of Adams sin excepted in one word As all lines unite in the center so all sorrows meet in that one term Death The commination Thou shalt surely die is not particular concerning some kinde of Death but indefinite therefore aequivalent to a universall comprehending all kindes of death God inflicts no evill upon man but for sin and all evill not only of affliction but also of sin
and his instruments were all instruments herein In those effects wherein Satan and men are instruments God is the first and universall efficient not a meer counseller fore-speaker and permitter The efficiency of the second cause is the effect of the first cause Satan the Sabeans and Chaldeans were subordinate causes and instruments of Jobs sufferings yet he saith God hath taken away Job 1.21 So Joseph Gen. 45.8 David Psa 39 9. in cases much alike Satan and men were Instrumens in inflicting such a stroak therefore it is no stroak of divine vindicative justice is no good consequence All evils inflicted upon the reprobate whether corporall or spirituall are stroaks or acts of vindicative justice So often then as Satan or men are instrumentall in inflicting such evils so often Satan and men are instrumentall in stroaks of vindicative justice judicial punishment of sin with sin is an act of vindicative wrath but of this parents are instrumental in the propagation of original sin to their Reprobate children The spiritual distres of an excommunicate person that is a Reprobate is an effect of vindicative wrath But in such distresses Satan is instrumental 1 Cor. 5.5 That delusion of which 2 Thes 2.9 10 11 12. is an act of vindicative justice But in working it Satan and men are instrumentall Casting the wicked men into hell is also an act of vindicative justice in which Gods Angels are instruments Matth. 13.42 Creatures then both good and bad may be instruments of Gods vindicative wrath inflicted both on body and soul Yet we must distinguish between the wounds bruises and stripes inflicted upon Christ and the sin in inflicting of them Satan and his agents were the sole authours and actors of sin yet as concerning the wounds bruises stripes themselves though Satan and men were the subordinate instruments yet God himself was the Authour and principall efficient of them The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all Isa 53.6 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him vers 10. The sufferings of Christ included in this Text are not only such wherein Satan and men were Instruments but some of them were inflicted immediatly of God without any second means as instruments thereof Not only the body but the soul also is capable of bearing wounds bruises and stripes hence we reade of a wounded spirit Pro. 18.14 A wounded conscience 1 Cor. 8.12 The broken and bruised in heart Luke 4.18 The plague of the heart 1 King 8.38 The words proceeding from the very same Hebrew roots with the very words used in this Text are in the Scripture applied to the soul My soul is wounded within me Psa 119.22 A broken and a contrite spirit Psa 51.17 Receive instruction or castigation and not silver Pro. 8.10 which words proceed not only concerning corporeal but also concerning spiritual chastening Should the soul be supposed to be uncapable of wounds bruises chastenings properly yet experience shews it is capable of them metaphorically Satan being a spirit may have accesse unto and consequently both may and doth afflict the spirit 1 Cor. 5.5 Eph. 6.12 16. If Satan could not God can Christ suffered not only in body but in soul Isa 53.10 when thou shalt make his soul a sacrifice for sin My soul is exceeding sorrowfull even unto death Mat. 26.38 Mar. 14.13 His great heavinesse sore amazement agony sweat as it were drops of bloud Mar. 14.33 34. Luk. 2◠44 cannot be looked at in a person that was God-man as lesse then the effects of soul-sorrows hell-sorrows Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell The soul is by judicious and learned Authors understood properly Rivet Hell metaphorically that is for pains aequivalent to the pains of hell it self Parker de Desc l. 3. n. 62. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vir dolorū His sufferings are in the plurall number called passions not a single passion 1 Pet. 4.13 Death 's not a single death Isa 53 9. to shew as some conceive his sufferings both of soul and body He was a man of sorrows Isa 53.3 The word All Act. 13.29 is to be taken in a limited sense as you were told before for all that he was to suffer by them there mentioned not for all that he was to suffer He bare our sins in his body 1 Pet. 2.24 therefore our sins were imputed to him he bare them in his body but not only in his body he hung upon the tree being made a curse Gal. 3.13 The curse is not only bodily but spirituall As we were delivered from our sin so he bare our sin But we were delivered not only from the bodily but also from the spiritual punishment of sin Therefore Most aptly from the example of Christs suffering patiently the punishment of our sins he committed not are we exhorted to suffer patiently our chastisement for the sinnes which we have committed With good reason did he appeal in his sufferings unto the righteous Judge because though he suffered justly in respect of God yet he suffered most unjustly in respect of men The demonstration of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ is truly acknowledged as a subordinate end of his sufferings but the supream end you leave out namely the manifestation of the glory of Gods mercy tempered with justice Mercy to the elect justice unto Christ To declare I say at this time his righteousnesse or justice that he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Whilest you so often affirm the obedience of Christ to be meritorious and yet all along deny it to be performed in a way of justice you so oft affirm a contradiction The very nature of merit including justice for merit is a just desert or a desert in way of justice as Chap. 1. Dialogu I hold it necessary often to remember this distinction namely that Christ suffered both as a malefactor and as a Mediator at one and the same time Answ Though the notions of a Mediatour and a Malefactour are clearly distinct in themselves yet your distinguishing between Christ dying as a Mediatour and as a malefactor is unsound because it implieth that in dying as a Mediatour he died not as a Malefactor no not imputatively whereas to be a malefactor imputatively was for the times a part of his Mediatorly office and essentiall to the death of the Mediator The Dialogue makes him a malefactor in respect of mens false imputations only but denies any imputation of sin unto him by God Dialogu He bare our sins in his body upon the tree 1 Pet. 2.24 Peter means he bare the punishment of sin inflicted according to the sentence of Pilate in his body on the tree sin is often put for the punishment of sin Answ True sin is here taken for the punishment of sin though not only so but for the guilt of sin also 'T is true also that Christ in enduring the sufferings inflicted upon him by the Jews bare as you say our punishments and our sins i. e. the
and we delivered from the dominion of death i. e. of the cursed death of the crosse therefore he suffered the curse i. e. the wrath of God Dialogu Neither doth the word Fear in this Text signifie such an amazed naturall fear of death as the other word Fear doth signifie Mar. 14.33 which word I have expounded to signifie our Saviours troubled naturall fear of death and no more Answ According to you Fear Mar. 14.33 signifieth naturall fear of death and no more but Fear Heb. 5.7 signifieth a godly fear lest he should offend God by his unwillingnesse to die that is Mark speaks of a naturall fear of a naturall evil the Authour to the Hebrews of a morall fear of a morall evill a distinction as vain as weak without any warrant The object of fear in both places is the same why should not the affection of fear at least for the kinde of it be the same He offered up prayers with strong cries Heb. 5.7 and Jesus cried with a loud voice Mar. 14.37 Dialogu And therefore it caused him in the daies of his flesh to offer up many prayers and supplications with strong cries and tears unto him that was able to save him from death namely from his natural fear of death and he was heard because of his godly fear Just now you interpreted the word Death in the Text properly he prayed say you to be delivered from the dominion of death now you interpret it figuratively namely for the naturall fear of death one and the same word especially not being typicall is capable but of one sense in the same place As concerning the meaning of the place There are no greater asserters of Christs suffering the wrath of God then those who translate the Greek word by Reverence understanding it causally viz. that Christ was heard for that humble reverence wherewith he was affected towards God in his prayers yet those who translate it Fear give many reasons leading thereunto How terrible is eternall death if naturall death be called the King of terrour Job 18.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza in loc Cham. de descen Bellarm. enerv t. 1. l. 2. c. 2. 1. The proper signification of the word 2. The frequent use of it in this sense by Greek Authours both sacred and secular as also Philosophers Historiographers and Poets 3. Analogy of Scripture 4. The mention of death that great object of fear together with the affection of fear in the same verse And Lastly Because the Greek praeposition annexed thereunto doth not well agree with the translation of it by reverence For though the praeposition according to Bellarmines instances is read with a genitive case and noteth the internall cause of an action yet it never is observed to signifie the externall moving cause of an action which is the present case Pareus who disalloweth neither of the interpretations yet thinks the Syriack interpreter to have best understood the place and cleared the text rendreth it thus Vid. Bezam Paraeum in loc who also in the daies of his flesh offered prayers and supplications with strong cries and tears unto him that was able to save him from death and was heard And though he were a son yet learned he obedience from his fear and the things which he suffered Tremellius followeth him and Beza dislikes him not herein the sense being the same CHAP. X. The Vindication of Psa 22.1 Psa 22.1 My God My God why hast thou forsaken me Dialogu MAny Divines conclude from this Text that God did forsake his son in his anger because he had imputed to him all our sins but yet other Divines differ from them M. Broughton saith My God My God sheweth that Christ was not forsaken of God but that God was his hope 2. Saith he The word forsaken is not in the Text but Why dost thou leave me namely why dost thou leave me to the griefs following from the malice of the Jews as they are expressed in the body of the Psalm 3. Saith he None ever expounded one matter and made his amplification of another but Psal 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by men and not from Gods anger Therefore the Proposition in the first verse is not a complaint to God that he forsook his soul in anger for our sinnes M. Robert Wilmot sheweth at large that the term forsaken is not so proper to this place as the term leave and he doth parallell it with the word leave in Psal 16.10 M. Ainsworth saith the Hebrew word which we translate forsaken may be translated why leavest thou me And he saith in a Letter to my self that there is no materiall difference between leaving and forsaking so as the meaning be kept sound Therefore it followeth by good consequence that Christ doth not complain Psa 22. that God had forsaken him in anger for our sins Answ The Hebrew word as also the Syriack used by our Saviour Mat. 27.46 and the Greek word used here by the Septuagint signifyeth to leave another helplesse in their necessity or extremiry which appeareth not only in its frequent use in the Scripture but also in that this very word per Antiphrasin it being one of those Hebrew words that have two contrary significations signifyeth to help up that which is down or fortifie Nehem. 3.8 4.2 and such leaving we usually expresse by forsaking and accordingly its read by Latin Expositors promiscuously who all do in effect say with M Ainsworth there is no materiall difference betwixt leaving and forsaking so as the meaning be kept sound which with M. Ainsworth was but with you is not therefore you chuse leaving which with us is more generall and refuse forsaking which is a more proper term The Hebrew word then signifying to Forsake the word forsaken is in the Text more proper then the word leave contrary to M. Broughton The leaving or forsaking here is not only bodily but chiefly spirituall The matter propounded in the first verse and amplified in the body of the Psalm is the same namely the passion of Christ Psa 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by men instrumentally and by Gods anger as the efficient cause Gods anger and mens herein are not opposite but subordinate one to another Anger in Scripture is taken sometimes for the hatred of God unto a person sometime for the execution of vindicative justice in the latter sense God was angry with Christ not in the former Separation from God in sense or feeling Absolute separation from God this second was in Christ Perk. Gal. 3.13 Forsaking is either totall and finall so God forsakes the Reprobate or partial and temporal as concerning the fruition and sense of the good of the promise so God forsook Christ and of this forsaking Christ complaineth in this place being a principall part of that punishment which Christ as the surety of the Elect was to undergo the words clearly holding forth this truth the Text neither according to Grammaticall sense nor Analogy of
case Luke 16. and so doth Isaiah in cha 66.24 3. Hence we may see the reason why Haides is put as a common name to both places both places are usually called Haides in sundry Greek Writers as if they were but two Regions in the same world of souls one Region for the godly and the other for the wicked where the godly and the wicked may see each others condition and talk together in their next adjacent parts Luk. 16.23 Answ Wheresoever the place of hell is is not materiall unto the Question in hand the Reader therefore might have been spared this longer discourse it is enough that Christ suffered the punishment though not in the ordinary place of punishment It hath now been oft and again said the place of punishment is not of the essence of punishment Joab suffered death though he suffered not in the common place of execution You may reade in Pemble that in Eccl. 3.21 Pemble on the place to be the speech of an Atheist against the assertion of the immortality of the soul and principally both of the felicity and immortality of the souls of good men For whereas saith the Athiest men talk of an immortal soul of man which severed from the body ascends up to heaven and that the soul of a bruit beast descends downward that it falleth and perisheth together with the body they do but speak by guesse who knows it who ever saw it what Anatomist can finde it out The opposition then herein intended by the Athiest lieth not between the spirit of a beast and the soul of man in generall but between the soul of a beast and the soul of such men which severed from their bodies ascend up to heaven that is godly men whose spirits return to God that gave them Eccles 12.7 Vide Pisc in utrumque locum If the ascending of the spirit be extended unto the souls of the wicked which upon their departure are by some thought immediatly to ascend unto the place wherein God passeth judgement upon them which done they are delivered unto the hands of evil Angels to be carried forthwith into hell which they judge to be below This helpeth not you The place appointed for the sufferings of the damned is in the Scripture called hell Mat. 5.22 a Furnace of fire Mat. 13.42 The place of torment Luke 16.38 A prison 1 Pet. 3.19 A bottomlesse pit Rev. 9.1 A Lake of fire Rev. 20.15 A Lake which burneth with fire and brimstone Rev. 21.8 some of which appellations argue that it is below not on high but the very place is not revealed I spare to recite the variety of the opinionss of the Learned concerning the place of hell with such reasons as are most probable not looking at it as pertinent to the controversie To search out the place of hell it not being revealed in the word is curiosity to labour according to what is written that we may not come in that place of torment is our duty If hell were in Aristotles Element of fire the very being of which sounder Philosophy denieth yet if you hearkened either to the learned Philosophers or Mathematicians who distinguish the heaven of the blessed and this inferiour Universe into the visible and invisible world and teach us that there is a most vast and unto the unlearned incredible distance between the supposed Element of fire and the first mover what then is the distance beeween it and the heaven of heavens you would not think that the blessed and damned could see and talk with one another Similitudo seu Parabola adaequetur principali scopo intentioni declarantis atque extra hanc non extendatur Keck log l. 1. sect post c. 4. Calv. in Lu. 16.23 Your arguing the nearnesse of heaven and hell from the conference of Abraham and Dives in the Parable argueth that the rule of interpreting Parables was not attended by you herein namely that a similitude or Parable is to be understood according to the principal scope and intention of the Authour and not to be extended beyond it The comparisons of the Scripture abused vexed and strained beyond the scope intended have been the beginning and strengthening of many errors and too many heresies Calvin telleth you That Christ by sensible figures doth here describe spiritual things Souls saith he have not fingers eye nor do they feel thirst I may adde neither have they tongues to be tormented with flames but the sum is Rest is prepared for the souls of the faithfull departed and torment for the souls of the Reprobate It cannot seem much that he who forbeareth not to charge the Evangelists comparison to be absurd except it bear his absurd Expositions doth so frequently burthen the doctrine of the generation of the godly both learned and unlearned concerning the imputation of sin unto Christ being contrary to him with absurd consequences I omit that the sentence of condemnation is passed in the sight of Christ Angels and the Saints The sight of Angels and Spirits is intellectual seeing their objects by intelligible species not sensible seeing their objects by sensible species as our bodily eyes see sensible objects The damned see Abraham Isaac and Iacob in the Kingdom of heaven Luk 13.28 not sensibly but mentally Christ in respect of his Divinity is present every where and the humane by vertue of its Personall union not only excelleth the understanding of Angels but is also capable of seeing in the Divine nature whatever is thereby presented unto it in a more excellent manner then if it saw it in its proper object The word Throne is not in the Text Rev. 14.10 but it is your addition haply to make your notion the more plausible Of Haides we have spoken sufficiently before Dialogu It is evident that Christ did not suffer the torments of hell in this world because there was no necessary use or end of such sufferings for such sufferings are no way satisfactory to the justice of God for our sins for the rule of Gods justice doth require that soul only to die which sins the soul that sins shall die one man shall not die for another mans sin Ezek 18. By this rule of justice God cannot inflict the torments of hell upon an innocent to redeem a guilty person Answ The necessary use of his sufferings was the Redemption of souls in a way of satisfaction unto justice Hence the obedience of Christ is called righteousnesse Rom. 5.18 noting an obedience satisfactory according to order of justice And we reade that he gave his life a ransome for many Mat. 20.28 a ransome for all 1 Tim. 2.6 that is a sufficient price for our deliverance from the curse He did not only suffer for our good but in our place and stead to this purpose we reade that he redeemed his people and that we have redemption through his bloud Luk. 1.68 and 2.38 Heb. 9.12 Col. 1.14 Heb. 9.15 which words note a just and satisfactoty price laid down
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
Dialogu I never heard that ever any Turkish Tyrant did require such a double satisfaction of any Redeemer for the Redemption of Gally-slaves I never heard that ever any Tyrant did require any Redeemer to pay both the full price that they demanded for their redemption of their Gally-slaves and to bear their punishment of their curse and slavery also in their stead I think no cruell Tyrant did ever exact such a double satisfaction Therefore I cannot choose but wonder at the common doctrine of imputation because it makes God the Father more rigid in the price of our Redemption then ever Turkish Tyrant was and to be a harder Creditor in the point of satisfaction then ever any rigid Creditor was among men Answ This passionate blasphemy not to be heard without the rending of our hearts proceeds from the ignorance of the nature of the Redemption of Christ which according to the constitution of the only blessed wise and just God is by way of suretiship not by way of meer price which last is a fundamentall errour of the Authour of the Dialogue throughout this part of the Controversie Dialogu The waies of Redemption are ranked into three sorts 1. By exchange of one captive for another but we are not thus redeemed for God did not give his Son into the hands of Satan to redeem us from under the power of Satan 2. There is a Redemption by force and strength but this may be called a deliverance rather then a Redemption but however Christ did not thus redeem us from Gods wrath for then Christ must be stronger then his Father Joh. 14.28 3. Therefore Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law and so consequently from his Fathers wrath by no other way or means but by that rich and invaluable price or merit of his Mediatorial obedience Answ Redemption may be better distributed thus namely it is either by way of power so Abraham delivered Lot out of the hand of Chedor-lahomer Gen. 14.16 This is rather a deliverance or a rescue then a Redemption or by way of price and that either fully when that which is given in way of Redemption is of equal value with that which is redeemed thus one Kinsman redeemed another out of service Lev. 20.50 51 52. Or partially and imperfect when that which is given in way of Redemption is accepted thereunto though it be not of equal value with the thing that is redeemed thereby the first-born of some unclean creature was more worth then a Lamb Exod. 13.13 the worth of a man far exceeded five shekels Num. 18.15 the steward accepteth 50 lb for a 100 lb Luk. 16.6 this way of Redemption is by some and haply in reference unto the Law-term is called Acceptilation Or lastly Acceptilatio non est vera naturalis sed civilis i. e. fictitia ut ait Justinianus imaginaria solutio Pet. Fab. Seme l. 2. c. 22. Redemptio potestativa per modum vadimonij Cha To. 2. lib. 5. de descens cap. 20. by way of suretiship when the Redeemer delivereth the redeemed by putting himself in the place and stead of those whom he doth redeem thus Christ redeemed the Elect. Christ is such a Redeemer as is also a surety Heb. 7.22 that is such a Redeemer as sets himself in the stead of the Redeemed so Isaac was saved by the Ram Gen. 22.12 13. the firstling of the Asse with a Lamb Exo. 13.13 although out of the indulgence of God it was at the pleasure of the owner to redeem the firstlings of unclean creatures either with a lamb or money yet no price can dispense in the case of the Antitype 1 Pet. 1.18 19. A slain bullock was a typical sacrifice in stead of the owner Christ died for us as a Vice-sufferer not for our good only as Socinus would have it but also in our place and stead Mortuus est non tantum nostro bono sed etiam nostro loco nostra vice Paraeus in Rom. cap. 3 dub 10. instantia 10. Et cap. 5. dub 5. Grotius de satisfact cap. 1. Wolleb compend l. 1. c. 38. thus the particle For is often taken in the Scripture whatsoever he rashly affirmeth to the contrary See Joh. 10.11 Rom. 5.7 8.26 9.1 Joh. 12.50 51 52. 2 Sam. 18.33 Christ died for us as an expiatory sacrifice for our sin that is he so died for us as that he suffered what was due to us for our sins Heb. 10.12 14. He died for us as a Priest therefore according to the type he offered his oblation not only for us but also in our stead His oblation was himself Heb. 7.27 9.11.12 and that as our surety that satisfied vindicative justice in our place which else we must have suffered Those words God did not give his Son into the hands of Satan to redeem us from under the power of Satan as they are alledged viz. to prejudice Redemption by way of Suretiship or Exchange are a vain cavil Willet syn cent 5. gen cont 20. par 7. qu. 3. and already answered by D. Willet The price saith he was paid unto God to satisfie Gods justice it was not given unto Satan for God is the judge Satan is the Jaylor to whom the Judge delivers sinners because of their sins Luk. 12.38 Christ came and paid the debt unto God not unto the devil the debt paid the Jaylor hath no longer charge or power to keep us in prison The heresie couched under those specious expressions of that rich and invaluable price or merit of his Mediatorial obedience being understood according to the sense of the Dialogue we have seen before and the Reader is alwaies desired occasionally to remember Dialogu And this way of Redemption is often taught and confirmed by the holy Scriptures as in 1 Cor. 6.20 1 Pet. 1.19 and in this sense only we have atonement Rom. 5.11 and redemption through his bloud Eph. 1.7 and in this sense he gave his life a Ransome for many Mat. 20.28 and in this sense he gave himself to redeem us from all iniquity and to clense us to himself Ti. 2.14 Answ Namely in the sense of the Dialogue which is Redemption by price only not by way of Suretiship and satisfaction of divine justice The Apostle comparing of Christs obedience to a price which is the just value of a thing that is bought pointeth us unto the preciousnesse of the bloud that is of the obedience of Christ a principall part thereof synechdochically put for the whole which proceeds from the dignity of the person obeying the kinde of obedience and the acceptation thereof jointly not from any of them alone The bloud of Christ of which Rom. 5.11 1 John 1.17 was shed in a way of divine justice Rom. 3.24 25. the Greek words used Eph. 1.7 and Mat. 20.28 and Tit. 2.14 signifie not only a price but a satisfactory price such as was necessarily given for sin that remission might proceed without any violation
for the whole and compleat cause The valour and preciousnesse of the obedience of Christ though it depends principally yet it depends not wholly upon the eminency of his person but also upon the quality of his obedience and Gods gracious acceptation thereof the absence of any of these would render Christ an insufficient Redeemer Had not he been such a person his obedience could not have been satisfactory and though there were such a person yet without such obedience unto the Law there can be no satisfaction The immutable truth of God Gen. 2 17. and his inviolable justice Rom. 1.32 require obedience in the Mediatour the Law requireth obedience both active Lev. 18.5 and passive Gal. 3.10 else there can be no life The Dialogues frequent reiteration of the same objections forceth the reiteration of the same answers The firstling of the Asse must either be redeemed or destroyed Exod. 34 20. Christ was appointed of God to be a common and more effectuall principle of Redemption then Adam was of destruction Rom. 5.14 16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 15.22 Dialogu Christ at one and the same time died both as a Mediatour actively and as a Malefactor passively as I have explained the matter Gal. 3.13 and in other places also Answ Christ both was and died such a Mediatour as was also a Malefactor imputatively in his death he was both active and passive how we shall soon see in due place The errour of this distinction in the sense of the Dialogu hath been already shown in the place mentioned Dialogu But for your better understanding of the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ consider 2. things 1. Consider what was the Priestly nature of Christ and 2. Consider what was his Priestly action 1. His Priestly nature was his Divine nature for he is said to be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck of whom it is witnessed that he liveth or that he ever liveth Heb. 7.8 Answ None that beleeveth the Scriptures doubts of Christs being in respect of his Divine nature a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck but that Christs Priestly nature was his Divine nature only that is that Christ was only a Priest according to his Divine nature which the language of the Dialogue seemeth to hold forth is a great errour the common principles of Religion tell us that the Priesthood is a part of the Mediatorly office Christ as Mediator is God man therefore as Priest he is God-man Parts are of the same nature with the whole Necessary it is say the Catechisms that the Mediatour should be both God and Man he must be man else he could not be a meet sacrifice he must be God or else his sacrifice could not have been effectuall Christ was both Priest Sacrifice and Altar The humane nature only suffered therefore most properly was the sacrifice yet so as in Personal union with the Godhead the Divine nature was that which upheld the humane The person consisting of both natures was the Priest Christ offered up himself before his humane nature was dissolved by death which consideration might have prevented that objection in this place though the union of the body with the soul was dissolved by death Dawascen de fide orthodox l. 3. cap. 7. yet the union both of soul and body with the second Person continued undissolved the separation of the soul from the body loosed not the union of both with the Divine nature Tho. par 3. qu. 5. ar 4. Gerh. suppl 104. they were locally separated the one from the other but both united hypostatically i. e. personally with the Deity Neither the soul nor the body of Christ ever had any subsistence but in the Word The word He in the Scriptures alledged signifieth not either Nature apart but the person consisting of both Natures as the Mediator was not nor is not God alone nor man alone but God-man so he merited not as God alone or man alone but as God-man and as Christ merited the application of the good of Redemption so God applieth it not for the sake of the Divine nature alone nor the humane nature alone but for the sake of God-man Mediatour The Scripture so attributes the infinite value and efficacy of the works of the Mediatour unto the Divine nature denoted by the word Spirit as it also ascribes those works unto the Person i. e. whole Christ consisting of both natures signified by the word Who How much more shall the bloud of Christ who through the eternall Spirit offered himself without spot to God Synops pur Theol. disp 26. Thes 18 19. purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God Heb. 9.14 Because the actions of the Mediatour were the actions of Christ who is God-man in them the Divine nature was the principal the humane nature the lesse principal and instrumental cause If upon a supposition this untruth were a truth yet 't is impertinent to the question being neither beneficial to the tenet of the Authour nor prejudiciall to the tenet of the Orthodox Dialogu But yet withall take notice that the term He Gen. 3.15 doth comprehend under it his humane nature as well as his divine yea it doth also comprehend under it the Personal union of both his Natures Answ Then the term He Gen. 3.15 notes the Person consisting of both natures therefore not the Divine nature onely but the person consisting of both natures was the Priest The Term He in the other Scriptures being by your own acknowledgement of the same sense with the term He Gen. 3.15 you hereby unsay what you just now said or otherwise what was said was nothing to the purpose Dialogu Consider what was his Priestly action and that was the sprinkling of his own bloud by his own Priestly nature that is to say by his divine nature Isa 53.12 namely by the active power of his own divine Priestly nature Heb. 9.14 that is to say he separated his soul from his body by the power of his Godhead when he made his soul a trespasse-offering for our sin Isa 53.10 and the manner of sprinkling of bloud by the Priests upon the Altar must be done with a large and liberall quantity and therefore it is called pouring out and this sprinkling with pouring out did typifie the death of the Mediatour a large quantity of bloudshed must needs be a true evidence of death Answ Christ considered as a Priest was obliged in the state of his humiliation to fullfill the Law in our stead and consequently the sacrifice that he offered as our Priest was the whole work of his active and passive obedience the Priests who were a type of Christ stood severally charged with the custody of the Ark wherein the Decalogue distinguished into two Tables was laid up Duties of active as well as passive obedience are ordinarily called Sacrifices Heb. 13.16 The Priest that offered this Sacrifice was not the Divine nature alone but the Person of Christ consisting
Of the former distinction there will be a further and more proper place to speak hereafter The latter the Dialogue hath taken much pains in and made much use of its grounds are Scriptures misalledged its scope is to make Christ the sole actor of his own death the inference from it that the Jews did not put Christ to death but if the distinction it self be proved to be but a figment the scope thereof unsound and if true yet impertinent the inference an untruth of all which the Reader must judge then the crutch falling all that is built thereupon must needs fall together with it SECTION II. A Discourse touching the obedience of Christ to the Morall Law Whether it were done for our Justification or no by way of Imputation CHAP. I. Of the Dialogues Reasoning against the influence of Christs obedience into Iustification by way of Imputation THe Dialogue denying the imputation of sin unto Christ thereupon necessarily denieth Christs suffering of the punishment due for sin which is usually called his passive obedience and therewithall all legall obedience performed by him in our stead whether passive or active hereupon it is necessitated to deny all Legall Mediatorly obedience and consequently the legall obedience of Christ to be the meritorious price of our redemption or to be the matter of our Justification For that which is not at all cannot be either of them so fruitfull is errour one pulling on another As the denial of Christs Legal obedience to have place in the meritorious cause forced the Authour to finde out a new Mediatorly obedience as the price of our redemption which we have already examined so the denial of his Legal obedience to be the matter of our justification forceth him to invent a new way of justifying I cannot say a new matter of Justification for he doth not present any though that was excepted of which now Christ who is our righteousnesse assisting we are to consider Dialogu Before I can speak any thing touching Christs obedience to the Morall Law it must be understood what you mean by this term morall Law By the term morall Law you mean the Decalogue or ten Commandments and call it the morall Law because every one of these ten Commandments were engraven in our nature in the time of innocency but in my apprehension in this sense the term moral Law is very ill applied because it makes most men look at no further matter in the ten Commandments but at morall duties only or it makes them look no further but at sanctified walking in relation to moral duties Answ The Dialogues objecting against the Decalogues being called the morall Law is a meer impertinency It is sufficient so farre as concerns the matter in hand unto the Justification of the use of the term moral if it be applicable unto the Law as given to Adam in innocency though it were not applicable unto it under the notion of the Decalogue Suppose it be applicable to neither the Question is not whether the term Moral be aptly applied unto the Decalogue but whether Christs obedience unto the Law were done for our justification The Law in Scripture is called the image of God because by it written in the heart man resembled God Gen. 1.27 The ten words or ten Commandements from the number of the precepts therein contained Deut. 4.13 The two great Commandments Mat. 22.40 The Law of Moses Act. 28.23 because given by Moses Joh. 1.17 The Law of works Rom. 3.27 because it required personal and perfect obedience thereunto as the condition of our Justification By Divines it is called the Decalogue because it consisteth of ten Commandements The second edition of the Law of nature being first concreated with our nature Gen. 1.27 and afterwards written upon two Tables of stones Exod. 31.18 The morall Law because it is the perpetuall rule of manners teaching how we should be ordered towards God and Man and also to distinguish it from the Ceremoniall and judiciall Law But not because every one of the ten Commandments were engraven in our nature in the time of Adams innocency as the Dialogue puts upon us to make way for its burdening of us with its vain and impertinent objection against calling the Decalogue the morall Law Though the Decalogue or moral Law were written in Adams heart yet it is not therefore called the moral Law because it was written in his heart Neither is it so proper to say it was written in our Nature mans nature remained when Adam was deprived of Gods image The image of God after which Adam was created was a Divine not a Humane Nature If the term Moral extend not to the Latitude of the Law in all considerations the Law is not therefore contracted unto the term neither in it self nor in the intention of the Authours thereof who have many more names to expresse the Law by Dialogu But the truth is they are greatly deceived for the ten Commandments do require faith in Christ as well as morall duties but faith in Christ was not engraven in Adams nature in the time of his innocency he knew nothing concerning faith in Christ till after his fall therefore the ten Commandments in the full latitude of them were not given to Adam in his innocency they were not given till after Christ was published to be the seed of the woman to break the devils head-plot therefore the ten Commandments do require faith in Christ as well as morall duties Answ If the ten Commandments doe require faith in Christ as well as morall duties then the ten Commandments require moral duties as well as faith in Christ if so then they may aptly in that respect be called the morall Law Morall duties so called from the Law that universall and perpetual rule of manners teaching how man should be ordered disposed qualified conformed and if we may so speak mannered towards God and man are co-extended with the Law it self Law and Duty are Relates as therefore faith in Christ becometh a part of mans duty and orderly or regular disposition and conformity towards God what hinders but in this larger acception thereof it may be said to be a morall duty though strictly and according to the sense of that usuall distinction of faith and manners it is not so taken Adams knowing nothing concerning faith in Christ until after the fall doth not disprove a principle in him wherby he was able to beleeve in Christ The Angels knew no more of Christs being propounded to them to be beleeved in as their head and confirmer then Adam did of Christs being propounded to him to be beleeved in as his head and Redeemer Yet the Angels in their Creation received a principle whereby they were able to beleeve in Christ as their head and confirmer being commanded so to do without the inspiring of any new principle Had Christ in like manner been propounded unto Adam yet in his innocency to have been beleeved in as his Head and Confirmer which
Adam but then all men had they stood in their innocency had performed If he performed more then was required of us then he performed as much Christ performed actually what was so required and habitually or rather eminently whatsoever could be required if man had stood in his innocency he had had but as much grace as there was duty in the command his grace had been in measure because but a creature but Christ had more grace in him as man then there was duty in the command Grace was in him out of measure by vertue of the personall union CHAP. III. Of the Dialogues distinction between Legal and Mediatoriall Obedience Dialogu IT is a necessary thing to observe a right difference between Christs Legal and Mediatorial obedience which we have in part distinguished already but for your further satisfaction I will again distinguish between them I grant that God required the Mediator to fulfil all righteousnesse but yet his obedience to the Law of works and his obedience to the Law of Mediatorship must be considered as done for severall ends and uses Answ The scope of this distinction is to take away merit from the Legall obedience of Christ because the value of his obedience rising from the eminency of the person and its acceptation from office in denying it to be performed by Christ as God-man or as Mediator it is deprived both of value and acceptation which are two of the three ingredients often fore-mentioned of meritorious obedience Meritorious obedience which is alwaies to be kept in minde requires the concurrence of three things viz. the dignity of the person such a kinde of obedience and Gods acceptation The fallacy of this distinction which is one of the fundamental errours of the Dialogue lieth in the mistake of an adjunct for a form viz. in taking that which is but an inseparable concomitant or qualification of obedience for another kinde of obedience The terms of Legal and Mediatorly are two names of the same obedience but signifie not two kindes of obedience one and the same obedience is called Legal in respect of the Law which is the rule and Mediatorly in respect of the office of the person obeying As if upon supposition of Pauls discharge of the debt he engaged for unto Philemon in Onesimus behalf one should say it were both a Legal and fidejussorial i.e. a sureties act That the legal obedience of Christ was not the obedience of Christ as man only but of God-man yea of God man Mediator is proved thus Christ received the Law not as man only but as God-man Mediator Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire Mine ears hast thou opened a body hast thou prepared Heb. 10.5 burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required then said I Lo I come In the Volume of thy Book it is written of me to do thy will O my God yea thy Law is in my heart the boring of the ear and preparing of a body note his incarnation i e. Christ as God man The Law or will of God which he was to do is that will whereby we are sanctified the word taken largely for our being consecrated unto God and therefore notes Christs redeeming of us Christ was made subject to the Law not as man only but as God-man Mediator But when the fulnes of time was come God sent forth his Son made of a woman made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law that they might receive the Adoption of Sons Gal. 4 4.5 His Son made of a woman signifieth God-man the Law whereunto he was subject is the Law whereunto we are subject he was made under the Law from under which he redeemed us his circumcision argued him a debtor to that Law chap. 5.3 the end was to redeem us which evinceth his doing thereof as Mediatour Christ fullfilled the Law not as man onely but as God-man Mediatour Think not that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets I came not to destroy it but to fullfil it Mat. 5.17 compared with Heb. 10 7. he that had a body prepared came to do the will of God by which i.e. by the doing of which the relate taken together with the correlate of obedience we are sanctified Christ came to fullfil the Law as he was sent but God set him as God-man Mediator Gal. 4.4 those words are spoken by Christ after Johns Baptism in the time of his Mediatorly obedience according to the Dialogue If Christ then according to the Scripture had the Law of works or the Law of Moses written in his heart was made subject thereunto and fullfilled it not as man only but as God-man Mediatour then Christs Legal obedience was not the obedience of a man only All the Legal actions of Christ God-man from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of Christ God-man Mediator All the Legal actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of Christ God-man therefore all the Legal actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of Christ God-man Mediatour The major is not denied by the Dialogue which though it asserts the Legal obedience of Christ to be done by him as man only yet it affirms not to my observation that any act of God-man was not the act of God-man Mediatour Neither indeed can the maior with any good reason be denied even those who say Christ merited for himself which yet is generally denied by the protestants understand the word wherefore Phil. 2.9 not causally but as a note of consequence according as it is used Act. 20.26 Heb. 3.17 1 Pet. 2.10 and reading those words Heb. 2.9 with a comma or rather a colon at death and referring those words suffering death unto the words fore-going made little not to the word following crowned acknowledge that in those actions wherein he merited for himself he also merited for us which is sufficient to the Proposition asserted Let an instance of any Legall act of Christ God-man incarnate be produced which was not an act of Christ God-man Mediator as such i. e as Mediator Principium operationum commune persona formale natura Polan syntag li. 6. cap. 27. Trelcat Jun instit l. 2. c 4. Ame. med l. 1. c. 18. Wolleb compend l. 1. c. 16. The minor appears because rational actions of persons flow from the person as their agent In the work of Christ four things are to be considered 1. The agent i.e. the person 2. The principle according to which the action proceeds viz. either or both of the two natures 3. The action 4. The work it self that operation which proceeds from both natures and so it is twofold in respect of its next principle is yet but one action because the person or agent is but one actions in respect of their next principle proper to either nature are common to the person consisting of both natures The humane nature having no subsistence of its self it is impossible it should have
righteousnesse for sinners as shall last to all Eternity by no other way or means but by his Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement therefore his Fathers Atonement is a sinners Righteousnesse Answ Christ by his Legal Obedience that is his obedience active and passive unto the Law purchased our Redemption by his passive obedience he purchased our freedome from sin by his active our right unto eternal life no part of Christs Obedience was so active wherein he was not also passive nor any so passive wherein he was not also active To speak plainly and properly atonement is the effect and the legal obedience or righteousnesse of Christ the Mediatorly sacrifice and cause of this effect therefore Atonement is not righteousnesse But to speak after the stile of the Dialogue If Righteousnesse for sinners be purchased and procured by the sacrifice of Atonement neither then can atonement be a sinners Righteousnesse That which procures or purchaseth is the cause that which is procured is the effect the cause cannot be the effect Dialogu The New Testament doth also bear witnesse to this doctrine S. Paul the Apostle doth tell us Rom. 8.4 that the Righteousnesse of the Law namely the righteousnesse which was taught and typified by the sacrifices of the Law might be fullfilled in us that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit as I have explained this Text a little before Answ The fulfilling of the Righteousnesse of the morall Law which the Dialogue thinks to evade by saying Christ fulfilled the righteousnesse typified by the Sacrifices of the Law is hereby proved because the fulfilling of the Righteousnesse of the moral Law by Christ was that which the Sacrifices of the Ceremonial Law typified so unhappy is the Authour in his arguing Christ fulfilled both the Righteousnesse required in the moral and signified in the Ceremoniall Law Atonement acquits from unrighteousness but doth not formally fulfill any righteousnesse Your explaining a little before is there disallowed and disproved we cannot look at your reference thereunto as a reason Dialogu Secondly The Apostle Paul doth in another place confirm this doctrine saying God made him to be sin for us that is to say God ordained him to be a Sacrifice of Atonement for our sins that we might be made the Righteousnesse of God in him that is to say that we might be made righteous or sinlesse by Gods Atonement Answ Here being nothing said but what was often said and answered before I shall spare reciting again the same things You should not only have said but have proved that we are made righteous by Atonement you should have proved according to your speech that a sinners righteousnesse or justification lieth in Atonement and that according to the sense of the Dialogue namely such a pardon of sin as neither is the effect of nor doth acknowledge nay doth deny the very being of the satisfactory meritorious Legall Obedience of Christ And that this your doctrine of a sinners righteousnesse hath ever been well known and witnessed amongst the godly in all ages from the beginning of the world that it hath been witnessed by the practice of all sacrifices before the Law and under the Law by the doctrine of the Prophets and by the doctrine of the New Testament for the making good of which false testimony of yours concerning the witnesse of the forementioned you produce no not so much as one reason but after so slanderous and blasphemous an assertion pardon my true testimony of your false testimony you abuse the ignorant and weary the intelligent Reader with a continual missing or begging the question That the doctrine of Imputation is not a doctrine of late daies only the Reader that pleaseth may be fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius who at the end of his defence of the Catholike faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ against Socinus hath gathered together the testimonies of many of the Ancients still extant to this purpose from Ireneus Anno Christi 180. until after Bernhard who lived Anno 1120. or thereabout CHAP. VI. How Abrahams Faith was imputed to him for Righteousnesse Dialogu ABrahams Faith was imputed to him for Righteousnesse because by it he did receive the Fathers Atonement for his full and perfect Righteousnesse because he beleeved all this both in Gen. 11.31 and again Gen. 12. therefore God imputed that faith to him for righteousnesse for by that faith he apprehended and received the Fathers Atonement and applied it to his own soul as an effectual remedy to acquit him from the guilt of all his sins and so by that means he became sinlesse that is to say iustified and righteous in Gods sight Answ We deny that Abraham apprehended at all any such Atonement as the Dialogue teacheth and it remaineth still to be proved I take it for granted with us that faith doth not justifie us as a work but objectively or relatively that is for the sake of that which is beleeved Though Abraham apprehended the Fathers Atonement by faith it doth not therefore follow that the Atonement apprehended was his righteousnesse Abraham by faith apprehended Atonement or pardon of sin not as the matter but as the effect of Righteousnesse Atonement is frequently taken for expiation noting both the cause and the effect namely both the Legal meritorious obedience of Christ and the acquitting of us from the guilt of sin But so the Dialogue takes it not because it acknowledgeth no essential influence of the obedience of Christ no not of its own Mediatorial obedience into the being of our righteousnesse Atonement according to the Dialogue is the pardon of sin to apply therefore Atonement as an effectual remedy to acquit us from the guilt of sin is to make atonement it s own cause and its own effect that is to make it before and after it self The imputation of Abrahams faith for righteousnesse doth plainly argue that Abraham was made partaker of the righteousnesse of the morall Law or Law of works by faith without works 1. Because no man can attain eternall life without fullfilling the Law either in himself or in his surety Without the righteousnesse of the Law there is no life Lev. 18.5 Deut. 27 26 Ezek. 18.11 Gal. 3.10 2. Because the nature of righteousnesse consists in conformity and obedience to the Law you may as well say that a man may be learned without learning or that he may be a man without a reasonable soul as to say there is a created righteousnesse without conformity to the Law 3. Because the Scripture saith the righteousnesse of the Law that is the righteousnesse which the Law requireth is fullfilled in us that beleeve Rom. 10.4 Most vain is the shift of the Dialogue endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place by interpreting against text context and Scripture those words Righteousnesse of the Law onely of the righteousnesse typified by the Ceremoniall Law which it wrests to its own imaginary righteousnesse that is indeed no righteousnesse but a non-ens as