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
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
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
his truth more and more in every age neither do we doubt of fundamentall truth continuing the same to his in all ages As at the coming of Christ Satan opposed the true Christ with raising up false Christs so at the breaking forth of the light he opposeth the true light by false lights If the doctrine of the Dialogue brought to the fiery triall be found to be darknesse and ours to be light it deeply concerneth the Authour timously to remember that of the Prophet Wo be to them that put darknesse for light and light for darknesse Isa 5.20 Dialogu Others alledge the Article of Christs Descent to prove that Christ suffered the torments of hell in his soul for our Redemption but the truth is the Article speaks only of his souls passage from his body to Haides which hath a double lot when it is applied to the souls departed a place of joy and a place of torment so that all souls both good and bad go to Haides as soon as they are separated from the body the bad do go to the place of torment in Haides and the good go to the place of pleasure in Haides therefore seeing Christ was a good man even the Holy One of God he must needs go to the place of pleasure in Haides even to the Paradise Luk. 23.43 and that Haides doth comprehend in it a double lot as Britain doth comprehend England and Scotland is evident by the use of the Greek word in sundry Greek Authours and according to this sense M. Robert Wilmot hath expounded this Article wherein he doth also approve of the judgement of M. Broughton in his Exposition of this Article Answ This Article of the Creed is not found in the Scripture in terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sym. Apos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sym. Atha Nempe quia essentia illorum est per se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 status 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 locus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jun. cont 2. l. 4. c. 14. though the Orthodox sense of it is taught therein clearly and plentifully The Learned observe above threescore Creeds of the most ancient Councels and Fathers that want this clause and amongst them the Nicene Creed The Article of the Creed saith not that Christ descended into Haides but into Hades It is true that Haides in respect of its Etymology is used in a large signification by both divine and secular Authours for an invisible place and condition and in this sense it is applicable to all souls departed whether good or bad because the Being State and Place of both are invisible to us The Authour of the Dialogue perceiving the large use of the word very unwarrantably ventures to say the Article of the Creed speaks only of his souls passage from his body to Haides Sciendum sanè est quod in Ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non habetur additum de scendit ad inferos sed neque in orientis Ecclesiis habetur hic sermo vis tamen verbi eadem videtur esse in eo quod sepultus dicitur For 1. The word in the Creed is doubtlesse to be interpreted according to some sense wherein it is used in the Scripture where it is taken for the grave Act. 2.27 for hell Rev. 20.13 14. but never in this sense used by the Dialogue 2. From the incongruity of the words so understood It were not proper to say he descended but he ascended into the place of joy viz. the celestiall Paradise Lastly the Ancients though they knew the large use of the word Hades yet did not take it in the Creed according to the exposition of the Dialogue Ruffinus saith directly that these words He descended into hell are not found in the Creed of the Romane Church nor used in the Churches of the East and if they be that then they signifie the buriall of Christ CHAP. XIII Of the Dialogues arguments taken from the description of the torments of hell and from the place of suffering the torments of the damned Dialogu BY describing the torments of hell you shall be the better able to judge whether Christ did suffer the torment of hell for our Redemption or not The torments of hell are usually divided into two paerts 1. Into the pain of lesse 2. Into the pain of sense The pain of losse is the privation of Gods favour by a everlasting separation Answ The rule which Logicians give concerning definitions is to be attended to concerning descriptions which are imperfect definitions A little errour in the beginning in a short time becometh a great one Error definiendi exiguus brevi fit ingens and encreaseth as the Dispute encreaseth Pain of losse and Pain of sense make up the torments of hell Pain of losse then being but a part of the curse or punishment the part is to be distinguished according to the whole as the punishment is taken either essentially for such executions of justice as flow from the curse as such viz. the not enjoying of ought of the good of the promises and the suffering of all the substantiall positive evill of the curse without any respect unto the condition of the Patient or accidentally for such executions of justice as are inseparable concomitants of the state of the damned yet flow not from the simple nature of the curse but in respect of the condition of the patient viz. total and final separation from God c. of which oft above The Favour of God is taken largely for the effects of his common bounty so the wicked are for their sin separated from the favour of God or it is taken properly for the speciall love of God namely Election so the wicked cannot be said to be separated from him the Legall discovenanting of the Reprobate for their sin which they have committed is the effect of justice that being discovenanted they fall into the bottomlesse pit is also an effect of justice but totality and finality of their disunion with God without recovery by the covenant of grace is a consequent of Reprobation This premised the errour of the description is manifest which holds only concerning the pain of losse as it is an accidentall part of punishment and belongs to the Reprobate but not as it is of the essence of punishment in which sense it is only true of Christ The description of the pain of losse viz. that it is the privation of Gods favour by an eternall Separation is untrue imperfect and impertinent First It is untrue because 1. It affirmeth a privation of Gods favour where Gods favour never was which is as if we should in Logick suppose a privation where never was an habit 2. Because it supposeth Gods not loving i. e. his hatred of Reprobation to be an effect of justice for pain of losse is an effect of justice whereas Reprobation is an act of Lordship not of Justice Secondly It is imperfect leaving out the privation of the good of the promises wherein consists the
for 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
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
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
fear of death by prayers therefore there was a necessity for him to pray and to strive in prayer untill he had overcome it as I shall further explain the matter by and by in Heb. 5.7 Answ There can no reason be given why the fear of naturall death should be as much as the humane nature of Christ could bear without sin because the object of that fear may be and is much exceeded paenal-spiritual death is a greater object of fear incomparably Dialogu Again Because the humane nature of Christ whatever had been inflicted upon it could not have sinned there can no sufficient reason be given why Christ should fear naturall death either more or so much as other men there being therefore not such a measure of fear in Christ of naturall death as the Dialogue affirmeth there was no such fear foretold nor was his earnest prayer to be delivered from that fear which could not be what it was and what he praied to be delivered from we shall see where you promise us to explain Heb. 5.7 We must observe the due time of every action the manner the place and the persons and all other circumstances to fullfill every circumstance just as the Prophets had foretold nothing must fail if he had failed in the least circumstance he had failed in all and his humane nature could not be exact in these circumstances without the concurrence of the divine nature in all these respects his naturall fear of death could not chuse but be very often in his minde and as often to put him unto pain till he had overcome it Answ As things were foretold by the Prophets concerning Christ so he fullfilled them Act. 3.18 Luke 22.37 that there might be a ready concurrence of the divine nature with the humane for the enabling of it unto the fullfilling of them he was both God and man Heb. 9.14 Rom. 1.4 there could not therefore be in Christ any fear as concerning his failing to fullfill his office to the utmost Your mentioning other causes though false of Christs fear besides his naturall death is a secret acknowledgement that his conflict with the fear of naturall death only was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows felt before his death Dialogu Scanderbeg was in such an agony when he was fighting against the Turks that the bloud hath been seen to burst out of his lips with very eagernesse of spirit only I have heard also from credible persont that Alexander the great did sweat bloud in the couragious defence of himself and others The sweaeting sicknesse caused many to sweat out of their bodies a bloudy humour and yet many did recover and live many years after but if their sweating bloud had been a sign of Gods wrath upon their souls as you say it was in Christ then I think they could not have lived any longer by the strength of nature Answ The effusion of certain drops of bloud at Scanderbergs lips through the commotion of his spirits was no sweat Your information concerning Alexander in all probability is a mistake there being no such matter reported of him by the ordinary Historiographers of his life It was but a bloudy humour if so and in a time of sicknesse not bloud Arist l. 3. depart animal c. 5. l. 3. De Historia anim c. 9. Fernelius lib. 6. that you mention at the sweating sicknesse Aristotle reports of one that sometimes sweat a kinde of bloudy excrement which yet he looked at proceeding from an evil disposition of the body Theophrastus confirmeth the same Fernelius writes that he saw bloud effused out of the extremity of the veins through infirmity of the Liver and the Retentive faculty Lib. de dignosc morb c. 11. 8. Vid. Gerh. Herm. in Luc. 22.43 Rondelettius tels us that he saw in the year 1547. a kinde of bloudy sweat in a certain Student occasioned by some defects of the veins bones and thinness of bloud Maldonat upon Mat. 26. makes mention of a man at Paris strong and in health who having received the sentence of death was bedewed with a bloudy sweat But this bloudy sweat of Christ properly so flowing from such a person and free from all distemper either of body or minde and in such a manner and plenty as Luke reports differed much from all these Whether the sweat of Christ were naturall or miraculous we leave it to them that have leisure and skill to enquire though the Evangelist mentioneth it as an effect proceeding from a greater cause then the fear of a meet naturall death all which notwithstanding yet is not our doctrine built only or chiefly upon this Argument Dialogu Do but consider a little more seriously what an horrid thing to nature the approach of death is see in how many horrid expressions David doth describe it Psa 116.3 18.4 55.4 5. Answ There were many times many causes why David was much afraid of death none of which are to be found in Christ yet you make Christ much more afraid of death then David was Though death be horrid unto nature yet not so to faith much lesse so horrid as to cause affections of fear above the nature of the evil feared that is erring affections in an unerring subject Dialogu Suppose Adam in innocency had grapled with the fear of death like enough it would have caused a violent sweat over all his body Answ Adam being a sinner did grapple with death Genes 5.5 without any such sweat mentioned doubtlesse Adam innocent would not have been inferiour to Adam a sinner Christ was much superiour to Adam innocent though you make him inferiour in this matter to Adam a sinner Dialogu It 's no strange new doctrine to make the naturall fear of death to be the cause of Christs agony seeing other learned men do affirm it Christopher Carlile in his Treatise of Christs desceut into hell p. 46. saith thus Was not Christ extreamly afflicted when he for fear of death sweat drops in quantity as thick as drops of bloud John Fryth a godly Martyr saith thus in his answer to Sir Thomas Moor B. 2. Christ did not only weep but he feared so sore that he sweat drops like drops of bloud running down upon the earth which was more then to weep Now saith he if I should ask you why Christ feared and sweat so sore what would you answer me was it for fear of the pains of purgatory he that shall so answer is worthy to be laughed to scorn wherefore then was it Verily even for the fear of death as it appeareth plainly by his prayer for he prayed to his Father saying If it be possible let this cup passe from me Answ These Authours I not having by me cannot examine the quotations their words therefore rather better bearing the sense of the Orthodox then the sense of the Dialogue charity untill the contrary appeareth construeth in the best sense M. Fryth's other writings call to have it so But though