Aphorisms of Justification, Thesis 7
THESIS VII.
(1) Iesus Christ at the Will of his Father, (2) and upon his own Will, (3) being perfectly furnished for this Worke, (4) with a Divine power, (5) and personall Righteousnesse, (6) first undertooke, (7) and afterward discharged this debt; (8) by suffering what the Law did threaten, and the offender himselfe was unable to beare
EXPLICATION.
(1) THe Love of God to the World was the first womb where the worke of Redemption was conceived, Ioh. 3. 16. (as it is taken conjunct with his own glory.) The Eternal Wisdome and Love found out and resolved on this way of recovery, when it never entered into the thoughts of man to contrive or desire it.
(2) The Will of the Father and the Son are one: The Son was a voluntary undertaker of this task: it was not imposed upon him by constraint: when he is said to come to do his Fathers Will (Heb. 10. 7. 9.) it doth also include his own Will. And where he is said to do it in obedience to the Father, as it is spoken of a voluntary obedience, so is it spoken of the execution of our Redemption, and in regard to the humane nature especially; and not of the undertaking by the divine Nature alone. Not only the consent of Christ did make it lawfull that he should be punished being innocent, but also that speciall power which as he was God he had over his own life more then any creature hath: Ioh. 10. 18. I have power foreign saith Christ, to lay down my Life.
(3.) No meere creature was qualifyed for this worke: even the Angels that are righteous do but their duty, and therefore cannot supererrogate or merit for us. Neither were they able to beare and overcome the penalty.
(4.) It must therefore be God that must satisfy God; both for the perfection of the Obedience, for dignifying of the duty and suffering, for to be capable of meriting, for the bearing of the curse, and for the overcomming of it, and doing the rest of the workes of the Mediatorship, which were to be done after the Resurrection. Yet meere God it must not be, but man also: or else it would have been forgivenesse without satisfaction, seeing God cannot be said to make satisfaction to himselfe. Many other reasons are frequently given by Divines to prove the necessity of Christs Incarnation, Act. 20, 28. Heb. 1. 1, 2, 3.
(5.) Had not Christ been perfectly righteous himselfe he had not been capable of satisfying for others: Yet is it not necessary that he must be in all respects a fulfiller of Righteousnesse before he begin the work of satisfaction, or that his righteousnesse and satisfaction be so distinct, as that the same may not be both righteousnesse and satisfactory.
Though▪ many great Divines do so distinguish between Iustitiam personae, & Iustitiam meriti, as that the former is only a preparatory to the latter; yet I cannot see any reason but the same obedience of Christ to the whole Law may be both personall and meritorious, (of the righteousnesse of the Divine nature, or the habituall righteousnesse of the humane nature, I do not now dispute.) Therefore I do not mean that all Christs personall righteousnesse was only preparatory to his satisfaction and merit, when I speak of his being furnished with a personall Righteousnesse, though I confesse I was long of that judgement. See more after at pag. 45.
(6.) The undertaking of the Son of God to satisfie, was effectuall before his actuall satisfying: As a man that makes a purchase, may take possession and enjoy the thing purchased upon the meere bargaine made, or earnes paid, before he have fully paid the sum. To this purpose most understand that in Rev. 13. 8. whose names were not written in the book of life, of the lambe slaine from the foundation of the World: But I doubt not but Weemse his interpretation is the plaine truth; that the words [from the foundation of the World] have reference to the writing of their names in the book of Life, and not to the slaying of the Lambe, as being thus to be read, whose names were not written in the book of life of the slain Lambe, from the foundation of the World. It hath the same sence with Rev. 17. 8. which doth expound this in leaving out the mention of the slaying of the Lambe.
(7.) I know mans guilt and …igation to suffer, is but Metaphorically called his debt. Therefore when we would search into the nature of these things exactly, wee must rather conceive of God as the Lawgiver and Governour of the World, then as a creditor, lest the Metaphor should mislead us. Yet because it is a common & a Scripture phrase, and conveniently expresseth our Obligation to beare the penalty of the violated Law, I use it in that sense.
But here we are cast upon many and weighty and very difficult Questions. Whether Christ did discharge this debt by way of solution or by way of satisfaction? 2. whether in his suffering and our escape the threatning of the Law was executed or dispensed with? 3. And if dispensed with, how it can stand with the truth and justice of God? 4. And whether sinners may thence be encouraged to conceive some hope of a relaxation of the threatnings in the Gospell? 5. And whether the faithfull may not feare lest God may relaxe a promise as well as a threatning? 6. And lastly whether if the Law be relaxable, God might not have released his Son from the suffering, rather then have put him to so great torment, and so have freely pardoned the offendours? I shall briefly answer to all these.
1. Quest. Meere and proper solution or payment is, when the very same thing is paid which w… in the obligation, or suffered which was threatned. This payment the creditor cannot refuse; nor the Ruler refuse this suffering, nor to acquit the person that hath so payed or suffered.
Satisfaction is the paying of somewhat that was not directly in the Obligation, but is given to satisfye the creditor in stead of the debt, which payment the Creditor may chuse to accept; and if hee do not consent to accept it, though it were paid, yet the debtour should not be acquit. So also in regard of suffering.
Here we take payment and satisfaction in the strict legall sence and not in the large sence wherein they are confounded. And now the Question is, whether Christs suffering were the payment of the very debt, or of somewhat else in its stead? The resolving of this depends upon the resolving of two other quaestions both great and difficult.
1. What it was which the Law did threaten 2. What it was that Christ did suffer?
1. Various are the judgements of Divines about the former; and exceeding difficult it is to determine, because it hath pleased the Holy Ghost to speake of it so sparingly: and who can here understand any more then is written? 1. Whether Adams soule and body should immediatly have bin annihilated, or destroyed so as to become insensible? 2. Or whether his soule should have bin immediatly seprarated from his body as ours are at death, and so be the only sufferer of the paine? 3. Or if so, whether there should have bin any Resurrection of the body after any certaine space of time, that so it might suffer as well as the soule? 4. Or whether soule and body without separation should have gone downe quick together into Hell? Or into any place or state of torment short of Hell? 5. Or whether both should have lived a cursed life on Earth through everlasting, in exclusion from Paradise, separation from Gods favour and gratious presence, losse of his image, &c? 6. Or whether hee should have lived such a miserable life for a season, and then be annihilated, or destroyed? 7. And if so, whether his misery on Earth should have bin more then men doe now endure? And the more important are these Questions of, because of some other that depend upon them. As 1. what death it was that Christ redeemed us from? 2. And what death it is that perishing infants die, or that our guilt in the first transgression doth procure? For it being a sinne against the first Covenant only, will be punished with no other death then that which is threatned in that Covenant.
Much is said against each of these expositions of that first threatning.
1. Against the first I have said somewhat before; And that in 1. Thes. 1. 10. seems to be much against it: Iesus that delivered us from the wrath to come: This wrath was either the execution of the threatning of the Covenant of works, or of the Covenant of grace: not the latter, for Christ saveth none who deserve it, from that: therefore it must needs be the wrath of the first Covenant, and consequently that Covenant did threaten a future wrath to all sinners, which, if the world or Adam himselfe had been destroyed, or annihilated immediately upon his fall, we had not been capable of.
2. Against the second sense, it seemeth unlikely that the soule should suffer alone, and the body lie quietly in the dust, because the body did sinne as well as the soule, and the senses were the soules inticers and betrayers.
3. Against the third there is no intimation of a Resurrection in the Scripture as part of the penalty of the Covenant of works, or as a preparative to it. That Adam should have risen againe to be condemned or executed if Christ had not come, no Scripture speakes; but rather on the contrary, Resurrection is ascribed to Christ alone, 1 Cor. 15. 12. 21. 22.
4. Against the fourth it seemeth evident by the execution, that the separation of soule and body was, at least, part of the death that, was threatned, or else how comes it to be inflicted? and the Apostle saith plainly, that in Adam all dye, viz. this naturall death, 1 Cor. 15. 22.
5. Against the fift the same Argument will, …erve.
6. Concerning the sixth & seventh they lye open to the same objection as the second.
It is hard to conclude peremptorily in so obscure a case. If wee knew certainly what life was the reward of that Covenant, we might the better understand what death was the penalty. Calvin and many more Interpreters think that if Adam had not fallen, he should after a season have been translated into Heaven without death, as Enoch and Elias. but I know no Scripture that tells us so much. Whether in Paradise terrestriall or celestiall I certainly know not; but that Adam should have lived in happinesse and not have dyed, is certain; seeing therefore that Scripture tells us on the one hand, that death is the wages of sinne; and one the other hand, that Jesus delivered us from the wrath to come; the 2, 6, and 7. Expositions doe as yet seem to me the most safe, as containing that punishment whereby both these Scriptures are fulfilled: Beside that they much correspond to the execution, viz. that man should live here for a season a dying life, separated from God, devoid of his Image, subject to bodily curses and calamities, dead in Law, and at last his soule and body be separated; his body turning to dust from whence it came, and his soule enduring everlasting sorrowes, yet nothing so great as those that are threatned in the new Covenant.
The Objection that lyeth against this sense, is easier then those which are against the other. For though the body should not rise to torment yet its destruction is a very great punishment: And the soule being of a more excellent and durable nature, is likely to have had the greater and more durable suffering: And though the body had a chief hand in the sin, yet the soule had the farre greater guilt, because it should have commanded and governed the body; as the fault of a man is far greater then the same in a beast.
Yet I do not positively conclude, that the body should not have risen againe; but I finde no intimation of it revealed in the Scripture; but that the sentence should have been immediately executed to the full, or that any such thing is concluded in the words of the threat In the day thou eatest thou shalt die the death. I doe not thinke; for that would have prevented both the being, the sinne, and the suffering of his posterity; and consequently Christ did not save any one in the world from sinne or suffering but Adam and Eve, which seems to me a hard saying (though I know much may be said for it.)
Thus we see in part the first Question resolved; what death it was that the Law did threaten? Now let us see, whether this were the same that Christ did suffer? And if we take the threatning in its full extent, as it expresseth not only the penalty, but also its proper subject and its circumstances, then it is undenyable that Christ did not suffer the same that was threatned; For the Law threatned the death of the offender, but Christ was not the offender; Adam should have suffered for ever, but so did not Christ; Adam did dy spiritually, by being forsaken of God, in regard of holinesse as well as in regard of comfort, and so deprived at least of the chief part of his Image; so was not Christ.
Yet it is disputable whether these two last were directly contained in the threatning, or not? whether the threatning were not fully executed in Adams death? And the eternity of it were not accidentall, even a necessary consequent of Adams disability to overcome death and deliver himself, which God was not bound to doe? And whether the losse of Gods Image were part of the death threatned, or rather the effect of our sinne onelyonly, executed by our selves, and not by God? Many Divines say, that God did not take away his Image, but man thrust it away: So Capell of Temptations, pag. 8. &c. Though most judge otherwise, because the same power must annihilate that must create.
I conclude then, that in regard of the proper penalty, Christ did suffer a paine and misery of the same sort, and of equall weight with that threatned; but yet because it was not in all respects the same, it was rather satisfaction then the payment of the proper debt, being such a payment as God might have chosen to accept.
The 2. Question was, Whether the threatning was executed, or relaxed and dispensed with?
Answ. The Answer to this is plaine in the answer to the former.
In regard of the meer weight of punishment, considered as abstracted from person & duration, it was executed & not relaxed; yet taking the threatning intirely as it was given out, and we must say it was dispensed with; for mankinde doth not suffer all that is there threatned.
Yet some, who think that the death threatned did consist in out present miseries and temporal death onelyonly, do also think that the threatning is fully executed upon the sinners, and that Christ hath onelyonly delivered us from the accidentall duration of it, but not prevented the execution.
If I could think that the threatning intended no punishment to the soule further, after it is separated from the body, then I should think as they.
The 3. Question is, How it can stand with▪ the Truth and Justice of God to dispense▪ with his Threats? Concerning his Justice, the question is not difficult, & I shall say nothing to that; all the question is, how to reconcile this dispensation with Gods truth. Here you must distinguish, 1. Betwixt the letter of the Law and the sense. 2. Between the Law and the end of the Law. 3. Between a Threat with exception either expressed or reserved, and that which hath no exception. 4. Between a threatning which onelyonly expresseth the desert of the sinne, and what punishment is due, and so falleth only under the will of precept, and that which also intendeth the certaine prediction of event, and so falleth under the will of purpose also. And now I answer:
1. The end of the Law is the Law, and that end being the manifestation of Gods Justice and hatred of sinne, &c. was fulfilled, and therefore the Law was fulfilled.
2. Most think that the Threatning had this reserved exception, [Thou shalt dye, i. e. by thy selfe, or thy surety.] And though it be sinfull in man to speak with mentall reservations when he pretends to reveale his mind, yet not in God, because as he is subject to no Law, so he is not bound to reveale to us all his minde, nor doth he indeed pretend any such thing.
3. So that the sense of the Law is fulfilled.
4. But the speciall answer that I give, is this, When Threatnings are meerly parts of the Law, and not also predictions of event and discoveries of Gods purpose thereabouts, then they may be dispensed with without any breach of Truth: For as when God saith, [Thou shalt not eate of the Tree &c.] the meaning is onelyonly [It is thy duty not to eate] and not that eventually he should not eate: So when he saith (Thou shalt die the death) The meaning is, (Death shall be the due reward of thy sinne, and so may be inflicted for it at my pleasure) and not that he should certainly suffer it in the event. And I judge, that except there be some note added whereby it is apparent, that God intended also the prediction of event, no meer Threatning is to be understood otherwise but as it is a part of the Law, and so speaks of the duenesse of punishment onelyonly, as the Precept speaks of the duenesse of obeying.
If this be Grotius his meaning, I assent, that Omnes minae quibus non adest irrevocabilitatis signum, intelligendae sunt ex suâpte naturâ dejure comminantis ad relaxandum nihil imminuere, (viz.) so farre as they are no predictions of event; otherwise Gods bare prediction is a note of irrevocability: And his two notes, viz. An Oath, and a Promise, are not the onelyonly signes of irrevocability: Gods Word is as sure as his Oath, and a Threatning as true as a Promise, and when it falls, under Voluntas propositi, will as surely be fulfilled. See Grotius de satisfactione Christi, cap. 3. & Vossium ejus defenforem.
The 4. Question is, whether sinners may not hence be encouraged to conceive some hope of a relaxation of the Threatnings in the New Covenant? To this I answer.
1. No: For God hath fully discovered that it is his purpose and resolution to execute those Threats, and not to relax or reverse them; that he will come in flaming fire to render vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ, &c. 2. Thes. 1. 7, 8. That there is no more sacrifice for sin, Heb. 10. 26, 27. And hath revealed the manner how they shall be condemned, Mat. 25.
2. If there were any hope of this, yet were it unexpressable madnesse to venter ones everlasting state on that, when we see that God did not remit the penalty of the first Covenant wholly, but would have his justice satisfied, though by the suffering of his Sonne Christ: And yet that it also cost the offendors so deare themselves.
The 5. Question is, May we not feare lest God may dispense with his Promises as well as his Threats? I answer:
1. He did not dispense with his Threatning, but upon a valuable consideration.
2. No; for though the Promise as well as the Threat doe belong to the Law, and so discover what is due, rather then what shall come to passe, yet the thing promised being once our due, cannot be taken from us without our consent: and so, as Grotius saith, Ex promisione jus aliquod acquiritur ei cui facta est promtssio; justice bindeth to give all to another that is his due, but not alwayes and absolutely to inflict upon an offender as much punishment as he deserveth.
3. Beside, God hath revealed it to be the will of his purpose also to confer the things promised in the Gospel upon all Beleevers.
The 6 and last Question was. If the Law be relaxable, whether God might not have freely remitted the offence, and have spared his Son his satisfactory sufferings? I answer.
1. It yet remaines under dispute whether the Threat speak not de eventu, as to the sinne, though but de jure, as to the sinner? And then the Truth of God would forbid a dispensation as to the sinne,
2. Though the Threatning doe not flatly determine of the execution de eventu; yet it intimates a strong probability of it, & seemes to tell the world, that ordinarily the Law-giver will proceed according thereto, and gives the sinner strong grounds to expect as much. Therefore if God should relax his Law, much more if he should wholly dispence with it by remission, the Law would seem to lose much of its authority, and the Law-giver be esteemed mutable.
3. Besides, as no good Lawes are lightly to be reversed, so, much lesse such as are so agreeable to order, and the nature of God and so solemnly enacted as this was.
4. Though GOD did dispense with his Law as to our impunity, because else mankind would have utterly perished, and because he is abundant in mercy and compassion (Exo. 34. 7. Psal. 103. 8. & III. 4, 5. & 145. 8. Isa. 55. 7. Ier. 31. 20. Luk 6. 36. Rom. 2. 4.) yet he is also holy and just, and a hater of sinne; and how would those his Attributes have been manifested or glorified, if he had let so many and great sinnes goe wholly unpunished. (Prov. 11. 20. Psal. 5. 5. & 45. 8. Heb. 11. 2. Rom. 1. 18.
5. It would have encouraged men to sin and contemne the Law, if the very first breach and all other should be meerly remitted; but when men see that God hath punished his Son when he was our surety, they may easily gather that he will not spare them, if they continue rebells.
6. The very end of the Law else would have been frustrated, which now is fulfilled by Christs satisfaction: For Proxima sunt idem & tantundem.
7. Besides the exceeding love of God that is manifested in this suffering of his Son, and the great engagemens that are laid upon the sinner.
They that will avoid all the supposed inconveniencies of this Doctrine of Gods dispencing with his Threatnings, must needs affirme, that the offenders do suffer as much, and the same which was threatned.
(8.) Whether we are justified onelyonly by Christs Passive Righteousnesse, or also by his Active, is a very great dispute among Divines. By his Passive Righteousnesse is meant not onelyonly his death, but the whole course of his humiliation, from the Assumption of the humane nature to his Resurrection. Yea, even his Obedientiall Actions so far as there was any suffering in them, and as they are considered under the notion of Suffering, and not of Duty or Obedience. By his Active Righteousnesse is meant the Righteousnesse of his Actions, as they were a perfect obedience to the Law. The chiefe point of difference and difficulty lyeth higher, How the Righteousnesse of Christ is made ours? Most of our ordinary Divines say, that Christ did as properly obey in our roome and stead, as he did suffer in our stead; and that in Gods esteem and in point of Law wee were in Christ obeying and suffering, and so in him wee did both perfectly fulfill the Commands of the Law by Obedience, and the threatnings of it by bearing the penalty; and thus (say they) is Christs Righteousnesse imputed to us, viz. his Passive Righteousnesse for the pardon of our sins and delivering us from the penalty; his Active Righteousnesse for the making of us righteous, and giving us title to the kingdom: And some say, the habituall Righteousnes of his humane nature instead of our own habituall Righteousnesse; yea some adde the righteousnes of the divine nature also.
This opinion (in my judgement) containeth a great many of mistakes.
1. It supposeth us to have been in Christ, at least in legall title, before we did beleeve, or were born; and that not onelyonly in a generall and conditionall sense as all men, but in a speciall as the justified; indeed we are elected in Christ before the foundation of the world, but that is a terme of diminution, and therefore doth not prove that we were then in him; Neither Gods Decree or foreknowledge gives us any legall title.
2. It teacheth imputation of Christ Righteousnesse in so strict a sense, as will neither stand with reason, nor the Doctrine of Scripture, much lesse with the phrase of Scripture which mentioneth no imputation of Christ or his Righteousnesse to us at all; and hath given great advantage to the Papists against us in this Doctrine of Justification.
3. It seemeth to ascribe to God a mistaking judgement, as to esteem us to have been in Christ when wee were not, and to have done and suffered in him, what we did not.
4. It maketh Christ to have paid the Idem, and not the Tantundem; the same that was due, and not the value; and so to justifie us by payment of the proper debt, and not by strict satisfaction. And indeed this is the very core of the mistake, to think that we have by delegation paid the proper debt of Obedience to the whole Law, or that in Christ we have perfectly obeyed; whereas; 1. It can neither be said, that we did it; 2. And that which Christ did, was to satisfie for our non-payment and disobedience.
5. So it maketh Christ to have fulfilled the preceptive part of the Law in our stead and roome in as strict a sense, as he did in our room beare the punishment, which will not hold good (though for our sakes he did both.)
6. It supposeth the Law to require both obedience and suffering in respect of the same time and actions, which it doth not. And whereas they say, that the Law requireth suffering for what is past, and Obedience for the future; this is to deny that Christ hath satisfied for future sinnes. The time is neere when those future sins will be past also; what doth the Law require then? If we doe not obey for the future, then we sin; if we sin, the Law requires nothing but suffering for expiation.
7. This opinion maketh Christs sufferings (by consequence) to be in vain, both to have been suffered needlesly by him, and to be needless also now to us: For if we did perfectly obey the Law in Christ, (or Christ for us, according to that strict imputation,) then therere is no use for suffering for disobedience.
8. It fondly supposeth a medium betwixt one that is just, and one that is guilty; and a difference betwixt one that is just, and one that is no sinner; one that hath his sin or gui…t taken away, and one that hath his unrighteousness taken away: It is true, in bruits and insensibles, that are not subjects capable of justice, there is a medium betwixt just and unjust, and innocency and justice are not the same. There is a negative injustice which deneminateth the subject non-justum, but not injustū, where Righteousness is not due: But where there is the debitum habendi, where Righteousness ought to be, & is not, there is no negative unrighteousness, but primative: As there is no middle betwixt strait and crooked, so neither between Conformity to the Law, (which is Righteousness,) and Deviation from it, which is unrighteousness.)
9. It maketh our Righteousness, to consist of two parts, viz. The putting away of our guilt, and the Imputation of Righteousness, i. e. 1. Removing the crookedness; 2. Making them streight.
10. It ascribeth these two supposed parts to two distinct supposed causes; the one to Christs fulfilling the Precept by his actual Righteousness, the latter to his fulfilling the threatning by his passive Righteousness: As if there must be one cause of introducing light, and another of expelling darkness; or one cause to take away the crookedness of a line, and another to make it streight.
11. The like vain distinction it maketh between delivering from death, and giving title to life, or freeing us from the penalty, and giving us the reward; For as when all sin of omission and commission is absent, there is no unrighteousness; so when all the penalty is taken away, both that of pain, and that of loss, the party is restored to his former happiness. Indeed there is a greater superadded decree of life and glory procured by Christ more then we lost in Adam: But as that life is not opposed to the death or penalty of the Covenant, but to that of the second; so is it the effect of Christs passive, as well as of his active Righteousness.
So you see the mistakes contained in this first Opinion, about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us.
The maintainers of it (beside some few able men) are the vulgar sort of unstudyed Divines, who having not ability or diligence to search deep into so profound a Controversie, do still hold that opinion which is most common and in credit.
If you would see what is said against it, read Mr Wotton, Pareus, Piscator, Mr Bradshaw Mr Gataker, and Mr. Io: Goodwin.
The other opinion about our Participation of Christs Righteousness is this, That God the Father doth accept the sufferings and merits of his Son as a full satisfaction to his violated Law, and as a valuable consideration upon which he will wholy forgive and acquit the offenders themselves, and receive them again into his favour, and give them the addition of a more excellent happiness also, so they will but receive his Son upon the terms expressed in the Gospel.
This Opinion as it is more simple and plain, so it avoydeth all the fore-mentioned inconveniences which do accompany the former. But yet this difference is betwixt the maintainers of it: Most of them think, that Christs Passive Righteousness (in the latitude before expressed) is the whole of this Satisfaction made by Christ, which they therefore call Iustitia Meriti, and that his Actual Righteousness is but Iustitia Personae, qualifying him to be a fit Mediator. Of this judgment are many learned and godly Divines, of singular esteem in the Church of God, (the more to blame some of the ignorant sort of their adversaries, who so reproach them as Hereticks: I have oft wondered when I have read some of them, (as M. Walker, &c.) to see how strongly they revile, and how weakly they dispute.) Sure if those two famous men Paraeus and Piscator, beside Olevian, Scultetus, Cargius, learned Capellus, and many other beyond Sea, be Hereticks, I know not who will shortly be reputed Orthodox; and if they be not mistaken all antiquity is on their side, beside Calvin, Vrsine, and most other modern Divines that writ before this Controversie was agitated; and sure they are neither unlearned nor ungodly that have in our own Country maintained that opinion; witness Mr Anthony Wotten, Mr Gataker, Mr Iohn Goodwin, and (as I am informed) that excellent Disputant and holy, learned, judicious Divine Mr Iohn Ball, with many other excellent men that I know now living.
Some others (though few) do think, that though Christs Righteousness be not imputed to us in that strict sense as the first Opinion expresseth, but is ours under the fore-explained notion of Satisfaction only, yet the Active Righteousness considered, as such is part of this Satisfaction also, as well as his Passive, and Iustitia Meriti, as as well as Iustitia Personae; and though the Law do not require both obeying and suffering, yet Christ paying not the Idem, but the Tantundem, not the strict debt it self, but a valuable Satisfaction, might well put the merit of his works into the payment.
The chief Divines that I know for this Opinion (as it is distinguished from the two former) are judicious and holy Mr Bradshaw, and Grotius, (if I may call a Lawyer a Divine.)
And for my own part I think it is the truth, though I confess I have been ten years of another mind for the sole Passive Righteousness, because of the weakness of those grounds which are usually laid to support the opinion for the Active and Passive; till discerning more clearly the nature of Satisfaction, I perceived, that though the sufferings of Christ have the chief place therein, yet his obedience as such may also be meritorious and satisfactory. The true grounds and proof whereof you may read in Grotius de Satisfact. cap. 6. and Bradshaw of Justification in Preface, and cap. 13.
The chief Objections against it are these;
1. Object. Christs Passive Righteousness being as much as the Law required on our behalf, as satisfaction for its violation, therefore the Active is needless, except to qualifie him to be a fit Mediator. I answer, This objection is grounded upon the forementioned Error, That Christ paid the Idem, and not the Tantundem: whereas it being not a proper payment of the debt, but satisfaction, therefore even his meritorious works might satisfie. Many an offender against Prince or State hath been pardoned their offence, and escaped punishment, for some deserving acceptable service that they have done, or that some of their predecessors have done before them. And so Rom. 5. 19. By the obedience of one, many are made righteous.
2. It is objected, That Christ being once subject to the Law, could do no more but his duty, which if he had not done, he must have suffered for himself; and therefore how could his obedience be satisfactory and meritorious for us? I answer, 1. You must not here in your conceivings abstract the Humane Nature, which was created, from the Divine; but consider them as composing one person: 2. Nor must you look upon the Works of Christ, as receiving their valuation and denomination from the Humane Nature alone or principally. 3. Nor must you separate in your thoughts the time of Christs servitude and subjection, from the time of his freedom before his incarnation and subjection. And so take these Answers. 1. Christ Jesus did perform severall works which he was not obliged to perform, as a meer Subject: Such are all the works that are proper to his office of Mediator, his assuming the Humane Nature, his making Laws to his Church, his establishing and sealing the Covenant, his working Miracles, his sending his Disciples to convert and save the world, enduing them with the Spirit, his overcoming Death and rising again, &c. What Law bindeth us to such works as these? And what Law (to speak properly) did binde him to them? Yet were the works in themselves so excellent, and agreeable to his Fathers Will, (which he was well acquainted with) that they were truly meritorious and satisfactory.
2. Some works he performed which were our duty indeed, but he was not bound to perform them in regard of himself: Such as are all the observances of the Ceremonial Law, his Circumcision, Offering, and so his Baptism, &c. Luke. 2. 21, 24. Gal. 4. 4. Isa. 53. 12. Ioh. 7. 2, 10. Mat. 26. 17, 18, 19. 20. & 3. 13. 10. These were the proper duties of sinners, which he was not: These two are admitted by Mr Gataker, and most others.
3. Even his obedience to the Moral Law was not his duty, till he voluntarily undertook it: It being therefore upon his consent and choyce, and not due before consent, must needs be meritorious. And though when he was once a servant he is bound to do the work of a servant, yet when he voluntarily put himself in the state of a servant, and under the Law, not for his own sake, but for ours, his work is nevertheless meritorious. Suppose when a Soulder hath deserved death, his Captain should offer himself to the General to do the duty of the private Souldier, and to perform some rare exploit against the Enemy, though he lose his life in the Service, and all this to ransom the Souldier: when he hath undertaken the task, it becomes due, but yet is nevertheless satisfactory. As he (saith Bradshaw) who to satisfie for another, becomes a slave to men; doth in and by all those acts, which the Laws binde a slave unto, make satisfaction: yea, though they be such acts, as he, becoming a slave, is bound upon pain of death to undergo: so Christ, &c. and the greater was the bond that he did undergo for the doing of them, the greater was the merit. Isa. 42. 1. & 53. 11. Phili. 2. 7. Luk. 2. 20. Isa. 53. 9, 10. Gal. 4. 4. 2 Corinth. 5. 11. Heb. 7. 26. 1 Pet. 2. 22, 24. & 3. 18. 1 Ioh. 3. 5.
4. Even some works that are due may yet be so excellent for matter and manner, and so exceeding pleasing to him that commands them, that they may give him satisfaction for former injuries, and he may think it his part to encourage the Actor with some reward. So Ionathans delivering Israel by that rare exploit did save him from death: Abners bringing in the Kingdom to David would have covered his former service against him: Many of Ioabs faults were long covered by his good service: Such were the actions of David in bringing in the fore-skins of the Philistins; and of his Worthies, in fetching him of the waters of Bethlehem. 1 Sam. 14. 44, 45, 2 Sam. 2. 3. 1 Sam. 18. 26, 27. 2 Sam. 23. 16. It was not onelyonly the suffering or hazard in these actions that was meritorious, but also the excellency of the actions themselves.
5. The interest of the Divine Nature, in all the works of Christ, maketh them to be infinitely meritorious, and so satisfactory.