The Sufferings of Christ, Part 1 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I. The Introduction.
THE Mediatorly obedience of Chriſt in the full extent thereof comprehendeth the univerſal execution of the whole Office of the Mediator, which he as King, Prieſt and Prophet, throughly performed, and ſtill performeth to the glory of the Father, and ſalvation of the Elect. This Dialogue ſingleth out a principal part of his Prieſt-hood, againſt which it contends primarily, and againſt the received doctrine of Juſtification ſecondarily; the later neceſſarily following upon the former. Omitting therefore the Kingly and Prophetical parts of the Mediatorſhip altogether, and ſo much of the Prieſtly part thereof as is herein untouched, for the better confining and guiding the apprehenſion of the Reader in the enſuing Diſpute, before we cloſe with the Diſcourſe it ſelf, give me leave (together with the foregoing intimation) to premiſe briefly certain Propoſitions, four Queſtions, five Diſtinctions, with ſome few Arguments. The Diſtinctions ſerving to Anſwer ſome chief Objections. The Propoſitions, Queſtions and Arguments, tending to clear and confirm the Truth.
Prop. I The Lord Jeſus Chriſt as God-man, Mediator according to the will of the Father, and his own voluntary conſent fully obeyed the Law, doing the command in a way of works, and ſuffering the eſſential puniſhment of the curſe, in a way of obedient ſatisfaction unto Divine juſtice, thereby exactly fulfilling the firſt Covenant; which active and paſſive obedience of his, together with his original righteouſneſs as a Surety, God of his rich grace actually imputeth unto Beleevers, whom upon the receipt thereof, by the grace of Faith, he declareth and accepteth as perfectly righteous, and acknowledgeth them to have right unto eternal Life. More fully and particularly
Prop. II God in the firſt Covenant (the ſubſtance whereof is, Do this and thou ſhalt live, Lev. 18.5. But in the day thou eateſt thereof thou ſhalt ſurely dye, Gen. 2.17.) proceeded with man in a way of juſtice.
Prop. III Juſtice in God is either Eſſential, whence God can do no wrong: Or Relative, in reſpect of the creature, viz. Gods conſtant will of rendring to man what is his due; this is the free conſtitution of Gods good pleaſure, whoſe will is the firſt and abſolute rule of Righteouſneſs.
Prop. IV Relative juſtice ſuppoſeth ſomewhat due from God to man in a way of debt, ſo as if God ſhould not perform it, he ſhould be unjuſt.
That which thus obligeth God in a way of Reward, is called Merit, in a way of Puniſhment Demerit: yet ſo as the, word Merit is ordinarily uſed promiſcuouſly.
Prop. V Merit is either Abſolute, ſo God cannot be a Debtor to the creature, no not to Chriſt himſelf: or By Way of free Covenant, ſo God hath in caſe made himſelf a Debtor to man. Juſtice then conſiſting in rendring to every one their due, and Gods will being the rule of Juſtice; it followeth that and only that to be the due, deſert, merit or demerit of man, which God hath willed concerning him. The Moral Law it ſelf, that eternal rule of manners, The recompence contained in the promiſe in caſe of obedience; The puniſhment contained in the curſe in caſe of diſobedience, are all the effects of Gods good pleaſure.
Merit by vertue of free Covenant, notes ſuch an obedience whereunto God by his free Promiſe hath made himſelf a debtor according to order of Juſtice. Demerit notes ſuch diſobedience whereunto by force of the Commination, death is due according to the order of Juſtice. Merit or Demerit is a juſt debt, whether in way of reward or puniſhment: the genus of merit is debt, i. e. To indebt or make due its form in a way of Juſtice.
Prop. VI The demerit or deſert of man by reaſon of ſin being death according to Relative juſtice, the rule of proceeding between God and him, Juſtice now requireth that man ſhould dye. As God (with reverence be it ſpoken of him, who cannot be unjuſt) in caſe man had continued in obedience, had been unjuſt if he had denied him life: ſo in caſe of diſobedience, he ſhould be unjuſt in caſe he ſhould not inflict death.
Prop. VII The elect then having ſinned, the elect muſt di… if they die in their own perſons, Election is fruſtrate, God is unfaithfull; if they die not at all, God is unjuſt, the Commination is untrue: If elect men die in their own perſons, the Goſpel is void, if man doth not die the Law is void; they die therefore in the man Chriſt Jeſus, who ſatisfied Juſtice as their Surety, and ſo fulfilled both Law and Goſpel. As Gods will is the rule of righteouſneſs, ſo Gods will is the rule of the temperature of righteouſneſs.
Prop. VIII Though God by his abſolute power might have ſaved man without a Surety, yet having conſtituted that inviolable rule of relative juſtice, In the day thou eateſt thereof thou ſhalt ſurely die; he could not avoid in reſpect of his power now limited to proceed by this rule; but man having ſinned, man muſt die, and ſatisfie the Law that man may live Juſtice requireth that the Surety ſhould die, th… the Debtor may live, That he might be juſt, and the Juſtifier of him that beleeveth in Jeſus, Rom. 3.26. God ſuffereth multitudes of ſins to be unpardoned, but he ſuffereth not one ſin to be unpuniſhed.
Quaere 1 What is Vindicative juſtice ſtrictly taken?
Anſw. It is an execution of relative juſtice rewarding ſin with the puniſhment due thereunto according to the Law. Juſtice in God (as was ſaid before) is either eſſential, which is in him neceſſarily hence he can do no wrong: Or relative which is in him freely, that is, it hath no neceſſary connexion with the Being of God: This Relative or Moral juſtice is an act of Gods good pleaſure, whence flows his proceeding with men according to the Law of righteouſneſs freely conſtituted between him and them.
Quaere 2 What is the ſupream and firſt cauſe why juſtice requireth that ſin ſhould be rewarded with the puniſhment due thereunto, according to the Law?
Anſw. The free conſtitution of God. The principal and whole reaſon of this myſtery depends upon the good pleaſure of God;Nam hujus mysterii ſummum, imo tota ratio independit, quis negat potuiſſe Deum alio quovis modo providere ſaluti hominū? ſed hoc voluit, nec niſi hoc, Cham. de Deſcenſu, To. 2. l. 5 cap. 12. for who can deny that God could have ſaved man in another way? but he would ſave him thus, and no otherwiſe then thus.
This great principle is all along to be kept in minde, and occaſionally to be applied, ſerving not as a ſword to cut, but as a leading truth to looſe many knots of carnal reaſon. The good pleaſure of God is the firſt rule of Righteouſneſs, the Cauſe of all Cauſes, the Reaſon of all Reaſons, and in one word all Reaſon in one Reaſon.
Quaere. 3 Wherein conſiſts the ſufficiency and value of the obedience of Chriſt as our Surety?
Anſw. In three things
1. In the dignity of the perſon obeying.
2. In the quality or kinde of his obedience.
3. In the acceptation of this obedience.
The perſon obeying was God-man. The firſt Adam was by Gods inſtitution a publick perſon, hence in him ſinning the world ſinned, The ſecond Adam is not only by Gods inſtitution a publick perſon, but alſo an infinite perſon, becauſe God: This publick and infinite perſon doing and ſuffering, was as much as if the world of the Elect had ſuffered. If the firſt Adam a finite perſon, was by Gods inſtitution in that act of diſobedience, A world of men; why ſhould it ſeem ſtrange that the ſecond Adam being an infinite perſon ſhould be by Gods inſtitution in the courſe of his obedience, As the world of the Elect? He being an infinite perſon there needed no more then Gods pleaſure to have made him The world of men, yea ten thouſand-thouſand worlds. That which is infinite knoweth no bounds but Gods will.
The kinde of his obedience was Legal, the ſame in nature and meaſure which we by the firſt Covenant ſtood bound unto.
This his obedience to the Law was more acceptable to God, then the diſobedience of Adam was deteſtable; yea more acceptable then the obedience of Adam, had he continued in the firſt Covenant.
Though all theſe ingredients are ſo eſſentially requiſite unto the obedience of the Mediator, as that the defect of any one of them renders Chriſt an inſufficient Mediator, yet is it both the grand Error, and a great part of the unhappy Labour of the enſuing Treatiſe, to take away the Second of the Three.
It is therefore unworthy a Chriſtian to ſay with Fevardentius, One drop of the bloud of Chriſt is ſufficient to have redeemed us: Or with Bellarmine, That the bodily death of Christ is ſufficient for the Elect, (though according to both performed in way of ſatisfaction to Divine juſtice.) But much more unworthy a Chriſtian to ſay with the Dialogue, That the bodily death of Chriſt is ſufficient for redemption, though not performed in order to ſatisfie juſtice.
Quaere 4 How doth it appear that the juſtice of the Law is anſwered by a ſinners ſuffering the puniſhment due to ſin, either in their own perſon or in the perſon of their Surety?
Anſw. Becauſe God, Gen. 2.17. no otherwiſe obliged himſelf by the Law to the puniſhment of ſin with death, but ſo, as that it was free for him to execute that puniſhment, either upon the offender or upon the Surety.
Diſtinct. 1 Diſtinguiſh between the Eſſential or Subſtantial, and the Accidental or Circumſtantial parts of the puniſhment of the curſe.
The eſſential part of puniſhment is that execution of juſtice which proceedeth from the curſe,Deſperatio non eſt de eſſentia paenae infernalis, Bellar. enerv. To. 1. lib. 2. c. 2. conſidered abſolutely in it ſelf without any reſpect to the condition or diſpoſition of the patient, this may be called The eſſence of puniſhment. The accidental part of puniſhment is that execution of juſtice, which proceedeth not from the cauſe conſidered abſolutely, but from the diſpoſition or condition of the patient being under ſuch a curſe, this may be called A penal adjunct. For examples ſake:
In the execution of the ſentence of death upon a malefactor;Mors Per ſe Aeterna. the ſeparation of the ſoul from the body is of the eſſence of the puniſhment; the gradual decay of the ſenſes, impotency of ſpirit, loſſe of friends, are accidental parts of puniſhment or penal adjuncts, ariſing not from the meer ſeparation of the ſoul and body,Polan. Carcer debiti pars nulla eſt. Parker de Deſcen. l. 3. num. 91. but from the diſpoſition of the patient. In caſe of execution of the ſentence of impriſonment upon a debtor; Impriſonment is of the eſſence of the puniſhment, but duration in the priſon is from the diſpoſition of the debtor, viz. his inſufficiency to pay the debt.
The eſſential puniſhment of the curſe, is the total temporal privation of all the ſenſe of the good of the promiſe, called by ſome, The pain of loſſe; and the inflicting of the poſitive evil flowing from the curſe, conſidered abſolutely in it ſelf, without any reſpect to the diſpoſition of the patient, called The pain of ſenſe: This eſſential puniſhment was that and only that which Chriſt ſuffered.
Medull. l. 1. c. 22. th. 6.The death which Chriſt died was in nature and proportion the ſame which was due unto the Elect for their ſin according to juſtice.
The accidental part of the puniſhment of the curſe, is all the reſt of the penal evil thereof, and befals the reprobate, not from the curſe ſimply, but from the diſpoſition of the patient under that curſe. Of theſe accidental parts of puniſhment (which if you pleaſe may well paſſe under the name of penal adjuncts) are final and total ſeparation from God; final death in ſin, final and total deſpair, duration of puniſhment for ever, the place of puniſhment, &c.
Pataeus in Matth. 27.46. p. 889.Abſolute ſeparation from, diſunion or diſcovenanting with God, is a conſequent of reprobation, but not of the eſſence of puniſhment, becauſe the elect, notwithſtanding the Commination ſtood in as full force againſt them as againſt the reprobate, yet continued elected and in Covenant with God in Chriſt; the Elect were in Chriſt before they were in Adam. The perſonal union of Chriſt continued, notwithſtanding he ſuffered the puniſhment due to the ſinnes of the Elect.
Sin is not of the eſſence of the puniſhment, becauſe eſſential puniſhment is a ſatisfaction unto juſtice for injury done; but ſin is a continuing of the injury, and a provocation of, not a ſatisfaction unto juſtice.
Eſſential puniſhment is an effect of juſtice, of which God is the Author; but it is blaſphemy to ſay God is the Author of ſin. The Elect ſuffer no part of penal puniſhment, yet are left unto ſin.
Duration for ever and the place of the puniſhment are adjuncts, as the nature of them ſufficiently ſhews.
Diſtin. 2 Diſtinguiſh between the wrath of God as concerning the Elect,Vide Zanch. de natura Dei, l. 4. c. 6. Hatred is taken either for the willing of affliction, or for hatred oppoſite to eternal love; in the laſt ſenſe God hates not the Elect. Odium ſumitur pro volitione malorū odio oppoſito amori aeterno. Twiff. Vind. Grat. l. 3. errat. 8. S. 7. Dei ira in electos non eſt odium oppoſitum dilectioni quā antea ipſos eſt proſecutus, Rhetorf. exc. 1. c. 2. and the hatred of God ſtrictly taken. Wrath is ſometime taken for Gods hatred of perſons, and ſignifieth reprobation; thus the reprobates are called Veſſels of Wrath, Rom. 9.22. Sometimes for the execution of Vindicative Juſtice, Rom. 1.18. & chap. 2.5. in this ſenſe the elect are called the children of wrath, Eph. 2.3. becauſe their ſtate by nature is ſuch whereunto vindicative juſtice is due by reaſon of their ſin. Sometimes for the execution of corrective juſtice, Deut. 4.21. Pſal. 78.62. in the firſt ſenſe God is wroth with the reprobate: in the ſecond ſenſe he was wroth with Chirſt, in the laſt he is wroth with the Elect: Though in the ſecond ſenſe, not in the firſt, God may be ſaid to be wroth with Chriſt; yet in no ſenſe could God be ſaid ever to hate Chriſt: God hates both perſons and ſins of the reprobate, he hates ſin in the Surety and in the Elect, but he ever loved their perſons. God is wroth with all whom he hates, but he hates not all with whom he is wroth.
Diſtinct. 3 Diſtinguiſh concerning imputation of ſin. Imputation of ſin is either of the commiſſion of ſin, or of the guilt of ſin (guilt not taken for the commiſſion of ſin, but for the obligation unto puniſhment for ſin committed) ſin is imputed to Chriſt in the later ſenſe, not in the former.
Distinct. 4 Diſtinguiſh between ſuch a meaſure of puniſhment and the particulars whereby that meaſure is made up.Parker de Deſc. lib. 3. n. 55. Such a meaſure is neceſſary; but that this meaſure ſhould be made up by ſuffering theſe or thoſe particulars, is arbitrary.
Diſtin. 5 Diſtinguiſh between a Local hell and a Penal hell;Bonavent. li. 3. in Sent. diſt. 22. q. 4. Rivet. Cathol. Orthod. Tom 1. Tract. 2. qu. 60. Willet. Synopſ. Cent. 5. gen. contr. 20. p. 5. q. 3. Chriſt ſuffered a Penal hell, but not a Local; he deſcended into hell Virtually, not Locally; that is, He ſuffered the pains of hell due unto the Elect, who for their ſin deſerved to be damned.
Arg. 1 Either Chriſt ſuffered the juſtice of God in ſtead of the Elect, denounced againſt ſin, Gen. 2.17. or God might diſpenſe with the execution thereof without violation of his juſtice: But God could not diſpenſe with the execution thereof without the violation of his juſtice. What was ſometimes ſpoken of the Law of the Medes and Perſians, holds true at all times concerning the Law of God, that it altereth not; for the confirmation of this truth Chriſt ſolemnly engageth his truth, Verily I ſay unto you, Till heaven and earth paſſe, one jot or one tittle ſhall in no waies paſſe from the Law till all be fulfilled, Matth. 5.18. This ſentence was univerſal given to Adam as a publick perſon, and holds all his poſterity, whether elect or reprobate in caſe of ſin, guilty of death. Hereby the omnipotent hath ſo limitted himſelf, as that now he cannot do that which elſe he could do, in reſpect of his abſolute power. The command being given out for Lots preſervation, God could not deſtroy Sodom till Lot was ſecured, Gen. 19.22. for the Decree being paſſed, and the word gone out of his mouth, God cannot deny himſelf; Hence in the caſe of execution of juſtice, 'tis not only a truth, that God ſpared not the Angels, 1 Pet. 2.4. nor the old world, verſ. 5. but it is alſo a truth that he ſpared not his Son, Rom. 8.28. Unto this purpoſe Piſcator well interprets thoſe words of our Saviour [If it be poſſible, &c.] Matth. 26.39.Confer. Piſcat. Analyſ. & Obſerv. in Matth. 26. Davenant in Col. 1.20. p. 105. That is, ſaith he, If in reſpect of the righteous will of God the father there could be any other way found to ſave the Elect, without Chriſts ſuffering of the wrath of God for their ſin, he praieth that then the cup might paſſe from him, but becauſe that could not be, he ſubmits his will to his Fathers will, the ſumme whereof is, God ſheweth by the example of his Son, that he having conſtituted his Law, the rule of relative juſtice, between him and man; the diſpenſation, with the exemption from puniſhment in caſe of ſin was impoſſible.
Arg. 2 Either Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God, i. e. the puniſhment due to the ſins of the Elect, or elſe God is untrue in that Commination, he that ſins ſhall die, becauſe the Elect themſelves do not ſuffer it: But God is true. The ſtrength of Iſrael will not lie, 1 Sam. 15.29. God cannot lie, Titus 1.1.
Arg. 3 He that was the Surety of the Elect, was bound to pay their debt, and conſequently to ſatisfie the Law for them:Polon. …ynt lib. 6. c. 36. But Chriſt was the Surety of the Elect, Heb. 7.22. By ſo much was Jeſus made a Surety of a better Covenant. Neither is the Argument at all infringed, by ſaying he is our Surety in regard of the Covenant of grace here called a better Covenant, but not in reſpect of the Covenant of works; for beſides that the word better is not to be referred unto either Covenant it ſelf, but to the manner of the diſpenſation of the Covenant of grace under the Goſpel: we are to know that the Covenant of grace it ſelf obligeth us to fulfill the Covenant of works in our Surety. Faith eſtabliſheth the Law, Rom. 3.31. We cannot fulfill the Covenant of works, or the righteouſneſs of the Law in our Surety by believing, if it were not a truth that he fulfilled the Covenant of works for us.
Arg. 4 Either Chriſt ſuffered the puniſhment due to the Elect for ſin, or the Law remaineth for ever unſatisfied: for it is as true as ſalvation it ſelf, that the Elect ſatisfie it not in themſelves.
Arg. 5 If the Goſpel ſave without ſatisfaction given to the Law, then the Law is made void by the Goſpel, and the Law and the promiſes are contrary: But neither of theſe are ſo, Rom. 3.31. Gal. 3.21. Therefore.
Arg. 6 If Chriſt ſuffered not the puniſhment due to the Elect, then the Elect muſt ſuffer it in their own perſons; man hath ſinned, therefore man muſt die, Therefore in his own perſon, if not in his Surety.
Arg. 7 If Chriſt did not ſuffer the wrath of God, a puniſhment due unto the Elect for ſin, then there can be no juſtification of a ſinner, without Chriſts ſuffering of the puniſhment due to ſin, i.e. his paſſive obedience, there can be no remiſſion of ſin without obedience, there is no reaſon to acknowledge his active obedience (whence we are accepted as righteous) this being in vain without that: if there be neither paſſive obedience nor active, then there is no remiſſion of ſins, nor acceptation as righteous, and conſequently no juſtification.
Arg. 8 If juſtifying faith eſtabliſh the Law, then Chriſt the object of faith hath eſtabliſhed, that is, fulfilled the Law, for otherwiſe the Law cannot be eſtabliſhed by faith: But juſtifying faith eſtabliſheth, Rom. 3.31. Do we then make void the Law through faith God forbid: yea we eſtabliſh the Law.
Willet. Synopſ. Cent. 5 gen. contr. 20.Chriſt ſuffering the eſſential puniſhment of the curſe, i.e. the wrath of God, containeth nothing derogatory from the worth of his perſon, nor prejudicial unto Redemption.
The denyall then of Chriſt to have ſatisfied the wrath of God, in that it renders the Mediatorſhip of Chriſt inſufficient, takes away the being of the Juſtification of a ſinner, and leaves the elect to ſuffer the wrath of God in their own perſons, which who can exempt (to uſe Peters words) from the charge of a damnable hereſie? and if ſo, in that it ſo denies Chriſt to have ſuffered the wrath of God as therewithall it not only exceedingly diminiſheth the love of God and the love of Chriſt; but alſo imputes injuſtice and untruth unto God, leaves the Law for ever unſatisfied, made void by the Goſpel, and not eſtabliſhed by faith: one and the laſt of which Paul looketh at as abomination, Rom. 3.31. I ſee not how it can be pronounced leſſe then both an abominable and damnable hereſie.
Theſe premiſed, come we now to the Dialogue it ſelf, beginning with its beginning, viz. the ſtating of the Controverſie.