The Sufferings of Christ, Part 2 · Section 1 – Section 2
SECTION I.
Wherein the Dialogue pretendeth to prove
I. That Chriſt hath redeemed us from the Curſe of the Law (not by ſuffering the ſaid curſe for us, but) by a ſatisfactory price of Atonement, namely, by paying or performing unto his Father that invaluable precious thing of his Mediatorial obedience whereof his Mediatorial ſacrifice of Atonement was the maſter-piece.
II. A ſinners Righteouſneſſe or Juſtification is explained and cleared from ſome Common Errours.
CHAP. I. Of the nature of Mediatorly obedience, both according to the Dialogue and the Orthodox.
Dialogu. THat which Chriſt did to redeem us from the curſe of the Law, was not by bearing of the ſaid curſe really in our ſtead (as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach) but by procuring his Fathers atonement by the invaluable price or performance of his own Mediatoriall obedience whereof his Mediatoriall ſacrifice of atonement was the finiſhing maſter-piece, this kinde of obedience was that rich thing of price which the Father required and accepted as ſatisfactory for the procuring of his atonement for our full Redemption, Juſtification and Adoption.
Anſw. The Dialogue having hitherto denied and contended againſt Chriſts ſuffering of the wrath of God due unto the Elect for their ſins in way of ſatisfaction to divine juſtice, as alſo againſt the imputation of the ſins of the elect unto Chriſt (the latter whereof, the order of cauſe and effect would have placed firſt, the imputation of the ſins of the Elect unto Chriſt being the cauſe of his ſuffering the wrath of God due to them) which paſſive obedience the Orthodox beleeve and teach to be eſſentiall unto the Mediatorly obedience of Chriſt, a truth of no leſſe moment then the Redemption and ſalvation of ſouls: The Dialogue I ſay thus engaged feeleth a neeeſſity lying upon it to preſent the Reader with ſome Mediatorly obedience, becauſe without it at leaſt in appearance no Chriſtian who is in earneſt concerning his Redemption, will be ſatisfied. It concerneth us then (the received Mediatorly obedience being denied) diligently to attend what this new Mediatorial obedience is.
Dialogu And according to this tenour the Apoſtle Paul doth explain the matter, he doth teach us to place the obedience of the Mediatour in a direct oppoſition to the firſt diſobedience of Adam Rom. 5.19. he makes the merit of Chriſts Mediatoriall obedience to countervail the demerit of Adams diſobedience: for the diſobedience of Adam was but the diſobedience of a meer man, but the obedience of Chriſt was the obedience of God-man, and in that respect God the Father was more highly pleaſed with the obedience of the Mediatour, then he was diſpleaſed with the diſobedience of Adam.
Anſw. The diſobedience of the firſt Adam and obedience of the ſecond, are oppoſites, theſe oppoſites are compared in reſpect of ſome things wherein they are alike, viz. Both are publike perſons, both communicate what is theirs to their ſeed reſpectively; and ſome things wherein they are unlike, viz. 1. In reſpect of their efficacy, the obedience of Chriſt is more potent to communicate the good of his obedience unto his, then the diſobedience of Adam is able to communicate the evil of his diſobedience unto his. 2. In reſpect of the effect, the diſobedience of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit makes his ſeed guilty only of that firſt act of diſobedience, but the obedience of Chriſt diſchargeth beleevers which are his ſeed, not only from the guilt of that one act of the diſobedience of Adams ſin, but alſo from the guilt of all other diſobedience both originall and actuall.
The obedience of the ſecond Adam did not only countervail but exceed all the diſobedience of the firſt Adam, much more, Rom. 5.15, 16. Grace abounded, ver. 16. abundance of grace, verſ. 17. where ſin abounded grace did much more abound, ver. 20.
It is a truth moſt precious that God was more highly pleaſed with the obedience of the Mediatour, then he was diſpleaſed with the diſobedience of Adam; but ſo unhappy is the Dialogue contending againſt the Mediatorly obedience of Chriſt, as that in the proſecuting of that oppoſition it cannot ſpeak this truth without inſinuating a fallacy of putting that for the cauſe which is not the cauſe, for the ground of the acceptation of the Mediatorly obedience of Chriſt proceeds not wholly though principally from the eminency of the Perſon, which the Dialogue acknowledgeth, but alſo from the kinde of his obedience which the Dialogue denieth.
But how doth this either prove the bearing of the curſe really to be no part of the obedience of the Mediator, which the argumentation intends (though the obedience whereof the Text ſpeaketh intends the contrary) or inform the Reader what the Dialogue means by its new Mediatorly obedience, which the order of diſputation here called for.
The Dialogue denying the received doctrine concerning the Paſſive obedience of Chriſt as Mediator, yet acknowledging a Mediatorly obedience, but not giving any tolerable deſcription of it in any one place, whence the ordinary Reader may know what it, is only here and there mentions the name thereof, and occaſionally adding to that name, ſuch a ſomething as indeed renders it a dark nothing, which manner of handling it, is rather a ſnare then a guide to the leſſe attentive Reader, before we proceed to examine the arguments for this new Mediatorly obedience, what the rules of diſputation required of the Authour, namely, that he ſhould firſt have given us ſome ſuch definition or deſcription thereof, whence we might have underſtood what it is that he ſo much contends for: (for to be willing to diſpute (ſay the Logicians) before we undrſtand certainly what is the Queſtion, is to be willing to loſe our time; and that ſerious and affectionate counſell of Keckerman is here ſeaſonable;Kec. Log. Sact. Poſt. cap. 1. Let us not (ſaith he) diſpute of any thing in Divinity before the various ſignification of that whereof we diſpute is diligently diſtinguiſhed,) that I ſhall endeavour to ſupply, namely, to acquaint the Reader with what the Dialogue intends by its new Mediatorly obedience, according to what is to be collected out of it ſelf, comparing one place with another, whereto I ſhall alſo ſubjoyn a deſcription of Mediatorly obedience according to the received doctrine of the Orthodox, that ſo the Reader conferring both together, may the better judge both of the queſtion and diſputation: Truth loves the light, and errour lurks in ambiguities.
The minde of the Dialogue concerning Mediatorly obedience is to be gathered, 1. By its dictinction. 2. By putting together what in ſeverall places it ſpeaks concerning it.
It is neceſſary (ſaith the Dialogue) to diſtinguiſh between Legall and Mediatoriall obedience; Legall or naturall obedience is no more, but humane obedience performed by Chriſt as a godly Jew unto the Law of works, all the actions of Chriſt from his birth until he was thirty years of age, muſt be conſidered but as natural or but as legall acts of obedience: I cannot ſee (ſaith the Dialogue) how any of theſe actions (which yet it ſomewhat corrects, as we ſhall finde in due place) can properly be called Mediatoriall obedience. Pag. 111. 112.
The Mediatorial obedience of Chriſt,Mediatorial obedience of the Dialogue, what? Largely. according to the Dialogue, conſiſts of thoſe acts of his obedience which he did actuate by the joynt concurrence of both his natures, ſome whereof, viz. many mediatoriall praiers of his interceſſion, though they were acted by him before 30 years of age, yet the far greater part of the acts thereof, and all the publike actions were performed after he was thirty years of age, viz. after his publique inſtalling into the office of Mediatorſhip, Mat. 3. See pag. 112. 113. amongſt the which mediatorial acts of his obedience is his giving up his Manhood by the power of his Divine nature to ſuffer a natural death, ſuch and no other as the ſons of Zebedee ſuffered, Mar. 10.39. Pag. 46. without ſuffering any degree of Gods wrath at all, either in ſoul or body, pag. 2. yet ſo as the Divine nature ſeparated his ſoul from his body, which was the maſter-piece, and was accepted of God the Father as the price and meritorious procuring cauſe of our Redemption, pag. 86. for that was the moſt precious thing that either God the Father could require, or that the Mediatour could perform for our atonement or redemption, pag. 87.
The ſum whereof take thus;Briefly. Chriſts Mediatorly obedience (according to the Dialogue) are certain actions performed by him (not in way of obedience to the moral Law, for all ſuch actions he performed as a godly Jew and as man only, but) as God-man Mediatour unto the Law of Mediatorſhip, eſpecially after 30 years of age, the Maſter-piece whereof was his yielding himſelf to ſuffer a bodily death.
Mediatorly obedience according to the Orthodox, what?Mediatorly obedience, according to the received doctrine of the Orthodox, is the inherent conformity and whole courſe of the active and paſſive obedience of Chriſt from his conception to his paſſion incluſively, performed by him as God-man Mediatour, unto the Law, in way of Covenant, whereunto the whole good of Redemption was due unto the Elect for Chriſts ſake, according to order of juſtice, though conferred upon them in a way of meer grace.
Touching the Dialogues Mediatorly obedience here are divers things which the Reader is deſired to take diſtinct and ſeaſonable notice of.
1. Concerning the diſtinction; Mediatorly and Legal obedience are not two kindes of obedience in Chriſt, but one and the ſame obedience, called Mediatorly from the office of the perſon obeying, Legall from the Rule which was obeyed.
2. Concerning the nature of Mediatorly obedience, we have Firſt a new Law given, which is called the Law of the Mediatour excluding from it wholly the Law of works; Secondly, we have a new Mediatorly obedience conformable to that new Law, and excluding expreſly the eſſential obedience of the Mediatour, which conſiſts in obedience to the Law of works.
That obedience which the Creditor according to the Law demands and the Debtor owes, that the Surety is to pay; but the obedience unto the Command, i.e. the Law of works, Lev. 18.5. Gal. 3.10. and ſuffering of the puniſhment due to ſin, Gen. 2.17. is that which God according to Law demands, and the Debtor namely the ſinner oweth; therefore obedience unto the Law of works is that which the Surety ought to pay.
It is a fiction not only unwarrantable, and from beginning of time (as I beleeve) unheard from any Claſſical authour, but above meaſure preſumptuous, expreſly to deny, about or neer 30 years of the obedience of Chriſt to be Mediatorly obedience, and upon point to acknowledge only an uncertain little part of his life to be ſpent in that ſervice; it is alſo an ignorant and ſnaring contradiction, to affirm that to be meritorious which is not done in a way of juſtice; Juſtice is of the form of merit: Merit is a debt according to order of juſtice; it is a juſt debt. Chriſts mediatorly obedience was an act of a far higher nature then is the fictitious obedience of the Dialogue. It is an untruth of perillous conſequence to corrupt the Faith of the Reader by aſſerting Gods high acceptance of ſuch a Mediatorly obedience, which is not Mediatorly obedience nor will be ſo owned of God.
That Chriſt in giving up his life in reſpect of the Divine nature, as conſidered in Perſonall union with the humane nature acted in way of conſent, but not as his own executioner, hath been oft ſeen.
CHAP. II. Of the divers waies of Redemption.
Dialogu. IF ſo, then there is no need that our bleſſed Mediator ſhould pay both the price of his Mediatoriall obedience, and alſo bear the Curſe of the Law really for our Redemption.
Anſw. Even ſo it was (viz. that the obedience of the ſecond countervailed, yea, far tranſcended the diſobedience of the firſt Adam) becauſe our bleſſed Mediatour paid the price of his Mediatorly obedience by beating the curſe of the Law really for our Redemption; the Meritorious obedience of Chriſt (not the fictitious obedience of the Dialogue) was the cauſe of Gods actual acceptation thereof (not of his volition to accept) and not Gods actual acceptation, the cauſe of his meritorious obedience.
Dialogu I never heard that ever any Turkiſh Tyrant did require ſuch a double ſatisfaction of any Redeemer for the Redemption of Gally-ſlaves, I never heard that ever any Tyrant did require any Redeemer to pay both the full price that they demanded for their redemption of their Gally-ſlaves, and to bear their puniſhment of their curſe and ſlavery alſo in their ſtead; I think no cruell Tyrant did ever exact ſuch a double ſatisfaction: Therefore I cannot chooſe but wonder at the common doctrine of imputation, becauſe it makes God the Father more rigid in the price of our Redemption, then ever Turkiſh Tyrant was, and to be a harder Creditor in the point of ſatisfaction, then ever any rigid Creditor was among men.
Anſw. This paſſionate blaſphemy, not to be heard without the rending of our hearts, proceeds from the ignorance of the nature of the Redemption of Chriſt, which according to the conſtitution of the only bleſſed, wiſe, and juſt God, is by way of ſuretiſhip, not by way of meer price; which laſt is a fundamentall errour of the Authour of the Dialogue throughout this part of the Controverſie.
Dialogu The waies of Redemption are ranked into three ſorts. 1. By exchange of one captive for another; but we are not thus redeemed, for God did not give his Son into the hands of Satan to redeem us from under the power of Satan. 2. There is a Redemption by force and ſtrength, but this may be called a deliverance rather then a Redemption, but however Chriſt did not thus redeem us from Gods wrath; for then Chriſt muſt be ſtronger then his Father, Joh. 14.28. 3. Therefore Chriſt hath redeemed us from the curſe of the Law, and ſo conſequently from his Fathers wrath, by no other way or means, but by that rich and invaluable price or merit of his Mediatorial obedience.
Anſw. Redemption may be better diſtributed thus; namely, it is either by way of power, ſo Abraham delivered Lot out of the hand of Chedor-lahomer, Gen. 14.16. This is rather a deliverance or a reſcue then a Redemption; or by way of price, and that either fully, when that which is given in way of Redemption is of equal value with that which is redeemed, thus one Kinſman redeemed another out of ſervice, Lev. 20.50, 51, 52. Or partially and imperfect, when that which is given in way of Redemption is accepted thereunto, though it be not of equal value with the thing that is redeemed thereby, the firſt-born of ſome unclean creature was more worth then a Lamb, Exod. 13.13. the worth of a man far exceeded five ſhekels, Num. 18.15. the ſteward accepteth 50 lb for a 100 lb Luk. 16.6. this way of Redemption is by ſome, and haply in reference unto the Law-term, is called Acceptilation. Or laſtly,Acceptilatio non eſt vera & naturalis, ſed civilis, i. e. fictitia & (ut ait Juſtinianus) imaginaria ſolutio. Pet. Fab. Seme. l. 2. c. 22. Redemptio poteſtativa, & per modum vadimonij. Cha To. 2. lib. 5. de deſcenſ. cap. 20. by way of ſuretiſhip when the Redeemer delivereth the redeemed by putting himſelf in the place and ſtead of thoſe whom he doth redeem, thus Chriſt redeemed the Elect.
Chriſt is ſuch a Redeemer as is alſo a ſurety, Heb. 7.22. that is, ſuch a Redeemer as ſets himſelf in the ſtead of the Redeemed; ſo Iſaac was ſaved by the Ram, Gen. 22.12, 13. the firſtling of the Aſſe with a Lamb, Exo. 13.13. (although out of the indulgence of God it was at the pleaſure of the owner to redeem the firſtlings of unclean creatures, either with a lamb or money, yet no price can diſpenſe in the caſe of the Antitype, 1 Pet. 1.18, 19.) A ſlain bullock was a typical ſacrifice in ſtead of the owner.
Chriſt died for us as a Vice-ſufferer, not for our good only, as Socinus would have it, but alſo in our place and ſtead:Mortuus eſt non tantum noſtro bono ſed etiam noſtro loco & noſtra vice. Paraeus in Rom. cap. 3 dub. 10. inſtantia. 10. Et cap. 5. dub. 5. Grotius de ſatisfact. cap. 1. Wolleb. compend. l. 1. c. 38. thus the particle [For] is often taken in the Scripture, whatſoever he raſhly affirmeth to the contrary. See Joh. 10.11. Rom. 5.7. & 8.26. & 9.1. Joh. 12.50, 51, 52. 2 Sam. 18.33.
Chriſt died for us as an expiatory ſacrifice for our ſin, that is, he ſo died for us as that he ſuffered what was due to us for our ſins, Heb. 10.12, 14. He died for us as a Prieſt, therefore according to the type he offered his oblation not only for us but alſo in our ſtead. (His oblation was himſelf, Heb. 7.27. & 9.11.12.) and that as our ſurety that ſatisfied vindicative juſtice in our place, which elſe we muſt have ſuffered.
Thoſe words, God did not give his Son into the hands of Satan to redeem us from under the power of Satan, as they are alledged, viz. to prejudice Redemption by way of Suretiſhip or Exchange, are a vain cavil,Willet. ſyn. cent. 5. gen. cont. 20. par. 7. qu. 3. and already anſwered by D. Willet. The price (ſaith he) was paid unto God to ſatisfie Gods juſtice, it was not given unto Satan; for God is the judge, Satan is the Jaylor, to whom the Judge delivers ſinners becauſe of their ſins, Luk. 12.38. Chriſt came and paid the debt unto God, not unto the devil; the debt paid, the Jaylor hath no longer charge or power to keep us in priſon.
The hereſie couched under thoſe ſpecious expreſſions of that rich and invaluable price, or merit of his Mediatorial obedience, being underſtood according to the ſenſe of the Dialogue, we have ſeen before, and the Reader is alwaies deſired occaſionally to remember.
Dialogu. And this way of Redemption is often taught and confirmed by the holy Scriptures, as in 1 Cor. 6.20. 1 Pet. 1.19. and in this ſenſe only we have atonement, Rom. 5.11. and redemption through his bloud, Eph. 1.7. and in this ſenſe he gave his life a Ranſome for many, Mat. 20.28. and in this ſenſe he gave himſelf to redeem us from all iniquity, and to clenſe us to himſelf, Ti. 2.14.
Anſw. Namely, in the ſenſe of the Dialogue, which is Redemption by price only, not by way of Suretiſhip and ſatisfaction of divine juſtice.
The Apoſtle comparing of Chriſts obedience to a price, which is the juſt value of a thing that is bought, pointeth us unto the preciouſneſſe of the bloud, that is, of the obedience of Chriſt (a principall part thereof ſynechdochically put for the whole) which proceeds from the dignity of the perſon obeying, the kinde of obedience, and the acceptation thereof jointly, not from any of them alone.
The bloud of Chriſt of which Rom. 5.11. 1 John 1.17. was ſhed in a way of divine juſtice, Rom. 3.24, 25. the Greek words uſed Eph. 1.7. and Mat. 20.28. and Tit. 2.14. ſignifie not only a price but a ſatisfactory price, ſuch as was neceſſarily given for ſin, that remiſſion might proceed without any violation of juſtice. The perſon who ſuffered, being God, is ſo far from oppoſing his ſufferings to have been in a way of ſatisfaction unto juſtice, as that it was abſolutely requiſite thereunto.
Let not the Reader be moved with the multitude of Scriptures miſalledged, but know the private and erring interpretation of them all to be but a very fallacy, of putting that which is not a Cauſe for a Cauſe, namely, that which is not a Divine Teſtimony for a Divine Teſtimony: the letter of the Scripture alledged not according to its ſenſe, is not the Scripture: That ſaying of Chriſt, The Father is greater then I, Nulli haeretici aut heterodoxi unquam citarunt aut citant verbum Dei. Keck. theo. lib. 1. c. 9.in Joh. 14.28. cited according to the ſenſe of an Arian is not Scripture. Theſe words This is my body, Mat. 26. cited according to the ſenſe of the Papiſt, is not the word of God; neither is that Text 1 Cor. 6.20. nor any of the reſt cited for the confirmation of Mediatorly obedience in the ſenſe of the Dialogue, the word of God. So true is that Propoſition, No hereticks or heterodox as ſuch, ever cited the Word of God.
Dialogu. It is evident by another typical ceremony of Redemption, that Chriſt hath redeemed us by a price only, and not by bearing the Curſe of the Law for us. Lev. 25.25, 39.
Anſw. A Type is a perſon or thing having or not having ſome Phyſical aptneſſe thereunto inſtituted of God to ſignifie a ſpiritual truth.
Of types ſome do ſignifie but not exemplifie, as Hoſea's three children whoſe name ſignified but did not exemplifie the truth to be fullfilled in the Antitype; of ſuch as both ſignifie and exemplifie, ſome exemplifie without any ſenſe or feeling of the thing exemplified,Figura non habet quodcunque habet veritas, ut nec imago regia, quae Rex. Vid. Park. lib. 3. de Deſcen. as Jeremies Girdle, Chap. 13. ſome exemplifie with ſuffering, yet ſo as holding leſſe proportion with the truth ſignified, ſo the wounding of the Prophet prefigured the death of Ahab, 1 King. 20.37, ſome hold more proportion, as the preſent Lamb ſlain and roſted, typified Chriſts ſufferings of the wrath of God, yet ſtill ſo as the Antitype hath more then the type.
The Paſchall Lamb typically ſacrificed, not only for the good, but alſo in ſtead of the ſeverall families, and the Lamb of the daily offering, typically ſacrificed not only for the good, but alſo in ſtead of the people, the killed Goat upon which ſin was laid typically, ſlain not only for the good, but in the ſtead of the ſinfull owner, Lev. 16. The ram ſlain in ſtead of Iſaac, the Lamb in ſtead of, and for the Redemption of the firſtling of the Aſſe, or for the firſtling of any other beaſts ſynechdochically, all theſe ſignified our Redemption by Chriſt, not to be a redemption by laying down a price only or acceptilation, but by way of ſuretiſhip, where that which doth Redeem is put in the place of the Redeemed.
Though in many typicall redemptions (for it was not ſo in all no price could exempt the Paſchall Lamb, or the Lamb for the daily ſacrifice, or the killed goat) God acepted of a price, and ſpared life, yet not ſo in the Antitype. Foraſmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as ſilver and gold from your vain converſation, received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Chriſt as of a Lamb without blemiſh and without spot, 1 Pet. 1.18, 19. If this Argument be of force as it is here propounded without any limitation, then Chriſt need not have redeemed us by his death, but by money or money-worth, and ſo it holds againſt the Dialogue it ſelf, and not only againſt us.
Though all types of Chriſt put together hold forth all the eſſentials of Mediatorly obedience, yet ſuch an univerſall ſignificancy is not requiſite to the nature of a ſingle type: ſingle types ſignifie the truth or truths intended thereby concerning the Antitype, ſome one or more, ſome another, according to the intention of the Authour.
Dialogu. It is a dangerous errour in the tenet of the Lutherans to ſay, that one drop of the bloud of Chriſt is ſufficient to redeem the whole world.
Anſw. As ſome Papiſts and Calviniſts, ſo it is no wonder if there be found ſome Lutherans who ſpeak unſoundly concerning concerning the ſatisfaction of Chriſt; they that ſee cauſe to peruſe Chemnitius, Gerhard, Cramerus, and the generality of the Lutherans, ſhall finde their judgement contrary to what here is imputed to them.
CHAP. III. Of that wherein the true meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Chriſt lieth.
Dialogu THe true meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Chriſt lies not in this, that it was a part of the corporeall ſubſtance of the Lamb of God without spot; nor in this, that he ſuffered his bloud to be ſhed by the Roman ſouldiers in a paſſive manner of obedience, but it lieth in this, that it was ſhed by his own active priestly power, by which means only it became a Mediatorial ſacrifice of atonement.
Anſw. What the Dialogue in the beginning of the ſecond part called Mediatorly obedience; annexing this note withall upon the Margent [the thing of price which Chriſt paid for our Redemption was his Mediatorly obedience] is here expreſſed by the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Chriſt, The Reader therefore is here to be deſired to keep in minde that the matter intended by theſe terms is the obedience of the Mediatour; that ſo the alteration of the words may not inſenſibly ſteal away his attention to the queſtion, nor abuſe him into a better opinion then there is cauſe of this part of the diſcourſe which vilifieth the ſufferings of Chriſt under a ſpecious pretence to magnifie the bloud of Chriſt: nor occaſion him to drink in the minde of the Dialogue concerning our Redemption by the death of Chriſt only, according to its interpretation, it being more aptly if not ſubtlely inſinuated under theſe words [the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Chriſt] then under the phraſe of [Mediatorly obedience] whereof the ſhedding of his bloud only was a ſmall part.
They that deſire to ſpeak properly, diſtinguiſh thus between Value, Equality, Merit, and Efficacy in the point of Mediatorly obedience: Value reſpects the ſufficient worth of it; Equality reſpects the full and adaequate ſatisfaction thereof unto Divine juſtice; Merit is that whereby the good of Redemption is due, for the ſake thereof unto the Elect, according to the order of juſtice; Efficacy intends the actual application of the benefit thereof unto the Elect. But underſtanding in this place with the Dialogue, the Value and Worth of the Obedience of the Mediator, by the meritorious efficacy of his bloud, the fallacy of this aſſertion lieth in putting that which is not the Cauſe, namely,Cauſae partiales in toto concurſu ſtant pro unâ. a partial and inſufficient cauſe to produce the effect, of it ſelf alone; 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 Godman. 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 'tis 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 onelyonly: but the perſon conſiſting of both natures was the Prieſt. The Term He in the other Scriptures being by your own acknowledgement of the ſame ſenſe with the term He Gen. 3.15. you hereby unſay what you juſt now ſaid, or otherwiſe what was ſaid, was nothing to the purpoſe.
Dialogu. Conſider what was his Prieſtly action, and that was the sprinkling of his own bloud by his own Priestly nature, that is to ſay, by his divine nature. Iſa. 53.12. namely, by the active power of his own divine Prieſtly nature, Heb. 9.14. that is to ſay, he ſeparated his ſoul from his body by the power of his Godhead when he made his ſoul a treſpaſſe-offering for our ſin, Iſa. 53.10. and the manner of sprinkling of bloud by the Prieſts upon the Altar, muſt be done with a large and liberall quantity, and therefore it is called pouring out, and this sprinkling with pouring out did typifie the death of the Mediatour; a large quantity of bloudſhed muſt needs be a true evidence of death.
Anſw. Chriſt conſidered as a Prieſt was obliged in the ſtate of his humiliation to fullfill the Law in our ſtead, and conſequently the ſacrifice that he offered as our Prieſt, was the whole work of his active and paſſive obedience; the Prieſts who were a type of Chriſt ſtood ſeverally charged with the cuſtody of the Ark, wherein the Decalogue diſtinguiſhed into two Tables was laid up. Duties of active as well as paſſive obedience are ordinarily called Sacrifices, Heb. 13.16.
The Prieſt that offered this Sacrifice was not the Divine nature alone, but the Perſon of Chriſt conſiſting of both natures with the needleſſe repetition of which, it is full time to ceaſe troubling the Reader any further.
So to attribute the Mediatorly obedience of his death unto the divine nature, as to exclude the humane nature from its influence thereunto, is not only to derogate from the humane nature, but indeed not to attribute ſuch mediatorly obedience unto Chriſt, for Chriſt is a perſon conſiſting of both Natures.
Chriſts ſhedding of his bloud in ſuch a large manner as we reade in the Scripture, is a truth worthy of all attention and acknowledgement, but underſtood in the ſenſe of the Dialogue for the ſhedding of his materiall bloud only, it is comparatively but a ſmall part of his obedience: for Chriſt ſuffered not only a naturall death, Job. 19.30. but alſo a ſpiritual death, Mat. 26.46. Heb. 2.9. not only a bodily but alſo a ſpiritual death, he ſhed his blood together with the ſenſe of the wrath of God, here his death is not called a death ſimply, but a ſuffering, wherein the iniquities of us all gathered together as in an heap were laid upon him, Iſa. 53.6. and a curſe; but this is already largely ſpoken to.
The death or ſhedding of the bloud of Chriſt in Scripture is often put for the whole ſatisfactory obedience which he performed in the ſtate of his humiliation, Rom. 3.25. Eph. 1.7. Col. 1.20. becauſe it was the compleating and conſummation of all; or ſynechdochically taking a part for the whole, namely, the viſible part of his ſufferings for both viſible and inviſible,Med. lib. 1. c. 22. th. 5. Polan. Piſ. 2 Pet. 2.4. like as in the relating the moral acts of his obedience, the external part is oftentimes only mentioned, the internal underſtood; and in ſetting down the works of the Creation, the viſible creatures are named, the inviſible included.
Dialogu. And ſecondly, In this reſpect the bloud of Chriſt is called the bloud of God, Act. 20 28. not only becauſe his humane nature was united to his Divine nature, for by the communication of properties that may be attributed to the Perſon which is proper to one nature only: but ſecondly, 'tis called the bloud of God in another reſpect, namely, becauſe he ſhed his bloud by his own Prieſtly nature, that is to ſay, by the actuall power of his divine nature, for he offered himſelf by his eternall Spirit, Heb. 9.14.
Anſw. As it was the bloud of him that was God-man, ſo it was ſhed by him that was God-man.
Chriſts offering up of himſelf unto God was a free and a willing act, otherwiſe his offering had not been effectual; it could not have been obedience if it had not been done freely.
In reſpect of God, He had done none any wrong if the ſecond Perſon had continued only in that ſubſiſtence wherein he was equal unto God, without admitting any ſubſiſtence in perſonal union with the Manhood, in which reſpect he is inferiour unto God by voluntary diſpenſation. He laid down his life of his own accord, otherwiſe there was no one could have taken it away, Ioh. 10.18. Chriſt had power of right, authority, and Majeſty, and might diſpoſe of his own life, yet having received commandment of the Father to lay down his life, he put not forth his Divine power to reſcue the manhood from deadly ſufferings, but cooperating with ſubordinate inſtruments, according to the concourſe of the firſt cauſe with the ſecond, gave way to the courſe of nature, and patiently ſuffered a violent death.
That which the Dialogue is to prove, is, that the Mediatorly obedience of Chriſt whereby we are redeemed, is by way of price only, not by way of Suretiſhip and juſt ſatisfaction unto the Law: but that which it here ſaith, is, that the bloud of Chriſt was ſhed with a large and liberal quantity, that his bloud was ſhed for the atonement of mens ſouls, that the bloud that was ſhed was the bloud of him that was God, all which are true, but conclude not the queſtion: he ſhed his bloud, moſt true: but he did not only ſhed his bloud, but ſo as the ſenſe of the wrath of God was mixed with it, he ſuffered both a naturall and a ſupernatural death.
Separation of the ſoul from the body is either by the firſt and univerſal efficient, ſo the Divine nature, conſidered in it ſelf, ſeparated one from the other, or by an univerſal ſubordinate efficient acting by way of conſent, ſo the Divine nature ſubſiſting in Perſonal union acted together with the humane in the ſeparation of his ſoul from his body; or elſe by the next formal cauſe, ſo the executioners ſeparated his ſoul from his body.
Dialogu In like ſort he is called Jehovah our Righteouſneſſe, Jer. 20.3. becauſe his Mediatorial obedience (whereof his oblation was the maſterpiece) was actuated by Iehovah, that is to ſay, by his divine nature as well as by his humane,
Anſw. He is called Iehovah our righteouſneſſe becauſe he merited our juſtification by obeying, and becauſe he obedience imputed is the matter of our righteouſneſſe.
You now plainly acknowledging that his Mediatorly obedience was actuated by Iehovah, that is to ſay, by his divine nature as well as by his humane, acknowledge therewithall that it was performed by the joint concurrence of both natures, as elſewhere you ſay; And ſo ſhew that your Reader is troubled in vain to finde out the meaning of thoſe novell propoſitions, viz. He poured out his ſoul to death by the active power of his own Divine Prieſtly nature. He ſeparated his ſoul from his body by the power of his God-head, without mentioning the humane nature.
We muſt needs look at that as a piece of the myſtery of darkneſſe which hath no other ſtrength but in imagination, and that only whileſt it is not underſtood, but when underſtood becomes juſt nothing. The Father of Popery proveth a known Impoſtor, if men once ſpeak in the mother tongue; Popery liveth no longer then it ſpeaks Latine to plain people.
Dialogu. So then I may well conclude that the death of Chriſt was a Mediatorial ſacrifice of atonement, becauſe it was the act of the Mediatour in both his natures, in his humane nature he was the Lamb of God without ſpot, and in his Divine nature he was the Priest to offer up his humane nature to God as a Mediatorial ſacrifice of atonement for the full Redemption of all the Elect.
Anſw. It is an inviolable rule in diſputation, that the concluſion ſhould run in the formall terms of the queſtion. The queſtion therefore being whether the natural death of Chriſt without his ſuffering the wrath of God was a ſufficient Mediatorly ſacrifice of atonement (other inferiour acts done by him as God-man included) the Concluſion ſhould have proceeded thus: The natural death of Chriſt without his ſuffering of the wrath of God, was a ſufficient Mediatorly ſacrifice of atonement. The weakneſſe and fallaciouſneſſe of which concluſion deduced from the annexed reaſon, viz. becauſe it was the act of the Mediatour in both natures, immediatly diſcovereth it ſelf unto him who ſeeth herein the Dialogues uſuall fallacy of putting that which is not a cauſe for a cauſe, ſince not onelyonly the eminency of the Perſon, but alſo the kinde of obedience and acceptation of God are required as eſſential to Mediatorly obedience.
But the Dialogues concluſion expreſſing it ſelf in ambiguous terms capable both vf the ſenſe of the Orthodox and Heterodox, doth by this unſeaſonable and irregular equivocation betray the weakneſſe of its cauſe and arguments both at once.
Dialogu It was the holineſſe of his Divine nature that gave the quickning power to the oblation of his humane nature, Joh. 6.63.
Anſw. 'Tis true, the ſacrifice of the humane nature could not have profited any thing but by reaſon of the Perſon whereunto it was united: which notwithſtanding the Perſon was not the ſole cauſe of the efficacy of the oblation; had the eminency of the Perſon been ſufficient alone, then one drop of his bloud might have been as effectual as his life-bloud, and ſo your reaſoning would be againſt your ſelf.
Dialogu In this anſwer Joh. 6.63. our Saviour declareth two things.
1. That the groſſe and carnall ſubſtance of his fleſh and bloud conſidered by it ſelf alone had no meritorious efficacy, and therefore his legal obedience cannot profit us.
2. Our Saviour in his anſwer declared wherein the true force and efficacy of his ſacrifice did lie, namely, in theſe two things.
1. In the Perſonal union of his humane nature with his divine nature.
2. It lies in his Prieſtly offering up of his humane nature by his divine nature.
Anſw. Though neither the fleſh nor the actions of his fleſh conſidered alone can profit us, it doth not thereupon follow that his legall obedience cannot profit us: the conſequent is as falſe as the antecedent is true: for the legall obedience of Chriſt is not only humane obedience, as the Dialogue ſpeaks, but the obedience of God-man: of the errour of this diſtinction of legal and mediatorial obedience, hath been ſpoken before.
The efficacy of it lay in the eminency of the Perſon offering, that is the Perſon who offered up himſelf was ſuch a man who was alſo God, Joh. 6.63. Act. 20.28. Heb. 9.14. but not in that only, this is but the ſame in more words which is uſually expreſſed in fewer, viz. the value and efficacy of the Sacrifice depends (yet not wholly) upon the dignity of the Perſon Godman offered properly, Godman was offered but not without the limitation of communication of properties. The humane nature ſuffered properly but the divine nature ſuffered not: Whole Chriſt ſuffered, but not the whole of Chriſt, i.e. though the God-head did not ſuffer, yet he that did ſuffer was God.
CHAP. IV. Whether the Iews and Romans put Chriſt to death.
Dialogu. NEither did he die a paſſive death by the power of the Roman ſouldiers, as the Iews thought, and as the Papiſts and other carnal Proteſtants do think: All the men and devils in the world could not put him to death by their power, I mean, they could not ſeparate his ſoul from his body, till himſelf pleaſed to do it by his own Prieſtly power, Joh. 10.17, 18. his ſoul was not ſeparated from his body by the ſenſe of thoſe pains which the Romane ſouldiers inflisted upon him, as the ſouls of the two theeves were that were crucified with him, for Chriſt died not ſooner nor later then the very punctual hour in which God had appointed him to make his oblation.
Anſw. The Dialogue unable to prove the meer naturall death of Chriſt to be meritorious, that is, to be a ſufficient price of our Redemption from the meer eminency of the perſon that died; what it cannot do by argument it attempts by amazement, beguiling the leſſe attentive Reader into a credulity of the concluſion not by any reaſon alledged, but by aſſerting ſome wonders concerning his natural death, and firſt that his death was active only, i.e. he ſeparated his ſoul from his body, ſhed his own bloud, actuated his own death, but the Jews and Romans put him not to death.
Suppoſe it were true that men did not inſtrumentally inflict upon Chriſt a naturall death, and that they kil'd him not, which yet is againſt the expreſſe letter of the Scripture, Act. 2.23. it doth not therefore follow God did not inflict upon him a ſpirituall death.
As they killed their own Prophets ſo they killed Chriſt, 1 Theſ. 2.15. but they killed their own Prophets not only in appearance, but effectually: Neither Chriſts being active, as concerning his death, ſc. as voluntarily permitting or giving way and conſenting unto it, neither the inability of man to take away his life till himſelf pleaſed; neither his not dying either ſooner or later then the very punctual hour in which God had appointed, deny the ſenſe of thoſe pains which the Romane Souldiers inflicted upon him to have inſtrumentally, and as next externall cauſes ſeparated his ſoul fron his body when he pleaſed, by ſuſpending the aſſiſtance of the Divinity to give way unto the courſe of nature in the appointed hour. By the laſt reaſon no man dieth a violent death, becauſe no man dieth ſooner or later then his appointed time,
Dialogu. The Centurion did plainly ſee a manifest difference between the manner of Chriſts death, and the death of the two theeves that were crucified with him, for as yet they did ſtill continue alive in their torments till after the time that Joſeph of Arimathea had begged our Saviours dead body of Pilate, at the Sun-ſet Evening: for Joſeph did not go to Pilate to beg our Saviours body until the Evening was come, Mat. 27.57. Mar. 15.52, 53. and that was at Sun-ſet, it could not be when the firſt Evening was come; but Chriſt was dead long before this, for he gave up the ghoſt at the ninth hour, which was about three hours before the two theeves were killed, and yet by the courſe of his nature he might have lived in his torments as long as the two thieves did, for the Romane Souldiers did crucifie all three alike.
Anſw. Put caſe Ioſeph of Arimathea begged not the body of Chriſt until Sunſet-Evening, and that he died three hours before the theeves; this diſproveth not the Jews as procurers, Pilate as a Commander, and the Roman ſouldiers as Executioners to have effectually put Chriſt to death; neither doth all being granted touch the queſtion; mans not putting Chriſt to his natural death, no way diſproving Gods putting of him to a ſupernatural death: ſo impertinent are theſe new aſſertions though true.
'Tis true, the latter Evening began not until Sunſet, but 'tis not true that Ioſeph came not to beg the body of Chriſt until Sun-ſet, for he came as the Evening was coming, as the Greek hath it, therefore before it was actually come. Beſides, otherwiſe he could not have taken down the body, and buried it the ſame day (for it was before Sun-ſet even, after the expoſition of the Dialogue it ſelf on Gal. 3.13.) according to the Law, Deut. 22.23. which Iohn teſtifieth they were careful and mindeful of, Ch. 19.31. There being therefore ſo much reaſon to conclude the theeves were buried before Sun-ſet, it is very inconſiderately affirmed that they were alive at Sun-ſet. It is alſo very inconfiderately affirmed that the theeves did continue alive in their torments, till after the time that Ioſeph of Arimathea had begged our Saviours dead body of Pilate, when Iohn telleth us that the Jews beſought Pilate that their legges might be broken, and that they might be taken away, and after that their legges were broken and Chriſts ſide was pierced with a ſpear, Ioſeph of Arimathea beſought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jeſus, Ioh. 19.31, 34, 38. but much more unadviſed is it to ſay that the theeves were alive at Sun-ſet, there being ſo much reaſon to conclude they were buried before Sunſet.
The Margine note concerneth not us who acknowledge but two Evenings, nor oppoſe the Hebrews or Jews beginning the firſt with the ſenſible declining of the Sun, after its being in its altitude at midday; the latter at Sunſet; between which two evenings that is in the ſpace after the beginning of the firſt, and before the beginning of the ſecond, the Lamb was ſlain, Exo. 12.6.
Chriſt died after three of the clock, Mat. 27.45 50. the theeves were taken down and buried out of the way before Sunſet, and 'tis probable Chriſt and they were taken down together, whoſe body being wound up in linnen clothes with the ſpices, and carried into Ioſephs own ſepulchre in a garden upon the ſame mount muſt neceſſarily take up ſome time, neither is there reaſon to think they would put themſelves upon any danget of entrenching upon the Sabbath. The caſe thus ſtanding, and it being not ſet down what ſpace there was between the death of Chriſt and of the theeves, the Dialogue ventures too far, in ſaying Chriſt died not only long, but three hours before them. But be it what it was, let us ſee what the Dialogue infers from thence.
Dialogu. What then was the true reaſon why Chriſt died three hours before the theeves? had he leſſe ſtrength of nature to bear his torments then they? or did the Roman ſouldiers adde more torment upon his body then upon the two theeves? or did the Fathers wrath kill him ſooner then the two theeves, as ſome think? ſurely none of all theſe things did haſten his death before the two theeves, but the only true reaſon was becauſe he did actuate his own death as a mediatorial ſacrifice of atonement (at the juſt hour appointed by his Father) by the joint concurrence of both his natures.
Anſw. That Chriſt was dead a notable ſpace before the theeves, is manifeſt, and Pilate marvelled if he were already dead, Mar. 14.4…. But that he died three hours before them cannot appear.
Chriſt had leſſe ſtrength of nature left to bear his torments then the theeves had, therefore they compelled a man of Cyrene Simon by name, to bear his Croſſe, that is, to help him bear it.
Illuſio & conſpuitio Chriſti poſt latam in eum mortis ſententiam a miniſtris a mediâ nocte uſque ad horas matutinas fuit producta. Gerh. harm. 73.He is a very negligent Reader of the Hiſtory of the Paſſion, that obſerveth not many ſufferings inflicted upon Chriſt by men more then were upon the thieves. His reſtleſſe vexation the night before by their carrying of him firſt before Annas, Joh. 18. then to Caiaphas, ver. 24. where they ſpit in his face, and buffeted him, others ſmote him with the palms of their hands, Mat. 27.67. Again, they cover his face and buffet, and ſay unto him, Propheſie, Mar. 14.65. and thence they carry him to Pilate early in the morning, Mat. 27.1, 2. thence to Herod, Luk. 23.7. and Herod with his men of war ſet him at naught, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and ſent him again to Pilate, where the ſouldiers of the Governour took Jeſus into the Common Hall, and gathered unto him the whole Band of ſouldiers, and they ſtripped him, and put upon him a ſcarlet Robe, and when they had platted a Crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand, and they bowed themſelves before him,Thom. part. 3. qu. 46. vid. Gerh. harm. in loc. ſaying, Hail, King of the Jews, and ſpit upon him, and took the reed and ſmote him on the head, Mat. 27.27, 28, 29, 30. adde hereunto their caſting lots upon his veſture, reviling of him, wagging their heads at him, and mocking of him as well by the better as by the meaner ſort, whileſt he was hanging upon the Croſſe, and all this beſides what was extraordinary in his ſcourging; you forget his ſorrow unto death, mortall of it ſelf in time, his agony in the garden, beſides the full ſenſe of the wrath of God upon the Croſſe, no wonder if all theſe exhauſted the ſpirits of the Manhood.
foreign.Behold the man! and if theſe things ſtill ſeem leſſe to the authour of the Dialogue, yet know they ſeemed great both to David that ſpake of them, and to Chriſt that felt them; Reproach hath broken my heart, Pſa. 69.20. My heart is like wax, it is melted in the midſt of my bowels, my ſtrength is dried up like a potſherd, Pſa. 22.14, 15.
Dialogu. Surely none of all theſe things did haſten his death before the two theeves, but the only true reaſon was, becauſe he did actuate his own death as a mediatoriall ſacrifice of atonement (at the juſt hour appointed by his Father) by the joint concurrence of both his natures.
Anſw. Of Chriſts fear hath been ſpoken particularly, and I hope ſufficiently upon Heb. 5.7.
In regard of the Perſonal union and unction of Chriſt, whereby he received all poſſible created fitneſſe for the execution of his office, it is inconſiſting with his perfection to ſuppoſe the leaſt unreadineſſe either in reſpect of fear or whatſoever elſe, to perform any Mediatorly ſervice in the time thereof.
Iohn telleth us the true reaſon why Chriſt died then and not before nor after: becauſe then and not untill then his work of Mediatorly obedience, both active and paſſive was finiſhed, and whatſoever was written concerning him was fullfilled, When Ieſus therefore had received the Vinegar, he ſaid, It is finiſhed, and he bowed his head and gave up the ghoſt.
CHAP. V. Of the Dialogues diſtinction of Chriſts dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor.
Dialogu. I Have already ſhewed you that Chriſt dyed a twofold death: for he died both as a Malefactor and as a Mediatour at one and the ſame time; as a Malefactor he died a paſſive death, but as a Mediatour he died an active death, and the Scripture doth often speak of both theſe deaths, ſometimes iointly and ſometimes ſeverally: when the Scripture doth mention his paſſive death, then it ſaith that he was put to death, killed and ſlain. But ſecondly, the Scripture doth ſometime ſpeak iointly of his paſſive death, and of his Mediatorly death together in one ſentence, as in Rom. 8.13. and in Gal. 3.13. (which Scriptures I have opened at large in the first part,) Luke 22.19. compared with 1 Cor. 11.24. Luke 22.20. ſo Iſa. 12. with Rom. 4.25. The Scripture doth ſometime ſpeak of his Mediatorial death only as Iſa. 53.10. he gave his ſoul to be a trespaſſe-offering for our ſins, and he offered himſelf by his eternall ſpirit, Heb. 9.14. and he laid down his own life, Joh. 10.17, 18, and he ſanctified himſelf, Joh. 17.19. therefore ſeeing the holy Scriptures do teach us to obſerve this diſtinction upon the death of Chriſt, it is neceſſary that all Gods people ſhould take notice of it, and engrave it in their mindes and memories.
Anſw. In the examination of this diſtinction which the Authour labours much in, and makes much uſe of, conſider we.
1. The ſenſe of it,
2. The Scriptures alledged for the ground of it.
3. The ſcope of it.
4. The deductions from it.
By it the Dialogue means, that the naturall death of Chriſt (for the ſpirituall death it denieth) is either Active, actuated by the Divine nature, yea, the joint concurrence of both natures, ſo he died as a Mediatour, and this was reall: or Paſſive, wherein the Jews and Romans inflicted upon him the ſores of death, but did not put him to death though they thought they did, ſo he died as a Malefactor. This was not real, but only in the Jews account; Such is the minde of the diſtinction.
Thoſe Texts wherein Chriſt is ſaid to be put to death, Luke 18.33. 1 Pet. 3.18. killed, Gal. 3.13. teach us, that Chriſt was paſſive in his death, but make no mention of the Dialogues twofold naturall death, nor do they deny Chriſt to be active in that death wherein he was paſſive. They ſhew plainly his bloud was ſhed, and that by Jews, but not one of them affirmeth that Chriſt ſhed it himſelf.
Iſa, 53.10. Heb. 9.14. Ioh. 10.17, 18. and 17.19. teach expreſly that Chriſt was active, and imply him to be be paſſive as concerning the ſame oblation of himſelf by his death.
Luke 22.19, 20. 1 Cor. 11.24. ſhew us that the body of Chriſt was given for us, primarily by the Father who gave his Son, and ſubordinately by Chriſt, who by voluntary conſent gave himſelf according to his Fathers will for us, as alſo that the breaking of the bread in the adminiſtration of the Sacrament is to be uſed as ſignificative of his ſufferings. What is this to the diſtinction?
Rom. 4.25. clearly intimates Chriſt to be paſſive, but denieth him not be active in one and the ſame natural death.
Rom. 8.13. Iſa. 12. ſpeak not of the death of Chriſt at all.
Some of theſe Texts alledged ſay that Chriſt was active, others that he was Paſſive in his death, that is, in one and the ſame death whether it be naturall or ſupernaturall, but not one ſaith, his death was paſſive. Divers of the Scriptures alledged hold forth manifeſtly both his naturall and ſupernaturall death; the moſt include his ſupernatural death, none deny it.
The ſcope of the diſtinction is to make Chriſt the formal taker away of his own life.
The deduction from it; therefore neither Jews nor Romans put Chriſt to death: of both which before and in the anſwer immediatly following.
This diſtinctions twofold death is but one: for he died not a paſſive death as a Malefactor, according to the Dialogue, p. 97. and 100. It denyeth the death of Chriſt as Mediatour to be Paſſive, which can hardly eſcape a contradiction. It denieth Chriſt as he was Mediatour to be a Malefactor, though to be imputatively a Malefactor was eſſential for the time unto his being a Mediatour.
As in your diſtinction of Legall and Mediatoriall obedience, you underſtand the terms Legal and Mediatorial to ſignifie two kindes of obedience, which are but two appellations of the ſame obedience, ſo in this diſtinction of the active and paſſive death of Chriſt, (according alſo as you expreſſe your ſelf clearer upon the margent) you make theſe terms to ſignifie two kindes of death which only ſignifie diverſe affections in the Perſon dying.
The terms Mediator and Malefactor are to be diſtinguiſhed as the whole and the part of the ſame office.
To be a Malefactor imputatively was an eſſentiall part, for the time, of the office of the Mediatour.
The terms Active and Paſſive do not denote or diſtinguiſh two deaths, but are to be diſtinguiſhed as adjuncts or affections of the ſame Perſon and Officer, as concerning one and the ſame death.
Dialogu. When I ſpeak of the death of Chriſt as a Malefactor, then the Scribes and Phariſees muſt be conſidered as the wicked inſtruments thereof, yet this muſt be remembred alſo, that I do not mean that they by their torments did ſeparate his ſoul from his body, in that ſenſe they did not put him to death (himſelf only did ſeparate his own ſoul from his body by the power of his Godhead) but they put him to death, becauſe they inflicted the ſores of death upon his body, they did that to him which they thought ſufficient to put him to death: and men are often ſaid to do that which they indeavour to do; as in the example of Abraham, Heb. 11.7. Haman, Eſth. 8.7. Amalek, Exod. 17.16. Saul Pſal. 143, 3. The Magicians, Exo. 8.18. The Iſraelites, Numb. 14.30. as the matter is explained in Deut. 1.41. and in this ſenſe it is ſaid, that the Iews did kill and ſlay the Lord of life, becauſe they endeavoured to do it.
Anſw. In reſpect of the natural death of Chriſt, God was the univerſal efficient. The ſecond cauſe cannot act without the concurſe of the firſt, Act. 17.28. The formall efficiency of the ſecond cauſe conſiſts with, and is ſubordinate to the univerſal efficiency of the firſt cauſe; ſo as the efficiency of the ſecond cauſe is both ordered by, and is alſo the effect of the firſt cauſe; but the deficiency of the ſecond cauſe, though it be ordered by,foreign. Ad efficientem cauſam indirectè refertur voluntas ipſius Chriſti. Synopſ. pur. theol. diſput. 27. theſ. 19. yet it is not the effect of the firſt cauſe.
Chriſt as Mediatour was the voluntary cauſe freely and readily conſenting to the Fathers will, Heb. 10.7. and 9.14. Gal. 2.20. Chriſt was Lord of his own life, he had power of right concerning it, Ioh, 10.18. It was his own, and he had done no wrong in caſe he had not taken upon him the form of a ſervant, Phil. 2.6.7. He had power of might to have preſerved his life, no man could take it from him againſt his will, Ioh. 10.18. All which notwithſtanding, he voluntarily humbled himſelf, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Croſſe, Phil. 2.8. Thus Chriſt was active concerning his death, but not as his own executioner, and formall ſhedder of his own bloud.
The Executioners were the immediate, external, and blameable cauſe, ſo are theſe Texts to be underſtood, 1 Pet. 3.18. Act. 2.32. and 3.15. 1 Theſ. 3.15. Jam. 5.6.
Two of your inſtances hold not, viz. Exo. 8.18. which the diligent Reader may eaſily perceive, and Numb. 14.40. where the words are better read by Learned Tranſlators, And they roſe up early in the morning that they might aſcend, &c. A third, viz. Exo. 17.16. is expounded with as good reaſon againſt you. That alſo Esth. 8.7. might be troubled if not taken from you, the true meaning of places is to be attended. Your number of inſtances, if need were, I doubt not, may be made up elſewhere.
'Tis true, the will is in diverſe places put for the deed, but not therefore in every place, nor conſequently in this. So to argue were a non-conſequence proceeding from particulars to an univerſal.
Where in Scripture the will is put for the deed, there it is alſo manifeſt that though there was the will, yet there was not the deed, as in your inſtances of Abraham, Saul, and Haman, if yet the laſt will hold as here alledged. But you cannot produce any Scripture where the will is put for the deed, when there was a ſufficient phyſical cauſe exerted to produce that effect, and alſo the effect followed; it were indeed an implicate, i.e. a contradiction, yet ſuch is the caſe here. 'Tis true, no torments though in themſelves killing could kill Chriſt until he pleaſed, and 'tis alſo true, that torments killing in themſelvs could kill him when he pleaſed.
If becauſe the life of Chriſt could not be taken away until the time appointed, nor without his conſent, it therefore followeth, that the Jews and Romans did not take away his life, by the ſame reaſon it may be ſaid of the bloud that was ſhed at the ſcourging, crucifying, the piercing of his ſide with the Lance, that they did not take away that bloud from him only endeavoured to take away his bloud: for that bloud was not ſhed until the time appointed, not until Chriſt pleaſed, it being in the power of the Divine nature to have retained it. Nay, why may it not be ſaid by the ſame reaſon, of all the ſufferings inflicted upon him by men, that they did but endeavour to afflict him, but they did not afflict him, ſince all the evils that men inflicted upon him were inflicted according to his conſent, and in the time and manner as was written, Luk. 22.37. Act. 3.18. This reaſoning too much favoureth Socinians and other hereticks, who deny the ſufferings of Chriſt to be real, affirming them only to be Metaphoricall.
It is a daring aſſertion, when there is not one text, nor (I beleeve) one Claſſicall Authour who affirmeth that Chriſt as the next and formall cauſe ſhed his bloud, but on the contrary, plentifull Texts and Teſtimonies, that he was put to death, kil'd, and ſlain, and that by the Jews, Luke 18.33. 1 Pet. 3.18. Mar. 12.8. Act. 3.15. 1 Theſ. 3.15. Jam. 5.6. Act. 2.23. Rev. 5.6, 9, 12. & 6.9. to contradict not only the godly whether learned or unlearned both of the preſent and all paſt generations ſince the Paſſion of our Lord Jeſus, but alſo the Scriptures themſelves in ſaying the Jews did not actually put Chriſt to death. Nor let the Jews, Romans, or Pilate rejoyce at this; in vain doth the Dialogue diſcharge whom God hath charged.
After all this, give me leave again to minde the Reader, that though this untruth were true, yet it is impertinent to the queſtion; for what though the Jews did not put Chriſt to a natural death? what though Chriſt ſhed his own bloud? what though he were his own Executioner, yea, killed himſelf? which laſt though the Dialogue in words ſomewhere rejects, yet in conſequence aſſerts (at the writing of which my pen trembleth) doth it therefore follow that God did not inflict upon him his paenall wrath?
Dialogu. He laid down his life by the ſame power by which he raiſed it up again, Joh. 10.17, 18.
Anſw. The power was the ſame, but the manner of putting it forth was not the ſame: In laying down his life Chriſt acted as a voluntary and ſolitary cauſe, that is, by way of conſent and alone; but in taking up his life again, he acted as an efficient ſociall cauſe, the Father and the holy Ghoſt cooperating with him.
Dialogu Yea, his Mediatoriall death may well be called a miraculous death.
Anſw. His death was miraculous, many waies, the Perſonall union of ſoul and body with the Divine nature, during the ſpace of their phyſicall diſunion one from another was miraculous, ſuch ſtrength of nature remaining under the extreme pangs, and at the inſtant of death was miraculous, as was the ſtrength of Moſes, Deut. 34.7. and of Caleb Joſh. 14.11. in the time of old age, that Chriſt as man ſhould die whileſt the Manhood was in perſonal union with the Godhead, is miraculous; but that the Divine nature ſuſpending its aſſiſtance, a man ſhould die under deadly pains, was not miraculous.
Chriſts death was in ſome reſpect miraculous and ſupernatural, and in ſome reſpect not miraculous but natural; as Chriſts natural ſo his ſupernatural death was miracalous, but it doth not follow it was miraculous, therefore it was not; the contrary followeth, his ſupernatural death was miraculous, therefore it was.
Dialogu Chriſt died not by degrees (ſaith M. Nichols in his Day-Starre) as his Saints do, his ſenſes do not decay, &c.
Anſw. Others ſay the ſame, who notwithſtanding teach the doctrine of imputation and Chriſts ſuffering of the wrath of God, the one oppoſeth not the other. Whether Chriſts pains were ſo ended when he ſaid, It was finiſhed, as that his death was without pain (which yet I beleeve not) is not the queſtion, but whether Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God.
Dialogu Auſtin ſaith thus, Who can ſleep (ſaith he) when he will, as Chriſt died when he would? who can lay aſide his garment, ſo as Chriſt laid aſide his fleſh? Who can leave his place as Chriſt left his life? his life was not forced from him by any impoſed puniſhment, but he did voluntarily render it up to God as a Mediatorial ſacrifice: in his life time he was often touched with the fear of death, but by his strong crying unto God with daily praiers and tears he obtained power against his natural fear of death, before he came to make his oblation; as I have expounded, Heb. 5.7.
Anſw. Auguſtine in his 119 Tractate upon Iohn, ſpeaks as you recite, until thoſe words, who can leave his place ſo as Chriſt left his life? ſo far are his words, but no further in that place, nor (I beleeve) any where elſe. The reſt ſeem to be your own, and (if ſo) ought to have been accordingly diſtinguiſhed by the character. Your Expoſition of Heb. 5.7.Sed Pelagiani quo modo dicunt ſolum mortem nos tranſiſſe, &c. Auguſt. contra duas Epiſtolas. Pelag. l. 4. cap. 4. hath received its anſwer.
If Auguſtines judgement in this Controverſie be of weight with you, you may learn it out of theſe his enſuing words. But (ſaith he) after what manner do the Pelagians ſay that death paſſed unto us by Adam? For we therefore die becauſe he is dead, and he died becauſe he ſinned: they ſay (ſaith he) the puniſhment paſſed without the fault, and that innocent babes are puniſhed with an unjuſt puniſhment by contracting death without the deſert of death:See more teſtimonies both of Auguſt. and other Ancients to this purpoſe out of Grotius de ſatisf. Chriſt. which the Catholike faith acknowledgeth of the one alone Mediatour of God and Men, the Man Chriſt Jeſus, who vouchſafed to undergo death for us, that is, the puniſhment of ſin without ſin: for as he alone was made the Son of man that we by him might be made the ſons of God; ſo he alone undertook for us the puniſhment of ſin without evil deſerts, that we by him might obtain grace without good deſerts; for as unto us there was no good due, ſo unto him there was no evil due.
Dialogu Again, it is evident that his death was miraculous, becauſe at that instant when he breathed out his ſoul into the hands of God, the veil of the Temple (which typified his humane nature) rent it ſelf in twain from the top to the bottome; and at that time alſo the graves of the Saints did open themſelves, and many of the dead Saints did ariſe, Mat. 27.51.
Anſw. The miracles that accompanied the death of Chriſt were divine teſtimonies of the Divinity and innocency of him that died, but no arguments that his death was miraculous. The poſition that his death was miraculous is true, but this probation holds not.
It is rather thought that the Miracle of the Reſurrection of the Saints was not till after the Reſurrection; Many bodies of the Saints that ſlept, aroſe, and came out of their graves after his Reſurrection, Mat. 27.51. but in matters of this nature we contend not.
The miracles that fell out about the death of Chriſt whether before or at, or after it, were the Eclipſe of the Sun, cauſing darkneſſe, from the ſixth hour unto the ninth, whilſt Chriſt was hanging upon the Croſs: The rending of the vail of the Temple, an Earthquake, the rending or the Rocks: the opening of the graves, and riſing of many of the Saints. The converſion of the Centurion and others; the coming forth of bloud and water out of Chriſts ſide; all which are ſummed together in that memorial Diſtich,
Eclipſis, velum, terrae trepedatio, Rupes.
Buſta: cruci aſtantum converſio, ſanguis, & unda.
The death of Chriſt (ſaith D. Ames) was true not feigned;Mors iſta Chriſti fuit vera non ficta. &c. Med. l. 1. c. 22. th. 27 it was natural from cauſes naturally efficacious to procure it, not ſupernatural, it was voluntary, not plainly conſtrained; yet it was violent. It was alſo in ſome reſpect ſupernatural and miraculous, becauſe Chriſt conſerved his ſtrength and life ſo long as he would, and laid them down when he would.
Dialogu Hence we learn that the doctrine of the Papiſts and Lutherans in their tranſubſtantiation and conſubſtantiation is very erroneous; for they place the meritorious price of their Redemption in the groſſe ſubſtance of Chriſts fleſh and bloud, and in the paſſive ſhedding of it upon the Croſſe by the Romans.
Anſw. Neither the Papiſts nor Lutherans look at the bloud of Chriſt as the bloud of a meer man, but as the bloud of God-man.
Dialogu. The cleanſing vertue of his bloud lies in his own Mediatorial ſhedding of it, for though he did not break his own body, and powr out his own bloud with nails and spears, as the Roman ſouldiers did, yet he brake his own body in peeces by ſeparating his own ſoul from his body by the power of the Divine nature: and then he did actually ſhed his own bloud when he did pour out his own ſoul to death, Iſa. 53.12. as a Mediatorial ſacrifice of Atonement for the procuring of his Fathers Atonement for our full Redemption, Iustification and Adoption, and in this ſenſe only the bloud of Chriſt doth purge us, Tit. 2.14. and cleanſe us 1 Joh. 1.7. and waſh us from our ſins, Rev. 1.
Anſw. Chriſt ſhed his blood voluntarily, that is, he conſented obediently thereunto, but he ſhed it not formally as the next and formal cauſe thereof; ſo to ſay is in effect to affirm that he killed himſelf, and that he was his own executioner. Unto the cleanſing vertue of his bloud there is required not only the dignity of his perſon, but alſo that beſides the ſhedding of his bloud there is required that he ſhould ſuffer a ſupernatural death, i. e. the paenal death of the curſe due to the Elect for their ſin, which is ſynechdochically ſignified by [his bloud] this putting of a partial and inſufficient cauſe for the whole cauſe, Logicians call a fallacy of putting a not-cauſe for a cauſe; and is a fundamental and perpetual errour in the Dialogue: the value of the Mediatorly obedience which is figuratively ſignified by Bloud, proceeds from the eminency of the perſon obeying: the quality of the obedience, and the acceptance of God jointly, and not from any of them alone.
The bloud of Chriſt whereof 1 Joh. 1.7. and Rev. 1. was bloud ſhed in a way of ſatisfaction to divine juſtice, Rom. 3.24, 25. not by way of a price improperly ſo called, whoſe acceptance is by Divines called Acceptilation. That Redeeming of which Tit. 2.14. ſignifieth a Redemption not by way of an improper or imperfect, but by way of a full and ſatisfactory price, ſuch as was neceſſarily given for ſin, that remiſſion might proceed without any violation of juſtice: Theſe objections have been urged before and anſwered before.
That which the Authour in this former Section of the ſecond part affirmeth is, that the active bodily death of Chriſt only (i. e. his death actuated by the divine nature, ſeparating his ſoul from his body, which the Dialogue calleth the maſter-piece of his Mediatorial obedience) together with certain foregoing actions performed by him as God-man, was the meritorious price of our Redemption, denying that Chriſt ſuffered the curſe of the Law in our ſtead; which it endeavoureth to prove by comparing the merit of Chriſts obedience with the demerit of Adams diſobedience, Rom. 5.19. by allegation of certain Scriptures both miſinterpred and corrupted, viz. 1 Cor. 6.20. &c. By the type of the Redemption-Mony, by the typicall Redemption Lev. 25.25, 39, 47. by placing the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Chriſt in that it was ſhed by his own active prieſtly power, not by the Roman Souldiers: this laſt Propoſition it labours to clear by the conſideration of his prieſtly power, and in his Prieſtly action, namely, the ſprinkling of his own bloud. The efficacy of his death performed by the joint concurrence of both natures, is again aſcribed wholly unto the divine nature; which gave the quickning power to the oblation of the humane nature: for the illuſtration and confirmation whereof, it propounds two diſtinctions, Firſt of Legall and Mediatoriall obedience. The ſecond of an active and paſſive death. Or that Chriſt died as a Mediator and as a Malefactor. Of the former diſtinction there will be a further and more proper place to ſpeak hereafter; The latter the Dialogue hath taken much pains in, and made much uſe of; its grounds are Scriptures miſalledged: its ſcope is to make Chriſt the ſole actor of his own death: the inference from it, that the Jews did not put Chriſt to death: but if the diſtinction it ſelf be proved to be but a figment, the ſcope thereof unſound, and if true, yet impertinent: the inference an untruth (of all which the Reader muſt judge) then the crutch falling, all that is built thereupon muſt needs fall together with it.