The Sufferings of Christ, Part 2 · Section 2 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I. Of the Dialogues Reaſoning againſt the influence of Chriſts obedience into Iuſtification, by way of Imputation.
THe Dialogue denying the imputation of ſin unto Chriſt, thereupon neceſſarily denieth Chriſts ſuffering of the puniſhment due for ſin (which is uſually called his paſſive obedience) and therewithall all legall obedience performed by him in our ſtead whether paſſive or active; hereupon it is neceſſitated to deny all Legall Mediatorly obedience, and conſequently the legall obedience of Chriſt to be the meritorious price of our redemption, or to be the matter of our Juſtification. For that which is not at all, cannot be either of them: ſo fruitfull is errour, one pulling on another.
As the denial of Chriſts Legal obedience to have place in the meritorious cauſe, forced the Authour to finde out a new Mediatorly obedience, as the price of our redemption; which we have already examined: ſo the denial of his Legal obedience to be the matter of our juſtification, forceth him to invent a new way of juſtifying (I cannot ſay a new matter of Juſtification, for he doth not preſent any though that was excepted) of which now (Chriſt who is our righteouſneſſe aſſiſting) we are to conſider.
Dialogu. Before I can ſpeak any thing touching Christs obedience to the Morall Law, it muſt be underſtood what you mean by this term morall Law: By the term morall Law you mean the Decalogue or ten Commandments, and call it the morall Law, becauſe every one of theſe ten Commandments were engraven in our nature in the time of innocency: but in my apprehenſion in this ſenſe the term moral Law is very ill applied, becauſe it makes moſt men look at no further matter in the ten Commandments but at morall duties only: or it makes them look no further but at ſanctified walking in relation to moral duties.
Anſw. The Dialogues objecting againſt the Decalogues being called the morall Law is a meer impertinency.
It is ſufficient (ſo farre as concerns the matter in hand) unto the Juſtification of the uſe of the term moral, if it be applicable unto the Law, as given to Adam in innocency; though it were not applicable unto it, under the notion of the Decalogue. Suppoſe it be applicable to neither; the Queſtion is not whether the term Moral be aptly applied unto the Decalogue: but whether Chriſts obedience unto the Law were done for our juſtification?
The Law in Scripture is called the image of God, becauſe by it written in the heart man reſembled God, Gen. 1.27. The ten words or ten Commandements from the number of the precepts therein contained, Deut. 4.13. The two great Commandments, Mat. 22.40. The Law of Moſes, Act. 28.23. becauſe given by Moſes, Joh. 1.17. The Law of works, Rom. 3.27. becauſe it required perſonal and perfect obedience thereunto, as the condition of our Juſtification. By Divines it is called the Decalogue becauſe it conſiſteth of ten Commandements. The ſecond edition of the Law of nature being firſt concreated with our nature, Gen. 1.27. and afterwards written upon two Tables of ſtones, Exod. 31.18. The morall Law becauſe it is the perpetuall rule of manners teaching how we ſhould be ordered towards God and Man, and alſo to diſtinguiſh it from the Ceremoniall and judiciall Law: But not becauſe every one of the ten Commandments were engraven in our nature in the time of Adams innocency, as the Dialogue puts upon us to make way for its burdening of us with its vain and impertinent objection againſt calling the Decalogue the morall Law.
Though the Decalogue or moral Law were written in Adams heart, yet it is not therefore called the moral Law, becauſe it was written in his heart. Neither is it ſo proper to ſay it was written in our Nature, mans nature remained when Adam was deprived of Gods image. The image of God after which Adam was created was a Divine not a Humane Nature.
If the term Moral extend not to the Latitude of the Law in all conſiderations, the Law is not therefore contracted unto the term; neither in it ſelf nor in the intention of the Authours thereof, who have many more names to expreſſe the Law by.
Dialogu. But the truth is, they are greatly deceived, for the ten Commandments do require faith in Chriſt as well as morall duties: but faith in Christ was not engraven in Adams nature in the time of his innocency, he knew nothing concerning faith in Chriſt, till after his fall; therefore the ten Commandments in the full latitude of them were not given to Adam in his innocency: they were not given till after Chriſt was publiſhed to be the ſeed of the woman, to break the devils head-plot, therefore the ten Commandments do require faith in Chriſt as well as morall duties.
Anſw. If the ten Commandments doe require faith in Chriſt as well as morall duties, then the ten Commandments require moral duties as well as faith in Chriſt; if ſo, then they may aptly in that reſpect be called the morall Law.
Morall duties ſo called from the Law, that univerſall and perpetual rule of manners teaching how man ſhould be ordered, diſpoſed, qualified, conformed, and (if we may ſo ſpeak) mannered towards God and man: are co-extended with the Law it ſelf; Law and Duty are Relates: as therefore faith in Chriſt becometh a part of mans duty and orderly or regular diſpoſition and conformity towards God; what hinders but in this larger acception thereof it may be ſaid to be a morall duty? though ſtrictly (and according to the ſenſe of that uſuall diſtinction of faith and manners) it is not ſo taken.
Adams knowing nothing concerning faith in Chriſt until after the fall, doth not diſprove a principle in him wherby he was able to beleeve in Chriſt. The Angels knew no more of Chriſts being propounded to them to be beleeved in as their head and confirmer, then Adam did of Chriſts being propounded to him to be beleeved in as his head and Redeemer: Yet the Angels in their Creation received a principle whereby they were able to beleeve in Chriſt as their head and confirmer (being commanded ſo to do) without the inſpiring of any new principle. Had Chriſt in like manner been propounded unto Adam, yet in his innocency to have been beleeved in as his Head and Confirmer, which was no more repugnant to that eſtate then to the ſtate of the Angels, he had been alſo (through proportionable concourſe of the firſt cauſe) able to have yeelded like obedience thereunto; the concreated image of God in Adam and in the Angels being the ſame in kinde. Why then was not that principle in Adam able to have carried him out to have beleeved in Chriſt as a Head and Redeemer? could that command have conſiſted with the ſtate of innocency?
The cauſe of Adams not beleeving in Chriſt in the ſtate of innocency, was not through the defect of a principle enabling him thereunto: But by reaſon, Firſt, of the inconſiſtency of juſtifying faith with that eſtate. Secondly, By reaſon of the not revealing of the object of faith.
Adam in innocency had a principle enabling him to parental duties, yet never was he called thereunto, as alſo to duties of mercy and charity, which yet were inconſiſtent with that eſtate: the Saints in glory have a principle whereby they are able to perform the duties of repentance, patience, mortification; the like may be ſaid of Chriſt, though neither Chriſt nor the Saints are called thereunto; thoſe ſervices inconſiſting with their eſtate. More might be added to evince this truth if that were the Queſtion, but it may ſuffice that by what is ſpoken your Argument taken from the engraving of faith in Adams heart, to prove that the term Morall is unfitly applied to the ten Commandments, is of no force. The Law of works was the ſame to Adam before and after the fall, becauſe the Covenant of works is allwaies the ſame; the Law being the ſame the obligation is the ſame. Such duties after the fall as are inconſiſting with the Covenant of works, are temporary; neither infer any alteration in the Law, nor do they exceed the compaſſe of its former obligation.
The Law of God (ſaith Zanchy) ſpeaking of the Law of Moſes, Zanch. de rel gione Chriſtiana ſidei. To. 8 cap. 10. aphor. 3.given in the interim, between the promiſe of Redemption, made firſt to Adam, afterwards to Abraham, and the fullfilling thereof; is nothing elſe but a true and lively expreſſed picture of the image of God, according to which man was created.
Here again the Reader is to keep in minde that the page missing Dialogue is all this while beſides the Queſtion, for our Quere is not, Whether the ten Commandments in the full latitude of them were given to Adam in innocency: but whether the obedience of Chriſt to the Law (that is, to the Law as given to Adam in innocency) were for our Juſtification? whoſe affirmative by the way appeareth thus.
That obedience unto the Law whereby Adam in caſe of his perſonall performance thereof had been juſtified legally, is that, by Chriſts performance whereof received by faith we are juſtified Evangelically; but the performance of obedience unto the Law, as given to Adam in innocency is that performance of obedience unto the Law, by which Adam in caſe of performance perſonally had been juſtified legally; therefore Chriſts performance of the Law that was given to Adam in innocency (whatſoever its extent be more or leſſe, as given to him after the fall) received by faith, is that whereby we are juſtified evangelically.
Dialogu If the whole Law and the Prophets do hang upon the ten Commandments as the generall heads of all that is contained within the Law and the Prophets, then the ten Commandments muſt needs contain in them rules of faith in Chriſt as well as morall duties.
Anſw. If you intend no more then what you ſaid before, namely, that the ten Commandments require faith in Chriſt Jeſus, we do not only acknowledge it, but alſo thence infer what you deny, namely, that Adam was obliged to beleeve in Chriſt, in caſe God ſhould call for it: becauſe the Law (now called the Decalogue) was given to Adam as a Rule of Univerſall, and abſolute obedience; he ſtood obliged thereby not only unto what God did at preſent, but unto whatſoever God ſhould afterwards require.
If you intend that whatſoever is contained in the Law and the Prophets, is reducible to ſome one or more of the ten Commandements, we alſo conſent.
But if you mean that the ten Commandments ſtrictly taken viz. for the Law of works as diſtinguiſhed from the Law of faith contain rules, that is, the doctrine of faith in Chriſt: then your inference is denied, for this is to confound Law and Goſpel.
Dialogu And this is further evident by the Preface of the ten Commandments, which runs thus, I am Jehovah thy God, which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt: Chriſt was that Jehovah which brought them out of the Land of Egypt: So it was Chriſt that gave the firſt Commandment, Thou ſhalt have no other Gods but me, that is to ſay, Thou ſhalt have no other Gods but the Trinity, and no other mediatour but me alone to be thy Redeemer and Saviour. In like ſort Chriſt in the ſecond Commandment doth require obedience to all his outward worſhip, and in speciall to all his Leviticall worſhip, and the obſervation of that worſhip is eſpecially called the Law of works, though the ten Commandments alſo muſt be included.
But the right application of the typicall ſignification of the Leviticall worſhip to the ſoul, is called the Law of faith; the third Commandment doth teach holy reverence to the perſon of the Mediator: Faith in Chriſt is alſo typically comprehended under the fourth Commandment.
Anſw. The Law given at Mount Sinai admits of a threefold conſideration, either as a Law of works obliging man unto a pure legall obedience, and accordingly to expect life or death: or as a rule of univerſal and abſolute obedience, obliging man not only to what was commanded at preſent, but alſo unto whatſoever ſhould afterwards be required.
Or as the Covenant of grace it ſelf, though diſpenſed after a Legall manner, comprehending the Law as a perpetual rule of righteouſneſſe, freed from its pure legal nature of coaction, malediction and juſtification by works.
Now that by the Law as given at Mount Sinai we are not to underſtand the Law of works only, but alſo the Covenant of grace diſpenſed after a Legal manner, appeareth thus.Vide Will. in Exo. 19. queſt. 20. & 21. item c. 20. qu. 7. Becauſe it is called a Covenant, Exod. 24.6, 8. the ſpeaker whereof was Jeſus Chriſt God-man, Ast. 7.38. for he was the ſpeaker that brought them out of the Land of Egypt, Exod. 20.2. but Jeſus Chriſt brought them out of the Land of Egypt, which act was a type of their redemption; the delivery of it written in Tables of Stone by Moſes, (therein a typicall Mediatour) figuring Chriſt the Antitype, Gal. 3.29.
It was confirmed by the bloud of beaſts, a type alſo of the bloud of Chriſt, Exod. 24.5, 8. compared with Heb. 9.19. Paul calleth it a Teſtament, a phraſe proper to the Covenant of Grace, preſuppoſing the death of the Teſtator, and never attributed to the Covenant of works, See Heb. 9.18, 19, 20. though the Covenant of which Exo. 24.6, 8. be called the firſt Covenant (implying, that the Covenant as diſpenſed under the Goſpel is a ſecond) we are not to underſtand by the firſt and ſecond, two diſtinct Covenants: but two diſtinct diſpenſations of one and the ſame Covenant.
By the Law in the firſt conſideration faith is not required, in the ſecond Man ſtands obliged to faith in Chriſt conditionally, viz. when God ſhall call for it: in the third Faith is not only required but is a part of our obedience. Unto whom alſo as to God the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, our obedience is due not only according to the four firſt Commandments, as the Dialogue ſpeaks, but alſo according to all the ten Commandments, fullfill the Law of Chriſt, Gal. 6.2. ye ſerve the Lord Chriſt, Col. 3.23, 24, The old Teſtament or Covenant (ſaith Paraeus) in its firſt and proper ſignification was the doctrine of ſpiritual grace,Palam quidem ſub conditione perfectae obedientiae rectè verò ſub conditione paenitentiae & fide. Par. in Heb. 8. queſt. 1. promiſing eternal Salvation to the Fathers, and dull people of the Jews; openly indeed under the condition of perfect obedience unto the moral Law; and threatning of eternall malediction, except they fullfill it: together with the unſupportable burthen of rites and yoke of the moſt ſtrict Moſaical polity, but ſecretly under the condition of faith in the Meſſiah to come, prefigured with the ſhadows, and the types of the Ceremonies, that by this manner of doctrine-worſhip and polity, a people of a ſtiffer neck might partly be tamed, and be led by the hand, as it were, by a kinde of paedagogy unto Chriſt lying hid in thoſe ſhadows: thus Paraeus.
As the Goſpel is called the Law of faith becauſe it giveth ſalvation by faith without perſonall works, ſo the firſt Covenant is called the Law of works, becauſe it requires works, i. e. perſonall keeping of the Law unto ſalvation.
The obſervation of the Leviticall worſhip cannot be eſpecially called the Law of works, becauſe it is a part of the Ceremoniall Law, long before which was the Law of works, beſides its ceremonial leading us unto Chriſt takes us off from the Law of works, and carieth us to the Law of faith.