The Sufferings of Christ, Part 2 · Section 2 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Of the Dialogues Arguments againſt the Imputation of Chriſts Obedience.
Dialogu. I Cannot ſee how the common doctrine of Imputation can ſtand with Gods justice; God cannot in juſtice impute our Saviours Legall obedience to us for our juſt righteouſneſſe or justification, becauſe it is point blank againſt the condition of the Legall Covenant ſo to do: for the Legall promiſe of eternall life is not made over to us upon condition of Chriſts perſonal performance, but upon condition of our perſonal performance.
Anſw. Mans deſert by ſin is ſuch, whence that God in juſtice cannot juſtifie him by the Law, but mans deſert is not ſuch, whence God in iuſtice cannot juſtifie him in another way. Nothing is due to man according to juſtice, but what God hath appointed, the Law is not againſt the promiſes, Gal. 3.21. God is juſt, and the juſtifier of him that beleeveth.
Such was the demerit of ſin,Longè itaque iſta differunt, &c. Rhetorf. de oration. exer. 2. c. 3. why man according to juſtice could not be juſtified legally: but not ſuch, why it ſhould be unjuſt for God to juſtifie him Evangelically, according to Gods righteous conſtitution. Such was mans deſert why he ſhould not be juſtified by his own righteouſneſſe, yet mans demerit not being abſolute, but having dependance upon Gods free conſtitution; he could not deſerve why God might not juſtifie him by the righteouſneſſe of another if he pleaſed.
If it were unjuſt for God to juſtifie otherwiſe then legally, then it were unjuſt for God to juſtifie in the way of the Dialogue, viz. by atonement or acceptilation without all legall obedience, it is more againſt legall juſtification to juſtifie without legall obedience, perſonal, or otherwiſe; then to juſtifie by the legall obedience of another:Sophiſma à limitato ad non limitatum. the Dialogue by this reaſon fights as much or rather more againſt it ſelf then againſt us; the fallacy lieth in aſſerting that in an unlimited ſenſe which holds only in a limited ſenſe: God cannot juſtifie man fallen legally, ergò he cannot juſtifie man fallen Evangelically, by the righteouſneſſe of another; is not only a meer non-conſequence in reaſon, but alſo a Peſtilence in religion.
Dialogu. It's evident that God never propounded the Law of works to the fallen ſons of Adam, with any intent at all that ever any of the fallen ſons of Adam ſhould ſeek for juſtification and atonement in Gods ſight by Legall obedience, but his intent was directly contrary, for when he propounded the Legal promiſe of life eternal to the fallen ſons of Adam, he did propound it upon condition of their own perſonal obedience, to allure them thereby to ſearch into their own natural unrighteouſneſſe, by this perfect rule of Legal righteouſneſſe, ſo by this Law of life God intended chiefly to make the ſoul of the fallen ſons of Adam to be ſenſible of their own spiritual death in corruption and ſin, thereby to provoke our ſouls to ſeek for life ſome other way, viz. by the mediation of the Mediator promiſed; So it follows by good conſequence that God did never intend to iuſtifie any corrupt ſon of Adam by Legal obedience done by his own perſon, nor yet by our Saviours obedience imputed as the formall cauſe of a ſinners iuſtification or righteouſneſſe.
Anſw. God propounded the Law of works to man before the fall, with the promiſe of juſtification and life, in caſe of Legal obedience. Though Gods intent in propounding the Law of works to man fallen were, that man ſhould ſeek that juſtification which was directly contrary unto Legal righteouſneſſe, that nothing oppoſeth, but rather maketh for juſtification by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt; for juſtification by our own righteouſneſſe, and juſtification by the righteouſneſſe of another, are directly contrary in regard of the manner of juſtification; the matter o… …ſtification is the ſame in both Covenants, viz. Legal obedience; but the way of attaining it is contrary: that by perſonal righteouſneſſe, this by the righteouſneſſe of another.
The principal uſe of the Law by accident is, that ſeeing our ſelves uncapable of righteouſneſſe thereby; to provoke the ſoul to ſeek for life ſome other way, viz. by the mediation of the Mediatour promiſed; ſo ſaith the Dialogue, to be our Schoolmaſter to bring us unto Chriſt, that we might be juſtified by faith, Gal. 3.24. that is, that we might be partakers of the righteouſneſſe of another; ſo ſaith Paul.
Though the Ceremonial and Judicial Law with their diſcipline are ceaſed, yet the Moral Law ſtill continueth as a perpetual rule of obedience, whereunto beleevers are bound not in order to juſtification, but in way of thankſ-giving. As a School-maſter, until Chriſt, ſo long as there remains any of the Elect to be converted, according to the ordinary way of Gods diſpenſation. Paul ſpeaks frequently of this accidental uſe of the Law in order to converſion after the ceſſation of the judicial and ceremonial Law, Chriſt not only being come in the fleſh, but alſo dead, buried, and aſcended, Rom. 3.20. & 4.15. & 7.8, 9, 10, 11, 13. into heaven.
The whole Law of Moſes was a ſchool-maſter to leade us unto Chriſt, the moral Law leades us unto Chriſt by an accidentall direction of it ſelf, it ſhuts ſouls up into the priſon of ſin, that it may condemn; it is by accident that being ſhut up, we ſeek after righteouſneſſe and life by faith in Jeſus Chriſt: the ceremonial Law led unto Chriſt by direct ſignification, and its period of duration, the judicial Law led unto Chriſt by his diſtinction of the Jews from all other people, and by the the period of its duration.
It follows by good conſequence from this School-maſterly diſcipline of the Law, that God did never intend to juſtifie any corrupt ſon of Adam by Legal obedience done by his own perſon; but that God did not intend to juſtifie his Elect by our Saviours Legal obedience, followeth not at all from hence, except in the miſtake of the Authour of the Dialogue. Paul evidently enough concludes the direct contrary conſequence,Par. in loc. Gal. 3.24. thoſe words the Law was added for tranſgreſſors till the ſeed ſhould come, Gal. 3.19. are to be interpreted according hereunto in a limited not in an abſolute ſenſe.
Dialogu God cannot in iuſtice iuſtifie ſinners by our Saviours Legal obedience imputed: becauſe Legal obedience is altogether inſufficient to iustifie a corrupt ſon of Adam from his original ſin; for our corrupt and ſinful nature did not fall upon us for the breach of any of Moſes his Laws, but for the breach of another Law of works, which God gave to Adam in his innocency by way of prohibition, In the day thou eateſt thereof thou ſhalt die the death; ſo God cannot in iuſtice impute our Saviours Legal obedience to any corrupt ſon of Adam for his full and perfect righteouſneſſe, becauſe it is altogether inſufficient to make a ſinner righteous from his original ſin.
Anſw. We are to diſtinguiſh of the Law, it's taken ſometimes more largely either for all the Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament, Luk. 16.17. Joh. 15.25. or for all the Books of Moſes, Matt. 7.12. ſometimes more ſtrictly for the Moral Law, Rom. 7.7. So Paul oppoſeth the Law of works to the Law of faith; and Luke the Law of Moſes unto Chriſt, Act. 13.39. becauſe by him all that beleeve are juſtified from all things from which they could not be juſtified by the Law of Moſes.
The Law of Moſes taken ſtrictly, and the Law of works (uſually known by the name of the Decalogue or ten Commandments) are the ſame and differ no otherwiſe, then as two Editions of the ſame Book; the Law of Moſes being nothing elſe but an external pattern of the internal Law of nature, printed in the hearts of our firſt Parents by their creation after the Image of God, conſiſting in holineſs and righteouſnes, Eph. 4.24. the ſum of the two Tables, it is called the Law of works, Rom. 3.27. becauſe it required perſonal obedience unto life, Lev. 18.5. the Law of Moſes, Act. 13.39. becauſe it was given to the people of Iſrael by the Miniſtry of Moſes, Joh. 1.17. In the Law ſtrictly taken (which alſo holds concerning the Law taken largely) we muſt diſtinguiſh between that part of it which is moral poſitive.Vide Wille. Exod. 21. qu. 1. Jus morale poſitivum, jus divinum poſitivum: Weems exerc. 37. in precep. 8. (The habitual writing whereof in our hearts by nature together with its obligation, were both from the firſt inſtant of Creation; this bindes perpetually, and is immutable: ſo eſſential is the nulling and obliging nature of the Law, as that though life be not attained by obedience thereunto, as it was in the Covenant of works, yet is obedience thereunto unſeparable from life in the Covenant of grace) and that part which is divine poſitive, which though it be habitually written in our hearts by nature, yet it bindes not without a ſuperadded command; theſe are acceſſory Commandments added to the Law written; and binde not by force of creation or light of nature, but by force of inſtitution: both moral poſitive, and divine poſitive Law are the Law of nature, only that's the primary this is the ſecondary Law of nature. As God at Mount Sinai after the Decalogue, gave the judiciall and ceremonial Laws, which were acceſſory commands, part of, and reducible thereunto, as concluſions to their principles, ſo God at the creation having given the Law unto Adam by writing it in his heart, Gen. 1.27. after that gave him this acceſſory command concerning the Tree of the knowlege of good and evil, Gen. 2.17. part of and reducible thereunto, and as a Concluſion of its principle.
The tranſgreſſion then of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit, was a breach of the ſame Law of works, which was given to Adam, and afterwards given by Moſes: and ſo the puniſhment of original ſin inflicted upon man therefore, did fall upon us for the breach of Moſes Law; which was firſt given to Adam and afterwards given by Moſes: that the imputation of the Legal obedience of Chriſt (God ſo being pleaſed to accept thereof) is ſufficient to make ſinners righteous from all ſinnes, is manifeſt, becauſe Chriſt performed perfect obedience for us unto the Law of works given to Adam, which had Adam himſelf perſonally performed, he had been juſt.
The Law that was given by Moſes convinceth us effectually and fully of Adams ſin, Rom. 5.20. moreover the Law entred, that ſin i. e. Adams ſin (for of that he ſpeaks) might abound; therefore Adams ſin was committed againſt the Law of Moſes; to this purpoſe ſerveth the labour of Divines, ſhewing how Adams ſin was a violation of the moſt, yea, of all the Commandments: if ſo, then it was a breach of Moſes Law.
Dialogu If Christs Legal obedience imputed were ſufficient to iustifie a ſinner from all kinde of ſinne both originall and actuall, then Chriſt made his oblation in vain, for it had been altogether needleſſe for him to give his ſoul as a Mediatorial ſacrifice of atenement for the procuring of our iuſtice in Gods ſight, if his Legal righteouſneſſe performed by his life had been ſufficient to iuſtifie us from all ſin in Gods ſight; for if righteouſneſſe could have come to ſinners by the Law, then Chriſt died in vain, Gal. 2.21.
Anſw. Chriſts inherent righteouſneſſe and active obedience is an eſſentiall part of our juſtification, but not all our juſtification; Chriſts active and paſſive obedience make up our righteouſneſſe; Original juſtice and active obedience was ſufficient to juſtifie man innocent, but not to juſtifie man fallen. The law in caſe of innocency required only doing, Lev. 18.5. but in caſe of ſin it cannot be ſatisfied without ſuffering, Gen. 2.17. and doing Gal. 3.10. that is, without both paſſive and actual obedience; the particle [by] Gal. 2.21. notes the manner, not the matter; obedience unto the Law neither ceaſeth nor can ceaſe to be the matter of juſtification, only it is the obedience performed thereunto by Chriſt, not by us, that is, not our own, but the obedience of another imputed to us by grace, and received by faith the effect of grace. We have the righteouſneſſe of the Law, but we have it not by the Law.
The argumentation of the Apoſtle proceeds thus, if we be juſtified by works Chriſt died in vain; but Chriſt is not dead in vain, therefore we are not juſtified by works: hereby expreſly concluding againſt juſtification by our own obedience, and implicitly for juſtification by Chriſts obedience to the Law.
Dialogu Chriſts Legal obedience was but the work of his fleſh or of his humane nature; therefore it could not be the procuring cauſe of Gods atonement for iuſtification; for no obedience is meritorious but that obedience which is mediatorial. I never heard that the Father required the Mediator to perform Legal obedience at a proper condition of his Mediators office, nay, our Saviour himſelf doth testifie, that his fleſh (alone conſidered) doth not profit us to life and ſalvation, Joh. 6.63. therefore not his Legal obedience: for that was but the work of his fleſh or humane nature.
Anſw. To ſay Chriſts Legal obedience was the work of his humane nature only, beſides the abſonouſneſſe of it in Divinity, will hardly eſcape an implicat, I mean a contradiction in reaſon; as the humane nature of Chriſt did not ſubſiſt alone, ſo neither doth it perform any humane operations alone; dependance in reſpect of ſubſiſtance, inferreth a dependance in reſpect of operations: action includes being, as eſſential to it: we may as well affirm nothing to be ſomething, as to affirm that to act of it ſelf, that doth not ſubſiſt of it ſelf: From the perſonall union it comes to paſſe (ſaith Ames) that all the actions and paſſions of Chriſt are referred partly unto his perſon as unto the proper term of them,Med. lib. 1. cap. 18. although ſome of them are to be referred to one nature, and ſome unto another, as unto the next principles.
To be incarnate was an act of Legal obedience, God ſent forth his ſon made of a woman made under the Law, Gal. 4.4. a body haſt thou prepared me, In the Volume of thy Book it is written of me, that I ſhould do thy will, and then ſaid I, Lo I come, Heb. 10.5 But the Father required of the Mediatour to be incarnate, as a proper condition of his Mediatorly office, Gal. 4.5. to redeem ſuch as be under the Law; to fullfill the Law is Legal obedience, but the Father required of the Mediatour to fulfil the Law, Mat. 5.17. I came to fulfil it, and that as a proper condition of his Mediators office; as he came ſo he was ſent, but he was ſent as Mediator: for the Mediator to ſuffer death as our ſurety in a way of juſtice, is an act of Legal obedience; but the Father required of the Mediator as a proper condition of the Mediators office to ſuffer death for us in a way of juſtice, if his ſoul ſhall ſet it ſelf a ſacrifice for ſin, he ſhall ſee his ſeed, &c. Iſa. 53. therefore the Father required of the Mediatour Legal obedience as a condition of his Mediators office, to ſuffer death for us in a way of juſtice.
Dialogu There is great iarring among Divines about the right ſtating of the doctrine of imputation.
1. Some affirm, that God the Father doth impute Chriſts Legal obedience to ſinners as their obedience for their full and perfect iuſtification.
2. Others do affirm that Chriſts Legal obedience imputed is not ſufficient to make ſinners righteous, and ſo they do affirm that God doth impute another kinde of Chriſts righteouſneſſe to ſinners for their full iuſtification, viz. the purity of his nature to iustifie us from original ſin.
3. Others go further in the point of imputation, for they affirm that God imputes another kinde of righteouſneſſe to ſinners for their full juſtification, viz. the paſſive obedience: and ſo by neceſſary conſequence they do make ſinners to be their own Mediators, becauſe they do make Chriſts Mediatorial obedience to be a ſinners obedience by Gods imputation.
Anſw. The whole courſe of the active and paſſive obedience of Chriſt, together with his habitual conformity to the Law, is the matter of our juſtification, the purity of Chriſts nature, and his active and paſſive righteouſneſſe, are not two, but one and the ſame kinde of Legal obedience expreſſed by both its parts, viz. habitual and actual. The aſſerters of the laſt expreſly are to be underſtood, as aſſerting the former implicitly: the act preſuppoſing the habit then ſpake not heretofore excluſively; the reaſon why later Writers ſpeak more expreſly is, becauſe oppoſers have acted more ſubtilly.
The inference of ſinners being their own Mediators from the imputation of paſſive obedience, ariſeth from your miſunderſtanding our doctrine, which imputeth the obedience of Chriſt in reſpect of its efficacy, not in reſpect of its formality. M. Forbes acknowledgeth no ſuch great jarring with our imputation, which he teſtifieth to be without impiety, and any matter of ſtrife in it ſelf, were this jarring not only great, but greater then it is: the Goſpel remains the Goſpel, notwithſtanding through mans corruption it becometh an occaſion of contention.
Dialogu The actions of Chriſts obedience neither active nor paſſive can be made ours by Gods imputation, no more then our ſinful actions can be made his by Gods imputation; but our ſinful actions cannot be made his by Gods imputation; as I have at large expreſſed in the opening Gen. 2.17.
Anſw. Your ſuppoſed large proof is ſufficiently diſproved (as I hope) in the place, and the contrary proved both there and in the vindication of 1 Cor. 5.21.
Dialogu. If God do make ſinners righteous by the active obedience of Chriſt imputed, then Chriſt muſt perform all manner of obedience for us that God doth require of us, or elſe God cannot in iuſtice make us perfectly righteous by the active obedience of Chriſt imputed; but Chriſt did not perform all manner of acts of obedience for us that God requireth of us, becauſe he was never married, &c. and yet we have as much need to be made righteous in ſuch like actions as in any, therefore God cannot in iuſtice make us perfectly righteous by the actions of Chriſts active obedience imputed.
Anſw. The matter of our juſtification is not an actual and formal performance of all duties commanded in the Decalogue, but an obedience to that which is commanded, as it is commanded, viz. actually, unto ſuch duties as it calleth to the exerciſe of, and habitually unto the reſt; otherwiſe it was impoſſible for man to be juſtified by the Law: neither Adam himſelf, nor any man, ſuſtaining all relations. Chriſt being an infinite perſon, and our ſurety, in performing all that was required of him: he performed more then not only Adam, but then all men had they ſtood in their innocency had performed. If he performed more then was required of us, then he performed as much. Chriſt performed actually what was ſo required, and habitually or rather eminently, whatſoever could be required: if man had ſtood in his innocency, he had had but as much grace as there was duty in the command, his grace had been in meaſure becauſe but a creature: but Chriſt had more grace in him as man then there was duty in the command; Grace was in him out of meaſure, by vertue of the perſonall union.