The Sufferings of Christ, Part 2 · Section 2 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. Of the Dialogues further Reaſoning againſt the influence of Chriſts obedience unto Juſtification by way of Imputation.
Dialogu THe Apostle in that Text Rom. 8.4. that the righteouſneſſe of the Law might be fulfilled in us, doth not ſpeak of that part ef Legal obedience which God requires of every man that looks to be ſaved thereby: but in this place he ſpeaks only of that part of righteouſneſſe which the Goſpel-part of the Law taught and typified by their ſacrifices of Atonement, which ſacrifices are called ſacrifices of Righteouſneſſe, becauſe they taught ſinners how they might obatin the Fathers Atonement by the Mediators ſacrifice of Atonement for their full and perfect Righteouſneſſe.
Anſw. In plainer words the meaning of the Dialogue is: The Apoſtle here by the Law underſtandeth not the Law of works, the Righteouſneſſe whereof conſiſts in Legal and Perſonal obedience: But the Law of faith, namely, the Goſpel whoſe Righteouſneſſe conſiſts nor in Legal obedience, either perſonal or ſureties; but in the Fathers Atonement.
It is plain enough by the dependence of this upon the fore-going verſe, that the Law here ſpoken of is the ſame with the Law there ſpoken of, namely, the Law that was weak through the fleſh, that is, unable to juſtifie by reaſon of ſin, which all know to be the Law of works.
The way of fullfilling this Righteouſneſſe is by the Goſpel, which teacheth and giveth faith in Chriſt,Bucan. loc. 30. qu. 28. Vide Par. Rom. 10. dub. 5. col. 2. which conſiſts not in Atonement, as the Dialogue ſpeaks of, but in the Legal obedience of another made ours by faith, and therefore called the Righteouſneſs of faith; ſo that Righteouſneſſe or Legal obedience is the matter of our Juſtification, both according to Law and Goſpel; the difference lieth in the manner of Juſtification: The Law juſtifieth by our Perſonal obedience fullfilled thereunto, the Goſpel by our Sureties obedience thereunto received by faith.
Typical Sacrifices of Atonement are called Sacrifices of Righteouſneſſe, becauſe they taught and typified this truth.
The phraſe SACRIFICES of RIGHTEOƲSNESSE ſignifieth Righteous ſacrifices, that is, Sacrifices done in Righteouſneſſe: Sacrifices (ſaith M. Ainſworth) juſt and right, and in faith, contrary to thoſe which the Prophet reproveth, Mal. 1.14. Not Sacrifices cauſing Righteouſneſs (which if ſo it were) did but further confirm that Chriſt the Antitype of the Legal Sacrifices by his obedience unto the death, purchaſed Righteouſneſſe by faith. So that hence there is neither cauſe nor occaſion to confound Righteouſneſſe and Atonement. But let us proceed to your other Reaſons.
Dialogu Did Chriſt condemn ſinne in the fleſh by his Legall Obedience? no; but by his Mediatorial Obedience only, Rom. 8.3, 4.
Anſw. It hath been before ſufficiently ſhewn, that the Legal and Mediatorial obedience of Chriſt is one and the ſame, whereunto the Reader is referred as touching the confutation of this erroneous and miſleading diſtinction.
Dialogu. God ſent his Son for ſinne, when he ſent him to make his ſoul a ſacrifice of Atonement for ſin, as I have opened the phraſe at large in 2 Cor. 5.21.
Anſw. That the Dialogue hath not opened but miſinterpreted that phraſe, the Reader may pleaſe to ſee in the anſwer thereof.
Dialogu In brief the meaning of the Apoſtle lies thus, when God ſent his Son to die as a Malefactor in the ſimilitude of ſinful fleſh, Chriſt did at the ſame time condem… ſin, becauſe he did at the ſame time die as a Mediatour, and made his ſoul a Mediatorial ſacrifice of Atonement for ſin, and ſo he procured his Fathers Atonement to poor ſinners, and by this means he condemned ſinne in the fleſh, and made ſinners ſinleſſe, that is to ſay, Righteous.
But this diſtinction of the double death of Chriſt I have opened more at large in Gal. 3.13. and Luke 22.19. and in Pſa. 22.15.
The ſtrength then of this miſinterpretation being built upon your diſtinction of the double death of Chriſt, namely, his dying as a Mediator, Anſw. and as a Malefactor: that is to ſay a Malefactor in the Jews account, but not in Gods; The Reader again is deſired to accept of the anſwer given to your diſtinction in the places mentioned, where if the diſtinction fals, all which is built thereupon will periſh with it.
To be ſinleſſe is not enough to being Righteous: the unreaſonable creature is ſinleſſe but not Righteous.
The Dialogue having taken away from us the righteouſneſſe or Juſtification of the Legal obedience of Chriſt imputed, now telleth us what is our Righteouſneſſe, namely, Gods Atonement or the Fathers Atonement, and pag. 120. we have the Dialogues meaning concerning Atonement explained by the ſeveral terms thereof: in pardoning and forgiving ſin, blotting out and covering ſin, bearing and taking away ſinne, purging and cleanſing of ſinners, paſſing over, and not imputing of ſin; ſo that a ſinners righteouſneſſe, juſtice, or juſtification, according to the Authour, is nothing elſe but the Fathers Atonement, pardon, and forgiveneſſe, pag. 118.
The Hebrew tranſlated Atonement properly ſignifieth to cover ſomething,foreign yet not with a garment or the like, which may be taken off again, but with ſome cleaving and tenacious matter, as pitch, lime, mortar, &c, wherewith the thing covered is wholly hidden: hence referred unto wrath it ſignifieth to pacifie or appeaſe, and that either with a gift prepared, Gen. 32.20. or compenſation made for an injury done,Expiare eſt piaculum pro peccato praeſtare. 2 Sam. 21.3. referred to ſin, it ſignifieth to explate, whence the day of Atonement Lev. 16. is called a day of expiation. An expiation is a ſacrifice given for the purging and ſatisfaction of ſome great offence. To purge Pſal. 65.3. & Pſal. 79.9. To be propitious or mercifull, Deut. 21.8. And laſtly to pardon Pſa. 78.38. in which laſt ſenſe the Dialogue takes it for our righteouſneſſe and juſtification. This the Reader is deſired to take full notice of, it in the Dialogues corrupt ſenſe being that Helena, in defence whereof a good part of the enſuing diſcourſe ſpends it ſelf, and the juſt confutation whereof here given, and kept in minde, may ſerve as an anſwer to the after frequent repetitions of the ſame thing.
That Atonement or pardon of ſin only (eſpecially ſuch as denieth the Legal Obedience of Chriſt imputed) cannot be the righteouſneſſe of a ſinner, is proved thus.
The difference of the nature of juſtice and pardon of ſin, manifeſts that pardon of ſin only is not juſtice or righteouſneſſe.
Pardon and ſinleſſeneſſe take away deformity in reſpect of the Law, but righteouſneſſe conſiſts in a conformity unto the Law.
Pardon of ſin is an effect of that which is the ſinners righteouſneſſe: For the clearing whereof three diſtinct notions in the juſtification of a ſinner are to be attended to.
1. Righteouſneſſe it ſelf, i. e. the active and paſſive obedience of Chriſt imputed, called by ſome juſtification taken actively, or the application thereof on Gods part.
2. The receiving of this gift of righteouſneſſe by faith, Rom. 5.17. whereby we are juſt, called by ſome juſtification taken paſſively, or the application thereof on our part.
3.Vid. Buch. loc. 31 q. 6. Remiſſio peccatorum eſt pars noſtrae juſtificationis, ſed non eſt pars noſtrae juſtitiae. Polan. ſyntag. p. 1493. The judicial pronouncing of the beleever in the Court of conſcience hereupon to be juſt, by the vertue of the promiſe of the Goſpel, for the merit ſake of Chriſt, this Divines call our juſtification, becauſe we are now declared to be juſt, and are judicially juſt, that is, the Beleever now made righteous by faith, is judicially diſcharged, and declared to be diſcharged from the condemning guilt and puniſhment of ſin, and accepted as righteous unto eternall life. The firſt is our righteouſneſſe or juſtice it ſelf. The ſecond is our being juſtified. The third is the judiciall pronunciation that we are juſtified, ſo that pardon of ſin is not a part of righteouſneſſe it ſelf, but a part of the judiciall ſentence concerning one that is righteous, and becauſe he is righteous.
To ſay pardon of ſin is righteouſneſſe is ſelf, is to confound the effect with the cauſe.
Whence the reaſon is plain, why notwithſtanding both righteouſneſſe or juſtice, and the pardon of ſins be by Divines frequently made ingredients into the definition of juſtification, yet righteouſneſſe and pardon of ſins are not to be looked at as the ſame thing. Such definitions are not (nor is it by the Authour thereof ſo intended) perfect definitions adequate to thing defined, but they are deſcriptions or imperfect definitions, ſo expreſſed as beſt ſeems to communicate the truth unto the capacity of the reader. Again, Juſtification is an accident, now Logicians teach us ſuch definitions of accidents to be oftentimes helpful to the underſtanding that make uſe of other terms beſides thoſe which are eſſentiall. If pardon of ſin were a part of a ſinners righteouſneſſe, yet being but a part, it could not be the whole. Pardon of ſin cannot compleat righteouſneſſe, becauſe righteouſneſſe doth not only conſiſt in being ſinleſſe, but alſo in being juſt; the heavens are ſinleſſe, yet they are not juſt; the Law is not ſatisfied with negative obedience. Not only he that doth do what the Law forbiddeth ſhall die, Gen. 2.17. but he that continueth not in the things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3.10. Being ſinleſſe acquits from obnoxiouſneſſe unto hell, but being juſt giveth a right unto heaven. There is an obſervable difference between being unjuſt,Injuſtus, non-injuſtus, non-juſtus, juſtus. not-unjuſt, not-juſt, juſt. The ſinner yet not a beleever is unjuſt; the unreaſonable creature is not-unjuſt. Adam in innocency was more then not-unjuſt, yet was not juſt. The Beleever is juſt.
There is no ſuch pardon of ſin as the Dialogue affirms, namely, ſuch a pardon of ſin as doth not only diſown the Legal obedience of Chriſt imputed as its cauſe, but alſo diſclaims the very being of it. The being of the Dialogues pardon is the not being of Chriſts active and paſſive mediatorly obedience to the Law. It is ſuch a fiction as the Authour of it, and that at his concluſion undertaking to ſhew its being from the cauſes thereof, Dial. p. 133. telleth us the formal cauſe is the fathers atonement, pardon, and forgiveneſſe, but the ſubject matter is beleeving ſinners of all ſorts [the ſubject matter are the perſons receiving juſtification, which ſome Divines call the matter of juſtification taken paſſively, yet adding therewith the Legall obedience of Chriſt, which they call the matter of juſtification taken actively, namely, that which is the matter, whereby a perſon elect and called is juſtified] but if you enquire after the eſſential matter of juſtification amongſt the cauſes enumerated by the Authour, behold the Dialogue is ſpeechleſſe, and preſents you with a form without a matter, ſuch a being as is neither created nor increated.
If Chriſts Legal obedience was the expiation of ſin, that is, if Chriſt in way of obedient fulfilling the Law was a perſon accurſed, the ſacrificing of whom in way of ſatisfaction to divine juſtice was neceſſary to the taking away of ſin; Then there is no pardon of ſin without Chriſts Legal obedience ſo fulfilled and imputed.
But Chriſts Legal obedience was the expiation of ſin, which appeareth thus: The Legal offerings of atonement were typical expiations of ſin, Exod. 29.36. ch. 36. Lev. 16. therefore Chriſt was the reall expiation of ſin. He in way of obedient fulfilling of the Law, Heb. 10 9. Pſa. 40.8. Mat. 5.7. was a perſon accurſed, and that with a paenal and eternal curſe, Gal. 3.13. which is already proved in the fore-going vindication of the Text. The ſacrificing of whom in way of ſatisfaction to divine juſtice, was neceſſary to the taking away of ſin, Iſa. 53.10. Rom. 3.26. Heb. 9.22. where bloud is underſtood ſynechdochically, part of his ſuffering put for the whole, his bloud was ſhed together with the wrath of God, becauſe it was ſhed as the bloud of a perſon accurſed. And he went a little further, &c. fell on his face, &c. praied, ſaying, O my Father, if it be poſſible, Let this cup paſſe from me; to the ſame effect he praied the ſecond time, and the third time, Mat. 26.39, 42, 44. If it be poſſible, If it be poſſible, If it be poſſible, hereby [the definitive way of God being ſet concerning the ſalvation of the Elect] Chriſt abundantly ſheweth, there was no other poſſible way of redemption, but by his drinking up the cup of his Fathers wrath for us, whatſoever the Dialogue ſaith to the contrary.
God doubtleſſe will not own thoſe pardons for diſobedience unto his Law, which will not own Chriſts meritorious obedience to that Law, and that as the cauſe of pardon. If our very pardons miniſter matter of condemnation, how great is that condemnation? Who can lay any thing to the charge of them that God juſtifieth? but what ſhall it avail for the Dialogue to juſtifie any, whoſe very pardons God will condemn? The Popes pardons, and the Dialogues how differing ſoever in their nature, may go together in reſpect of their efficacy.
Dialogu. And in this very ſenſe all ſacrifices of Atonement are called ſacrifices of Righteouſneſſe, Deut. 33.19. Pſa. 4.5. Pſa. 51.19.
Anſw. This is the ſame with what was before, where the contrary is proved, and the interpretation of the phraſe is alſo given.
Dialogu. And in this ſenſe Christ is the end of the Law for Righteouſneſſe to every one that beleeveth, Rom. 10.4.
Anſw. Chriſt is the perfecting end of the Law by fulfilling the duties required in the moral, &c. the truth ſignified by the Ceremonial Law.
Dialogu. And thus I think I have explained the true nature of a ſinners righteouſneſſe, juſtice, or juſtification, which I have deſcribed to be nothing elſe, but the Fathers mercifull atonement, pardon, and forgiveneſſe, ſo that I may more fitly call a ſinners righteouſneſſe a mercifull juſtice put upon poor beleeving ſinners, by Gods fatherly pardon and forgiveneſſe, then a ſtrict Legall righteouſneſſe imputed to us from Chriſts obedience, as our actuall righteouſneſſe, as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach.
Anſw. Whether you have rightly explained a ſinners righteouſneſſe, it is with the Reader to judge.
To exclude juſtice from Juſtification, which is in effect to ſay God is not juſt, but only merciful in juſtifying a Beleever, what is it elſe but to contradict the Apoſtles ſaying, God is juſt, and the juſtifier of him that beleeveth?
Bucha. loc. 31. 4. 28. Paraeus Rom. 5. dub. 7. Willet med. l. 1. c. 20. Rhet. ex. 2. cap. 3. Twiſſ. de praed. l. 1. dig. 3. ſ. 4. cap. 5. DialoguThe received doctrine of Imputation holdeth not forth mercy only, but both juſtice and mercy tempered together in the juſtification of a ſinner, they receive abundance of grace, there is mercy &c. of the gift of righteouſneſſe; there is juſtice, Rom. 5.17. Juſtice in reſpect of Chriſt, mercy in reſpect of the Beleever: that Chriſt ſatisfied the Law is juſtice, that this ſatisfaction was for us, and is given to us, is mercy.
And indeed the righteouſneſſe which God the Father bestowed upon poor beleeving ſinners in making them ſinleſſe by this Atonement, is an example of the higheſt degree of mercy.
Anſw. True, yet not of mercy only, but of mercy tempered with juſtice, and in ſome ſenſe, with the higheſt degree of juſtice.
The Geneva note on Pſa. 130.3. is excellent, Dialogu,&c. ſpeaketh thus, he declareth that we cannot be juſt before God, but by forgiveneſſe of ſins, for Gods forgiveneſſe is a part of his merciful Atonement.
Anſw. Forgiveneſſe of ſin is inſeparable from our righteouſneſſe, being the immediate effect thereof. We ſaw before that Atonement is ſometimes taken for the forgiveneſſe of ſins ſtrictly, ſometimes it is taken for the expiation of ſin, comprehending both the forgiveneſſe and the meritorious cauſe thereof: The Atonement mentioned in the Geneva Bible is to be interpreted according to the doctrine of Geneva, which acknowledgeth and teacheth the meritorious ſatisfaction of Chriſt to divine juſtice, to be the cauſe of the pardon of ſinne, a truth which the Dialogue denieth.
Dialogu Hence it is evident that Gods Atonement, pardon, and forgiveneſſe communicated to poor beleeving ſinners muſt needs be the formal cauſe of a ſinners righteouſneſſe.
Anſw. That this is not evident, yea, that the contrary is evident, &c. ſhall God aſſiſting be made yet more evident, in its proper place, I doubt not.