The Sufferings of Christ, Part 2 · Section 2 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Whether the Iuſtice and Righteouſneſſe of a ſinner doth lie only in Gods merciful Atonement.
Dialogu THe juſtice and righteouſneſſe of a ſinner doth not lie in his own righteous nature, nor in his own iuſt actions, nor yet in the righteouſneſſe of Christ imputed, but it doth lie only in the Fathers righteous atonement, pardon and forgiveneſſe, procured by the meritorious Sacrifice of atonement, and conveyed by the Father through the Mediatour to every beleeving ſinner, as ſoon as they are in the Mediator by faith.
This doctrine of a ſinners righteouſneſſe hath ever been well known, and witneſſed among the godly in all ages from the beginning of the world.
1. It is witneſſed by the practices of all ſacrifices of Atonement before the Law.
2. It is witneſſed by the practices of all ſacrifices under the Law.
3. It is witneſſed by the doctrine of the Prophets.
4. It is witneſſed by the doctrine of the New Teſtament, and it was never ſo much obſcured, as it hath been of late daies by the doctrine of imputation.
Anſw. Becauſe in the enſuing proſecution of the heads of Arguments here propounded, the Dialogue makes frequent mention of Mediatorial ſacrifice and atonement, in the right underſtanding of which expreſſions according to the minde of the Scripture lieth the truth, and in the differing underſtanding thereof lieth the controverſie, both parties agreeing unto the being of Mediatorly ſacrifice and atonement; but diſagreeing concerning the nature of them. Let the Reader here once for all, being reminded keep in minde what the Orthodox, and what the Dialogue underſtands by Mediatorly obedience, and the fathers atonement, or that ſo often as the phraſes do occurre in the next following pages, he may neither be at a loſſe, nor deceived by theſe dark and equivocal terms of the Dialogue, but being informed beforehand of both our meanings thereby, paſſe on with more eaſe, and judge accordingly.
Mediatorial obedience according to the Dialogue are certain actions performed by Chriſt not in way of obedience unto the Moral Law, but by him as God-man, and eſpecially after thirty years of age, the maſter-piece whereof was his yeelding himſelf to ſuffer a bodily death.
Atonement or pardon of ſin (according to the ſenſe of the Dialogue) is ſuch as not only denieth it ſelf to be the effect of,Supra pag. 105. but alſo denieth the very being of the ſatisfactory and meritorious obedience of Chriſt unto the moral Law. Mediatorly obedience according to the Orthodox, what? ſee. Atonement or pardon of ſin according to the ſenſe of the Orthodox, both acknowledgeth the being of, and it ſelf to be the effect of the ſatisfactory and meritorious obedience of Chriſt both active and paſſive unto the moral Law.
We have ſeen before,
1. That Atonement or pardon of ſin and righteouſneſſe differ in their natures, to take away unrighteouſneſſe from a ſinner, is not to give righteouſneſſe to a ſinner, 'tis an impoſſibility for that which is not juſtice to be juſtice.
2. That the righteouſneſſe of the Dialogue is ſuch a thing as conſiſts of a form without any eſſentiall matter, and is indeed a Non-ens, ſuch a thing as is a nothing.
3. That 'tis ſuch an Atonement as denieth it ſelf both to be from, and alſo denieth any being of the Legall meritorious Obedience of Chriſt. Behold then the preſumption of the Dialogue, that forgetting juſt conſcience unto God, the reverence of the truth, dread of ſo peſtilent an untruth, to the perill of the Reader, that diſtinguiſheth not between oſtentation and reaſon, and to the vexing and juſt indignation of him that doth; engageth the godly in all ages from the beginning of the world, the practice of all ſacrifices before the Law, and under the Law, the doctrine of the Prophets, and of the New Teſtament, to witneſſe that fiction of the Authour to be a truth, which includes an impoſſibility in nature, a contradiction in reaſon, and an abomination in Divinity.
Dialogu. It is evident that our firſt Parents were well acquainted with the doctrine of a ſinners iuſtification by Gods Atonement: for as ſoon as ever God had told them, that the ſeed of the woman ſhould break the devils headplot, he explained unto them the manner how the ſeed of the woman ſhould do it, namely, by his Mediatoriall ſacrifice of Atonement.
Anſw. It is out of doubt with us, that our firſt Parents were acquainted with the doctrine of juſtification, and that it was taught unto them by that firſt and famous publication of the doctrine of the Goſpel, Gen. 3.15. wherein the perſon, office, and victorious efficacy of Chriſt, together with the victory of all Beleevers in him, over Satan, and all other both his and their enemies, was fully held forth; but we deny the doctrine of the Dialogue to be the doctrine of juſtification made known to Adam, which was here undertaken to be proved, but is onelyonly ſaid, and not proved.
Dialogu After the floud when Noah offered a ſacrifice of Atonement, Jehovah ſmelled a ſmell of Reſt, Gen. 8.21. and to that reſting of God in the promiſe, the ſweet ſmell of reſt, which God ſmelt in Noahs ſacrifice did look. The word Reſt implieth that now Gods Spirit was quieted, and that he did rest ſatisfied and well pleaſed in the ſacrifice of Chriſt, which was thereby typified: confer to this Eph. 5. the fathers by faith ſaw Chriſts ſacrifice.
Anſw. It is alſo out of doubt with us, that Noahs ſacrifice typified the ſacrifice of Chriſt, and that God did and doth reſt ſatisfied and well pleaſed in the Antitype. Your task undertaken is to prove that Noahs ſacrifice witneſſed Chriſt to be a ſacrifice in the ſenſe of the Dialogue, and that Noah ſo underſtood it.
Dialogu By this means Noah knew and beleeved that he was made righteous or ſinleſſe by Gods mercifull Atonement procured by Chriſts Mediatorial ſacrifice of Atonement.
Anſw. Here indeed you implicitly ſay again, that Atonement is our righteouſneſſe, and confound being righteous, and ſinleſſe; but you do but ſay the one, or the other, yet you begge, but prove not the Queſtion.
Dialogu For the God of glory Ieſus Chriſt appeared to him (that is, to Abraham) whilest he dwelt at Ur of the Caldees, Act. 7.2. no doubt but Ieſus Chriſt did then tell him in what a miſerable loſt condition he was, and how he ſhould be that ſeed of the woman that ſhould break tht devils head-plot by his ſacrifice of Atonement, and how he ſhould thereby procure his Fathers Atonement to all poor broken-hearted ſinners. All which Abraham beleeved, and ſo his ſinnes were done away by Gods Atonement, which he received by his faith, and ſo he was made perfectly iuſt and righteous in Gods ſight.
Anſw. Your often repeating the ſame thing forceth us to tell you again, that your Atonement is but a fiction, 2. That Scripture Atonement is an effect of our righteouſneſſe, not a part, much leſſe the whole thereof. That which Abraham was made perfectly juſt and righteous by, was that which was accounted unto him for righteouſneſſe. That which was accounted unto him for righteouſneſſe, was that which he beleeved, namely, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt his head. The reſt that is here ſaid, if rightly underſtood, is true, if in the ſenſe of the Dialogue, 'tis falſe. But whether true or falſe, hitherto all is but ſaid, nothing is proved, as concerning the doctrine of ſinners righteouſneſſe in the ſenſe of the Dialogue.
Dialogu. The doctrine of a ſinners iustification or righteouſneſſe was abundantly taught under the Law by their ſacrifices of atonement, namely, by their burnt-offerings, ſin-offerings, and treſpaſſe-offerings, in Lev. 1. Lev. 4. Lev. 5. &c. as I have explained their uſe above.
Anſw. No doubt it was. But whether as you have explained, is the Queſtion; nor may we yet take your word for a reaſon, they were called ſacrifices of Atonement, or ſin offerings to make atonement, becauſe they typically did expiate ſinne, pacific wrath, and procure reconciliation to the ſinner, which was really done by the bloud of Chriſt, Heb. 2.17. in ſuch manner as hath been formerly both ſaid and proved.
Dialogu. The doctrine of a ſinners justification or righteouſneſſe by the Fathers Atonement was taught, and explained by the Prophets. The Prophet David ſaith in the Perſon of Chriſt, I have preached thy Righteouſneſſe to the great Congregation, Pſ. 40.9. what righteouſneſſe was it that he by himſelf and by his Officers preached to the Church of the firſt born? Was it his Legal Righteouſneſſe made theirs by his Fathers Imputation? no, the Text denieth that, and ſaith, that it was ſuch a righteouſneſſe, as he obtaineth by his ſacrifice of Atonement, ſaying, Sacrifice and offering thou didſt not deſire, and then ſaid I, Lo I come, I delight to do thy will, O my God, Pſ. 40.8. By the doing of which will, ſaith Paul, we are ſanctified from ſin, or made perfectly righteous.
Anſw. If Righteouſneſſe be obtained by his Sacrifice of Atonement, then Atonement is not Righteouſneſſe. Righteouſneſſe as formally performed is an ingredient into the meritorious cauſe of juſtification. Righteouſneſſe as it is imputed (not formally as it is an ingredient in the meritorius cauſe, but virtually in reſpect of its efficacy) is the matter of the juſtification of a ſinner. It were better ſaid Atonement is obtained by the ſacrifice of Righteouſneſſe, then that Righteouſneſſe is obtained by the ſacrifice of Atonement. The obedience of Chriſt both active and paſſive is the cauſe, and ſacrifice of atonement: atonement or pardon of ſin is an effect thereof.
Thoſe words [by which will] Heb. 10.10. ſignifie the will of the Father who appointed his ſon to take our nature upon him, to make ſatisfaction for our ſins: or we are to underſtand will with its correlate, viz. the fullfilling thereof by the obedience of his Son [we are ſanctified] that is, we are made perfect. Sanctification here is taken largely for all the benefits of Chriſt.
Dialogu. Or thus, Chriſt purchaſed or procured ſuch a righteouſneſſe of his Father for ſinners, as ſhall laſt to all Eternity by the ſame way and means by which he purchaſed their eternal redemption, but he did not purchaſe their redemption and freedom from ſin by his active Legall Obedience, but by his active Meditoriall Obedience, when he made his ſoul a Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement for poor ſinners. Compare Heb. 9.12.14. with Dan. 9.24. therefore Chriſt purchaſed and procured ſuch a righteouſneſſe for ſinners as ſhall last to all Eternity by no other way or means, but by his Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement, therefore his Fathers Atonement is a ſinners Righteouſneſſe.
Anſw. Chriſt by his Legal Obedience, that is, his obedience active and paſſive unto the Law, purchaſed our Redemption, by his paſſive obedience he purchaſed our freedome from ſin, by his active our right unto eternal life, no part of Chriſts Obedience was ſo active, wherein he was not alſo paſſive, nor any ſo paſſive, wherein he was not alſo active. To ſpeak plainly and properly, atonement is the effect, and the legal obedience or righteouſneſſe of Chriſt the Mediatorly ſacrifice and cauſe of this effect, therefore Atonement is not righteouſneſſe. But to ſpeak after the ſtile of the Dialogue, If Righteouſneſſe for ſinners be purchaſed and procured by the ſacrifice of Atonement, neither then can atonement be a ſinners Righteouſneſſe. That which procures or purchaſeth is the cauſe, that which is procured is the effect, the cauſe cannot be the effect.
Dialogu. The New Teſtament doth alſo bear witneſſe to this doctrine. S. Paul the Apoſtle doth tell us Rom. 8.4. that the Righteouſneſſe of the Law (namely, the righteouſneſſe which was taught and typified by the ſacrifices of the Law) might be fullfilled in us, that walk not after the fleſh but after the Spirit; as I have explained this Text a little before.
Anſw. The fulfilling of the Righteouſneſſe of the morall Law (which the Dialogue thinks to evade, by ſaying, Chriſt fulfilled the righteouſneſſe typified by the Sacrifices of the Law) is hereby proved: becauſe the fulfilling of the Righteouſneſſe of the moral Law by Chriſt, was that which the Sacrifices of the Ceremonial Law typified, ſo unhappy is the Authour in his arguing. Chriſt fulfilled both the Righteouſneſſe required in the moral, and ſignified in the Ceremoniall Law. Atonement acquits from unrighteouſneſs, but doth not formally fulfill any righteouſneſſe. Your explaining a little before is there diſallowed and diſproved, we cannot look at your reference thereunto as a reaſon.
Dialogu. Secondly, The Apoſtle Paul doth in another place confirm this doctrine, ſaying, God made him to be ſin for us (that is to ſay, God ordained him to be a Sacrifice of Atonement for our ſins,) that we might be made the Righteouſneſſe of God in him; that is to ſay, that we might be made righteous or ſinleſſe by Gods Atonement.
Anſw. Here being nothing ſaid but what was often ſaid and anſwered before, I ſhall ſpare reciting again the ſame things. You ſhould not only have ſaid, but have proved that we are made righteous by Atonement: you ſhould have proved according to your ſpeech, that a ſinners righteouſneſſe or juſtification lieth in Atonement, and that according to the ſenſe of the Dialogue, namely, ſuch a pardon of ſin as neither is the effect of, nor doth acknowledge, nay, doth deny the very being of the ſatisfactory meritorious Legall Obedience of Chriſt. And that this your doctrine of a ſinners righteouſneſſe hath ever been well known and witneſſed amongſt the godly in all ages from the beginning of the world, that it hath been witneſſed by the practice of all ſacrifices before the Law, and under the Law, by the doctrine of the Prophets, and by the doctrine of the New Teſtament, for the making good of which falſe teſtimony of yours concerning the witneſſe of the forementioned, you produce no not ſo much as one reaſon, but after ſo ſlanderous and blaſphemous an aſſertion (pardon my true teſtimony of your falſe teſtimony) you abuſe the ignorant, and weary the intelligent Reader with a continual miſſing or begging the queſtion.
That the doctrine of Imputation is not a doctrine of late daies only, the Reader that pleaſeth may be fully ſatisfied by the labours of Grotius, who at the end of his defence of the Catholike faith concerning the ſatisfaction of Chriſt againſt Socinus hath gathered together the teſtimonies of many of the Ancients ſtill extant, to this purpoſe, from Ireneus Anno Chriſti 180. until after Bernhard, who lived Anno 1120. or thereabout.