The Sufferings of Christ, Part 2 · Section 2 · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. Of the Dialogues examination of certain Arguments propounded by M. Forbes for the proving of juſtification by the Imputation of the paſſive obedience of Chriſt in his death and ſatisfaction.
Dialogu. I Pray you produce ſome of his Arguments that they may be tried and examined whether there be any weight of truth in them or no.
Anſw. The Dialogue here takes off it ſelf from further acting the part of an opponent againſt the imputation of Chriſts Legall obedience both active and paſſive unto juſtification: and now proceeds to act the part of a Reſpondent unto certain Arguments of M. Forbes alledged to prove that ſinners are juſtified by the imputation of the paſſive obedience of Chriſt in his death. This it doth not as adhering to us wherein M. Forbes diſſents (for it agreeth with him wherein he diſagreeth) but as oppoſing him, wherein he conſents with us in the doctrine of imputation.
That the anſwer therefore may be as full in the Vindication as the Dialogue pretends to be in the refutation of the Doctrine of the Orthodox, we ſhall examine the Dialogues examination, and [impertinences omitted] conſider all that, and only that which herein concerns the Queſtion.
Dialogu. Nothing (ſaith M. Forbes) is made of God to be a ſinners righteouſneſſe but Jeſus Christ alone and his righteouſneſſe, and this he proves by 1 Cor. 1.30. Jer. 23.26. with other places. The Apoſtle ſaith that Chriſt was made of God unto us righteouſneſſe, but how? not as the doctrine of imputation ſpeaketh, but thus, God made him to be our righteouſneſſe in a Mediatoriall way, by ordaining him to be the only meritorious procuring cauſe of his atonement, which is a ſinners onelyonly righteouſneſſe. Chriſt is not a ſinners righteouſneſſe any otherwiſe but in a Mediatoriall way only, as I have oft warned. Chriſt is called Jehovah our righteouſneſſe, but still it must be understood in a Mediatoriall way, and no otherwiſe.
We have ſeen already that Atonement is not righteouſneſſe, it cannot then be a ſinners only righteouſneſſe.
That which the Dialogue cals a Mediatorial way is indeed no way, but is deſtructive unto the true way, and conſequently an hereticall way, denying of and inconſiſting with the Mediatorly obedience of Chriſt unto the Law.
The Legall obedience of Chriſt is to be conſidered formally and virtually, as conſidered formally it is an ingredient into the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification, as conſidered virtually it is the materiall cauſe thereof. Of which before.
Dialogu. And thus Chriſt is our Righteouſneſſe in one reſpect, the Father in another, and the holy Ghoſt in another. Each perſon is a ſinners righteouſneſſe in ſeverall reſpects, The manner how Christ ſhould juſtifie the many was by bearing their iniquities, and how elſe did he bear their iniquities but by his ſacrifice of Atonement? and in this ſenſe Chriſt is ſaid to juſtifie us with his bloud, Rom. 5.9. that is to ſay, by his Sacrifice of Atonement; therefore his righteouſneſſe cannot be the formall cauſe of a ſinners righteouſneſſe; it is but the procuring cauſe of the Fathers atonement, which is the only formall cauſe of a ſinners righteouſneſſe.
Anſw. That Propoſition, Chriſt bare our iniquities by his ſacrifice of atonement, is an equivocal propoſition capable of diverſe conſtruct ons: in the ſenſe of the Orthodox 'tis true, in the ſenſe of the Dialogue falſe; both which ſenſes are ſufficiently known by the foregoing diſcourſe.
The Apoſtle Rom. 5.9. ſpeaketh of the meritoritorious cauſe, part thereof being put for the whole Synechdochically; Upon this occaſion let us obſerve both the intent and conſent of ſuch Scriptures as ſpeak diverſly of the cauſe of juſtification. We are ſaid to be juſtified by grace, Rom. 3.24. i. e. as the efficient cauſe; By his bloud Rom. 5 9. i. e. as the meritorious cauſe: By his obedience Rom. 5.19. i. e. as the materiall cauſe: By imputation (viz. of his obedience) Rom. 4.6. i. e. as the formall cauſe; By faith Rom. 5.1. i. e. as the inſtrument.
Your inference, Chriſt bare our iniquities by his ſacrifice of atonement, therefore his righteouſneſſe cannot be the formall cauſe of a ſinners righteouſneſs, is impertinent; and argues that you underſtand not our doctrine. We ſay not that the obedience of Chriſt is the formall, but the materiall cauſe of a ſinners righteouſneſſe, and that imputation is the formall cauſe thereof.
Dialogu The Father is a ſinners righteouſneſſe, 1. Efficiently. 2. Formally; His Atonement ſo procured muſt needs be the formall cauſe of a ſinners full and perfect righteouſneſſe.
Anſw. To ſay the Father is a ſinners righteouſneſſe formally, ſounds too near Oſianders errour who held that we were juſtified by the eſſentiall righteouſneſſe of God. But the following words ſhew you miſtake or at leaſt inconveniently uſe the term formally, and intend no other then your former error. The efficient cauſe of a ſinners righteouſneſſe is the Father; [Father] taken not perſonally but eſſentially, for God the Father, Son, and holy Ghoſt.
Dialogu. The holy Ghoſt alſo doth make ſinners righteous, inſtrumentally by fitting, preparing and qualifying ſinners for the Fathers Atonement, by quickening their ſouls with the lively grace of faith, by which grace ſinners are enabled to apprehend and receive the Fathers Atonement.
Anſw. Faith is the inſtrument or inſtrumentall cauſe of juſtification. 'Tis alſo true that the grace of faith (as the application of all other benefits of redemption unto the Elect) is the effect of the holy Ghoſt: and (becauſe a finiſhing work) it is aſcribed to the third Perſon: yet according to that received Rule: All the works of God upon the creature are wrought in common by all the three perſons; notwithſtanding the work be principally aſcribed unto that perſon, whoſe manner of exiſtence doth moſt eminently appear in it. 'Tis a great errour both in Divinity and Logick to ſay the holy Ghoſt who is God and onelyonly God is an inſtrumental cauſe, which alwaies notes inferiority.
Dialogu. It is well that your Authour will grant remiſſion of ſins to be righteouſneſſe in effect: if remiſſion of ſins be a ſinners righteouſneſſe, then (I pray) conſider whoſe act it is to forgive ſins formally. I have already proved it to be the Fathers act to forgive ſin formally, and not Chriſts; he doth forgive ſin no otherwiſe but as a Mediatour by procuring his Fathers pardon and forgivenſſe.
Anſw. Righteouſneſſe is taken ſtrictly for the matter and form of juſtification only, or largely for juſtification, as conſiſting of its cauſes, Rom. 10.10. remiſſion of ſins is an immediate and inſeparable effect of the former, but a part of the latter.
Imputation which is the formall cauſe of juſtification, is a tranſient act, and is the effect of the Father taken eſſentially. Our Queſtion is not concerning the formall but the materiall cauſe of juſtification.
Dialogu M. Forbes is put to his ſhifts to declare that Christs paſſive Obedience is the matter of a ſinners righteouſneſſe, by a diſtinction between Chriſt as he was our Lamb for Sacrifice in his humane nature, and as he was our Prieſt in his divine nature; for elſe he did foreſee, that he ſhould run into an exceeding groſſe abſurdity, if he had made any action of Chriſts God-head or Priestly nature to have been a ſinners righteouſneſſe by imputation: Therefore to avoid that abſurdity he doth place a ſinners righteouſneſſe in his paſſive obedience only. His diſtinction between Chriſt as he was a Lamb for ſacrifice in his humane nature, and as he is our Prieſt in his Divine nature is very ill applied, becauſe he makes Chriſts paſſive obedience to be meritorious and ſatisfactory, excluding him as he is our Prieſt.
Anſw. The ſcope of M. Forbes is to prove that not the active but the paſſive obedience of Chriſt is the only matter of our juſtification, and therein his bloud and death alone.
To that end he diſtinguiſheth between the matter of our righteouſneſſe and the requiſites in Chriſt to the end that he may be righteouſneſſe unto us; like as the bloud of the Lamb is to be diſtinguiſhed from thoſe things in the Lamb, which made the Lambs bloud to ſerve for a propitiation for ſin; placing the active obedience of Chriſt amongſt the requiſites, and excluding it from the matter of our righteouſnes, in both which we leave him.
The diſtinction you mention and call it a ſhift, I finde not in the Chapter cited.
Though M. Forbes do diſtinguiſh between the Sacrifice of obedience, and the natures, office, and perſon of Chriſt conſidered apart; yet you do him great and open wrong to ſpeak of him, as if he excluded the influence of the perſon, office, or concurrence of both natures from Chriſts paſſive obedience. Of the impropriety of the uſe of thoſe words [Chriſts God-head or Prieſtly nature] hath been ſpoken before. To make the actions, i. e. the active obedience of Chriſt God-man Mediatour, part of the matter of a ſinners righteouſneſſe (viz. not properly, as if they were perſonally done by us, but virtually becauſe done by our Surety) is to aſſert a great and neceſſary truth.
Dialogu. From all the premiſes I think I may well conclude that your Authour is in a great errour, to aſcribe the whole matter of a ſinners righteouſneſſe to Chriſts bloudy Sacrifice only: Neither was his bloudy ſacrifice the only procuring of his fathers atonement, but his Prieſtly nature muſt concur thereunto; he made his oblation by his divine nature as well as by his humane nature.
Anſw. The Dialogue calleth that a great errour which indeed is a great truth, namely, the making the paſſive obedience of Chriſt in his death performed in way of ſatisfaction to divine juſtice for the ſins of the Elect, to be of the matter of juſtification.
That he makes his paſſive obedience in his death only to be the matter of our juſtification excluding his active (the contrary whereunto is proved par. 2. S. 2. cha. 7.) we look at it as no little errour; and do hereby bear ſolemn teſtimony againſt it; Yet withall we may not conceal that obſervable temperature of that Learned and Godly Authour herein, which appeareth by his Teſtimony concerning the doctrine of imputation of both active and paſſive obedience, Chap. 24. beg. and upon this occaſion it may not be unſeaſonable here to acquaint the Reader with the tenet of thoſe who aſſert the paſſive obedience of Chriſt only to be the matter of our juſtification, conſiſting in theſe particulars.
Vid. Piſc. praef. in Ep. 1. ad Tim. Wotton.They acknowledge 1. The active obedience of Chriſt to be the obedience of God-man our Surety unto the Law. 2. That the active obedience of Chriſt hath an influence into the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification. 3. That it doth in its way conduce unto our juſtification, as a preparation or diſpoſition. 4. That our juſtification is by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed. Laſtly, M. Forbes himſelf judgeth that the doctrine of imputation of the active and paſſive obedience of Chriſt may be tolerated without any contention or ſtrife, acknowledging,Forbes of juſtificat. cha. 24. it containeth not in it any impiety, hindereth not any man from the mark or matter of his righteouſneſſe, and that it is not contrary to truth.
Your labour to prove that the Mediatorly obedience of Chriſt was the oblation of whole Chriſt God-man Mediatour with the joint concurrence of both natures, might have been ſpared, Who is he that doubts of it?
Dialogu. The bloud of Jeſus Chriſt doth clenſe us from all ſin, 1 Joh. 1.7. by a Synecdoche; for the Apoſtle doth not ſay that his bloud alone without any thing doth cleanſe us from all ſin (as M. Forbes would have him speak) but he names his bloud as a Synecdoche of his death or as a Synechdoche of his Mediatoriall obedience, which alſo he ſealed with his bloud, when he made his ſoul a Mediatoriall Sacrifice.
Anſw. M. Forbes ſo far ſpeaketh the truth as he interprets bloud ſynechdochically of Chriſts paſſive obedience imputed: he erreth 1. In limiting his paſſive obedience imputed to that of his death only. 2. In excluding his active obedience wholly from imputation. The Dialogues Mediatoriall Obedience is confuted before, and therewith its interpretation.
Dialogu I grant that all mankinde are one with Adam by ae naturall union, as proceeding from the ſame root and fountain of nature; but I fear your Authour doth stretch out naturall union with Adam unto a perſonall union (I mean M. Forbes doth ſo by conſequence) to the end that he might make Adams perſonall action to be ours by imputation.
Anſw. The ſcope of M. Forbes is to prove the imputation of Chriſts paſſive obedience, and that only in his death, to be the matter of our juſtification. Pauls compariſon according to his interpretation is inſtituted not between that ſingle act of Adams diſobedience in eating the forbidden fruit, imputed unto his ſeed; and the obedience of Chriſt in generall both active and paſſive imputed to his ſeed, but between the ſingle act of Adams diſobedience, and one act of Chriſts obedience, viz. his death.
We conſent to M Forbes as concerning the argument taken from the compariſon, we diſſent from him as concerning the reſtrictions, the reaſon of the compariſon being founded upon the condition of the perſons and divine inſtitution, it holds between ſuch acts as the firſt and ſecond Adam acted as publike perſons: Adam therefore being in that act of diſobedience only a publique perſon, hence that act only is imputed unto his ſeed; but Chriſt being in all his acts of obedience a publique perſon, hence therefore all the acts of Chriſts obedience are imputed to his ſeed. As upon the ſuppoſition of Adams continuing in obedience (becauſe he had then continued a publick perſon) all the acts of his obedience even unto the finiſhing of perfect righteouſneſſe, had been imputed unto his ſeed, according to the nature of the Covenant of works, unto their attaining of juſtification by the Law.
The union between Adam and his poſterity was not perſonall, nor only natural, but myſticall. It was a conjunction of the perſon of Adam, and all contained then in his loins, in one ſpiritual body, by the inſtitution of God, whereby he was as their head, they as his members, to ſtand or fall with him ſtanding or falling.
Dialogu Adams diſobedience had this effect, that it procured a corrupt and ſinfull nature to himſelf, and to all his poſterity, which otherwiſe had continued righteous and ſinleſſe.
In like ſort Chriſts Mediatoriall obedience had this effect, that it procured Gods fatherly atonement and acceptance of all his posterity and ſeed that ſhould be born of the ſame promiſe, Gen. 3.15.
Anſw. If the ſinfull nature of Adams poſterity was the effect of Adams diſobedience, in like ſort as Atonement, i. e. remiſſion of ſin is the effect of Chriſts obedience, then it was the effect thereof according to juſtice (as indeed it was, for original ſin is the penal effect of Adams ſin) he is juſt to forgive us our ſin, 1 Joh. 1.9.
Dialogu By one man, namely Adams ſin in eating the forbidden fruit, death entred into the world, and death by ſin, namely, ſpirituall death in ſin fell upon Adam and his poſterity for his ſin; and ſo death paſſed upon all men for that all men had ſinned. That is to ſay, in whoſe loins all men have ſinned [by receiving from his loins his corrupt nature which is ſin) and alſo is the puniſhment of Adams ſinfull eating; not whoſe act of diſobedience in eating the forbidden fruit, all men have ſinned in eating the forbidden fruit, for then we muſt have been united to Adam as one perſon with him.
Anſw. What is to be underſtood by death, ſee in the vindication of Gen. 2.17. The Dialogue not enduring the imputation either of our diſobedience unto Chriſt, or of Chriſts obedience unto us, to avoid the Apoſtles argument taken from the imputation of Adams diſobedience to mankinde, Rom. 5. denieth that we are guilty of Adams ſin, acknowledging only that we receive from Adam a corrupt nature or a ſpirituall death in ſin, viz. that which we call originall ſin.
Whileſt you acknowledge corruption of nature to be the puniſhment of Adams ſinfull eating, and yet deny that we ſinned in eating the forbidden fruit, you make a contradiction, for there can be no puniſhment without ſin, and by conſequence alſo you put injuſtice upon God, who notwithſtanding by his abſolute will he might, yet having limited himſelf he doth not afflict without ſin.
That all deſcended of Adam by ordinary generation are guilty of Adams ſin is evident.
1. From the expreſſe Text; for that all have ſinned, Rom. 5.12. or in whom, i. e. in Adam all have ſinned, as it is upon the margent, and according as the Learned Interpreters generally turn it; Both come to the ſame ſenſe. In this Chapter the Apoſtle inſiſts upon Adams ſin, as in the 7th upon originall ſinne.
2. From the effect; all ſinned in Adam becauſe all died in Adam, even thoſe that had not ſinned after the ſimilitude of Adams tranſgreſſion, viz. Infants who ſinned not actually in their proper perſons, but only in their publike perſon, Rom. 5.14. Gen. 2.17. 1 Cor. 15.22.
3. There can be no other reaſon given according to the revealed will of God, of the propagation of of originall ſin. This doctrine of yours too much favours Pelagius, who denied Infants to be guilty of Adams ſin and of original ſin.
4. Adam in his firſt tranſgreſſion ſtood as a publike perſon by the free conſtitution of God, whoſe will is the rule of righteouſneſſe, who is the figure of him that was to come, Rom. 5.14.
Adams being a publike perſon was a great aggravation of Adams ſin, hence a world of ſin was in Adams ſin.
1. Becauſe Adam was the whole world, the world ſinned in Adams ſin.
2. Becauſe Adam by that ſinne ſlew the whole world.
3. Becauſe all ſin by conſequence was contained in this ſin. Thence is Originall ſin as an effect from the cauſe, hence actuall ſinne as an act from the habit.
4. It was a univerſall ſin, becauſe in it was in ſum the violation of the whole Decalogue.
Dialogu But it paſſeth my underſtanding to conceive how God in juſtice can impute the act of Chriſts Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement to us as our act, unleſſe he do firſt make us one with Chriſt in the perſonal unity of both natures, noither can I ſee how any of the actions of Chriſt can be imputed to Beleevers as their actions.
Anſw. Though there needs no other ground for the juſtice thereof then the good pleaſure of God, and the free conſent of Chriſt; yet herein the pleaſure of God and conſent of Chriſt, and the myſticall (not perſonall) union of Chriſt and Beleevers concurre.
The Legal acceptance of the offended or creditor,Juſtitia Christi non imputatur nobis ut cauſis, ſed ut ſubjectis tantura. Bellarm. encr. Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. and the conſent of the ſurety are ſufficient for the Legall charging the offence or debt of a third perſon (who is the offender or debtor) upon the ſurety.
Chriſts obedience is imputed to us not formally, as if we were the performers thereof, but in reſpect of its efficacy, becauſe we have the benefit of it as effectually as if we had performed it our ſelves. The obedience of Chriſt is imputed to us as the Subjects meerly, not as the cauſes of it. Chriſts actions are ours not properly but virtually in reſpect of their vigour, good, benefit and efficacy.
Dialogu. In like ſort our bleſſed Mediatour (as he is the myſticall head of all beleevers in the Covenant of grace) did take care to do all and every act of Mediatoriall obedience that might procure his Fathers Atonement for the good and benefit of every member of his myſticall body, as fully and effectually as if every member could have performed thoſe acts of Mediatoriall obedience themſelves. And in this ſenſe God doth imput… the efficacy of all Chriſts Mediatoriall obedience to all beleevers as the only meritorious price of his Fathers atonement for them.
Anſw. The Reader may at the firſt ſight hereof haply think, that as it was ſometimes with Bellarmine, who having ſpent whole Books in a laborious diſputation for mans merit againſt grace,Bellarm. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 7. Tutiſſimum, &c. at length ſaith, It is moſt ſafe to place our confidence in the alone mercy of God. So it is here fallen out with the Authour, who after his labour hitherto againſt the doctrine of Imputation, now at length may ſeem to acknowledge it: But though his words be equivocall, yet his meaning is the ſame that it was before, and ſo much the more dangerous, becauſe the ſame evil ſenſe is inſinuated in a better language.
To ſuppoſe a ſinner to have performed thoſe acts of Mediatorly obedience, which Chriſt performed, is to ſuppoſe an impoſſibility: Chriſt was and is God-man, and without ſin, neither of which can be found in him who is a ſinner.
The voice of this whole clauſe (this ſuppoſition excepted, or ſomewhat qualified) is not unlike the voice of Jacob, but the ſenſe is the ſenſe of Eſau; i. e. the minde of the Dialogue uttered by the tongue of the Orthodox;foreign. but it is with the minde of the Orthodox, as hath been ſaid of old concerning the Scripture: it lieth not in the ſound but in the ſenſe.
Nec putemus in verbis ſcripturarum eſſe Evangelium, ſed in ſenſu. Hieron. in Ep. ad Gal. ca. 1.If moſt peſtilent doctrines have oftentimes been communicated in the language of the Scripture, marvell not then that they are communicated in a language which doth not unbecome the Orthodox: Neither let us (ſaith Hierome) ſpeaking againſt the hereſies of Ebion, Photinus, Marcion, and Bafilides, think the Goſpel to be in the words of the Scripture, but in the ſenſe. Who is ignorant that the Arrians ſpeak hereſie by that Text, The Father is greater then I, Joh. 14.28. or that the Papiſts idolatry by that Propoſition, This is my Body, Mat. 26.26. And they who pleaſe may reade Pelagius by thoſe words, For that all have ſinned, or, In whom all have ſinned, Rom. 5.Auguſt. contra Julian. l. 6. c. 12.12. breathing forth no ſmall ſeeds of Pelagianiſm; ſo interpreting or rather corrupting of them, as that he acknowledgeth not the meaning of them to be, that all ſinned in Adam (wherein the Dialogue followeth him) thereby laying a ground for the deducing the corruption of nature not to be by propagation, as a penal effect of Adams ſin, but by way of imitation. An error or hereſie expreſſed by the words of the Scripture, or the words of the Orthodox is never the leſſe erroneous though ſo much the more dangerous.
This admonition here may ſuffice to preſerve the Reader againſt the infection of the unchanged doctrine of the Dialogue, notwithſtanding the change of its voice: Mediatorly obedience and atonement following thereupon, being (both according to the ſenſe of the Dialogue and the ſenſe of the Orthodox) ſufficiently underſtood out of what hath been ſaid before.