A DISCUSSION of that Great Point in DIVINITY, THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST; And the QUESTIONS about his Righteousness 

Active,  
Passive:   and the Imputation thereof.  
Being an ANSWER to a DIALOGUE ENTITLED The Meritorious Price of our Redemption, Justification, etc.  
By JOHN NORTON Teacher of the Church at Ipswich in New-England.  
Who was appointed to draw up this Answer by the General Court.  Rom. 3.26. To declare I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. 
London, Printed by A.M. for Geo. Calvert at the Sign of the half Moon, and Joseph Nevil at the Sign of the Plough in the new Buildings in Paul's Churchyard, 1653.   

The STATIONER to the READER.  
FOr the better understanding of the following Treatise, the Reader is desired to take notice,  
1. That the three Fundamental Truths therein asserted, confirmed and cleared are these, 

1. The Imputation of the disobedience of the Elect unto Christ.  
2. That Christ as God-man Mediator and our Surety fulfilled the Law by his Original conformity, and active and passive obedience thereunto for the Elect.  
3. The Imputation of that Obedience unto the Believer for Justification.    
2. That the three opposite Tenets of the Dialogue as they are held forth therein, are proved and concluded to be Heresies; Heresy being taken for a Fundamental Error, that is, such as he that knowingly liveth and dieth therein cannot be saved.   

To the much Honoured GENERAL COURT OF THE MASACHUSETS' Colony Now sitting at Boston in New-England.  
Right Worshipful, Worshipful, and much Honoured in our Lord Jesus,  
THat this weak Treatise cometh forth under your Name cannot seem strange to him who remembers Nature's Offspring by instinct sheltering itself under those wings from whence it received life and breath.  
Reluctances from personal unfitness to undertake this Service, Religion forbade me to hearken after, whilst I considered the call of the Court thereunto to be the call of God; and how unworthy it would be for any of Aaron's Sons so far as lieth in them to fail Moses leading on and calling to follow in a Cause immediately concerning the Lord Jesus, especially at such a time when to be silent were not only to deny a joynt-witnessing with you to the truth; but in appearance tacitly to strengthen the adversary in bearing false witness against the power of the Christian Magistrate concerning the Defence of the Truth: Seeing Donatus now crieth aloud again, 
Quid imperatori cum Ecclesiis?  What hath the Emperor to do with the Churches? Notwithstanding that position concerning the Magistrate's power in matters of Religion be attested to by civil-law, Common-Law, Nature, Scripture, Reason and Testimony both old and new.  
The lawful Administrations by the Kings of Judah touching the custody of the first Table they did not as Types of Christ but as Servants of Christ, otherwise what was done by the Type must be fulfiled by the Anti-type, but Christ never exercised any act of Civil Government. Again, the coming of the Anti-type is the abolishing of the Type, consequently than it should be unlawful for Civil power now to assist the Cause of Religion. The reason given of such administrations was not typical but moral, viZ. to put away evil from Israel; the moral reason is of like force now as then; the reason of the Law and the Law live and die together.  

1 King. 20.42. 2 Chron. ●3. 11.  Ahab King over an Apostate Church dieth for not putting Benhadad to death for Blasphemy.  
When Jehojada put the Crown upon Joash his head, he gave the Testimony into his hand.  
The King of Nineveh proclaimeth a Fast. 
Jon. 3.7. Dan. 3.29  Nabuchadnezzar makes a Decree against Blasphemy. 
Ezra 1.  Cyrus giveth out a Proclamation for the Buiiding of the Temple. 
Dan. 6.29  Darius' the Mede makes a Decree for the acknowledgement of the true God: 
Ezra 7.13  The like doth Artaxerxes for the beautifying of the House of the Lord. These being Heathen Princes could not be Types of Christ, as Kings of Judah.  
In the times of the Gospel, 
Act. 21.28 23.29.24.5.6.25.8. & 19.20.26.3.  Paul in a matter of Religion appealeth unto Caesar, which neither Lysias, Felix, Festus, nor Agrippa decline the audience of.  
As Religion was the cause of the War purposed between the nine Tribes and a half, and those on the other side of Jordan; So Religion shall be the cause of the War both purposed and performed by the ten Kings against the Man of Sin, 
Rev. 17. ●●  which supposeth Civil Authority acting therein. 
Isa. 49.23  The Prophets speaking of the times of the Gospel, assure the godly that Kings shall be their Nursing Fathers, and Queens their Nursing Mothers, and that false Prophets shall be thrust through with a Sword. 
Zec. 13.3.  This power then of the Magistrate expires not together with the Legal dispensation of the Covenant. From the premises appears the vanity as well as ignorance of their evasion who acknowledge the power of the Magistrate in the time of the Old, yet deny it in the time of the New Testament.  
The adequate end of the Magistrate is to procure that the people may live a peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 
1 Tim. 2.2  Magistrates are called Gods, strange Gods who take no care of godliness. 'Tis a carnal and unworthy position that limits the Magistrate to the Corporal, and restrains him from the care of the spiritual good of the Subject, thereby spoiling this Olive of its choicest fatness wherewith it rejoiceth both God and man.  
That licentious and pestilent Proposition, The care of the matters of Religion belongs not to the Magistrate, is a Stratagem of the Old Serpent and Father of lies, to make free passage for the doctrine of devils; an invention not unlike saul's Oath, the trouble of Israel and escape of the Enemy; a sad error that fosters all error; a Satanical device tending to undermine the policy of God; attempting to charm that Sword with a fallacy, whose dexterous and vigorous use instrumentally puts away evil from Israel, and turneth every way in its manner to keep the path of the Tree of life. The rusting of this Sword of divine execution in the Scabbard, hath been more destructive unto truth then the drawing of the Sword of Persecution. Persecution hath slain Thousands, but the deadly Sea of false doctrine hath slain ten Thousands. 
See Mr Cottons Answer to Mr W. ch. 33.  Might this Imposture prevail, then rejoice ye Heretics, Idolaters, Seducers, Ranters, etc. but woe be to the Sheep of the slaughter, whose Possessors may slay them, and plead themselves Not-guilty at the civil Bar.  
Both Swords make up a complete Medium of all our good and remedy of all evil, and are of special use each to other mutually, as well as of necessary use unto the people jointly. The Magistrates need the Ministry to fix them in the Consciences of men, and the Ministers need the Magistracy to preserve them from men that have no Conscience, or worse. Saul feels the worth of samuel's Countenance: Joash soon wants Jehojada, nor doth Jehoash forbear to honour Elisha with the compellation of My Father, My Father. Again, the Levites stand in need of Nehemiah; and Hezekiah calling them Sons, intimates their Orphan like condition without his assistance. 
O mi Imperator, tu me gladio defende ego te verbis & scriptis defendam.  My Emperor (saith Occam to Ledovick) you shall defend me with your Sword, and I will defend you with my Pen.  
The counsel of peace shall be between them both. As the sacred power is likened to Heaven, so is the civil power compared to Earth: Man cannot continue without either: Both policies acted according to the Word with Christ's Spirit in respect of the external means of our welfare, hold forth a happy Analogy with the concreated Image of God, and assisting grace (together with what superiority then became) in the state of innocency, and are a resemblance of what the renewed image of God and immediate assistance of Christ shall be in the state of glory. They are that unto the People of God throughout the Metaphorical Sea and Wilderness of this Life, which that man of God and Saint of the Lord were unto Israel throughout that natural Sea and Wilderness unto the Land of Canaan. This is that Moses and Aaron.  
Both Powers are God's way to man's well-being and all good, the polity of heaven. The violation of them is Satan's method to man's woe and all evil; the treachery of Hell. Whereby is legible the constant Antipathy between Dogmatists and Orders; together with the reason of the present insurrection by the Spirit of Error against both Policies; 
Contemptus Disciplinae comes haereseon. Danaeus de h●eresibus Prolegom. cap. 1.  Ataxy (as of old) being still found a necessary companion of Heresy, and all experience having proved that the latter cannot be long-lived without the former.  
How formidable then is that worse than Ammonitish Lust (too much adhered unto by many not only in but of Israel, in this hour of the Gospel's Passion) which endeavoureth together with the putting out of the right eye of Magistracy, that neither the name of Counsels in Jerusalem, nor of Office-rule in Churches may be had any more in remembrance. Luther sometimes wrote to the Senate of Mulhaysen to beware of the wolf Muncer.  
I appeal to any competently judicious and sober-minded man, if the denial of rule in the Presbytery, of a decisive voice in the Synod, and of the power of the Magistrate in matters of Religion, doth not in this point translate the Papal power unto the Brotherhood of every Congregation. Thou that abhorrest Episcopacy dost thou commit Popery? Alas, alas! Is there no medium between Boniface and Morellius, between Papacy and Anarchy, Babylon and Babel? If there be a mystery of iniquity in the one, is there not a University of iniquity in the other? Confusion is not far from every evil work, and though not mystical in itself, yet mystical in this that the way to so manifest confusion and ruin should not be manifest. The Historians indignation that the East was overcome by a drunken Commander with a drunken Army, 
Curtius.  is now become (I speak the words of truth and soberness) a matter of astonishment, when so drunken a Tenet in an Age of such learning, piety, action, suffering, and success, should threaten the hopes of so glorious a Reformation come unto the very birth. 
Ingemuit orbis Christianus & miratus est factum se esse Arianum.  The Christian world long since sighed and wondered at itself, that after such sore travel and bringing forth of a man-child, it was in point of doctrine become an Arian: the Lord Jesus grant that there may not be cause for so considerable a part of the world of the Reformed to sigh deeply and wonder, that after its present like pangs and birth it should (to say nothing more grievous) in point of discipline become a Morellian.  
Of so great moment is the Doctrine of these holy Tactics of the Civil Sword, as that the neglect hath been contemporary and accessary to the efficacy of error, the effectual exercise thereof signal to the times of Zions' mercy.  

Atque hinc profecta est totâ, etc. Zanch. in precept. 4.  The difuse of the Civil Sword as concerning matters of Religion gave opportunity to the rise of the man of Sin; the abuse of it maintained him; the good use thereof shall help to ruin him.  

Scultet. in Isa. 49.23.  It went well with those Churches when that good Old Duke harkened to Melancthon citing those words; Kings shall be thy Nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Nursing Mothers; 
Act. 18.17  but it fared ill with Sosthenes when Gallio cared for none of those matters.  
That the care of Religion is the duty of the Magistrate, is evident; yet when and how far to bear, 
Scripsit Constantinus sui esse officii, ante omnia id officere, ut in Ecclesiâ sit unae fides Euseb. l. 3. de vitâ ejus  in case of error concerning matters of Religion, is a great Quaery of these times. Unity injudgement is to be endeavoured as much as is possible, because truth is one and indivisible, yet some difference touching the truth must be endured, because of the weakness of men. To tolerate every thing, and to tolerate nothing, are both intolerable.  
Zeno's Union, Anastasius Act of Oblivion, 
Zenonis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Anastasii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Osiand. Cent. 6. l. 1. c. 5. id. cent. 16. l. 2. c. 68 Cassand. de officio pij viri, & alibi.  Charles his interim, Cassander's advice, were humane policies that sought peace with the loss of truth. Schismatical rigour prejudiceth truth with the breach of Peace. Deservedly abhorred amongst all Christians is the Spirit of that Giant who made all he took even with his Bed, by stretching out them that were shorter, and cutting short such as were longer.  
A Toleration is not an approbation. Those distinctions between mixtures in Religion, and errors in those that profess the same Religion, between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals, between errors held forth by an erroneous conscience and a contumacious will; between persons peaceable in Israel and disturbers of the State; between points that are clear or orderly decided with due time for conviction, and such as are disputable and of depending disquisition; being prudently applied, may be of special use hereunto. Zanchy commends two Rules for this purpose, the Rule of Faith, and the Rule of Love: The Rule of Faith whereby we may not be wanting to the Truth, and the Rule of Love whereby we may not be wanting to our Brother. 
Junius count 5. l. 2. c. 19, 22. Phi. 3.15, 16.  Junius treating of this Subject, betakes himself from disputation unto prayer; yet so, as commending to his Reader the counsel of that great Casuist, Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded; and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you: Nevertheless whereunto we have already attained, let us 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est verbum militare, tum enim milites dicuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cum persistentes in suâ quâque station, ordine procedunt, etc. Zanch. in loc.  walk by the same rule, let us mind the same things.  
The sum whereof is, that those who consent in Fundamentals, notwithstanding they descent in points of an inferior nature, are not only to be tolerated but are to be looked upon (by God's blessing thereby in the use of means) as likely to be gained, provided they walk regularly and orderly.  
Such hitherto have been the suitable proceed of this Court unto the premises, tempered with that zeal against the error and tenderness towards the Author of this Dialogue, as that they that hear thereof have cause to bless you, as the eyes that saw gave winesse to you.  
Upon which occasion, having (after the example of Leo to Theodosius) rendered hereby unto you solemn thanks, I accounted it my duty that wheresoever this poor Script should come, not only that this should be told as a memorial of you, but also  
That you have now above twenty years ruled in this place, during all which space you have not been ashamed to take upon you the protection of your exiled Brethren, fled for conscience sake from the face of the late Prelacy to worship God in this vast Wilderness,  
That you have given proof by so long experience unto the world, that Civil Government and the Congregational way may consist together,  
That you have been amongst the first of Magistracies which have approved and practised that Congregational way; no small favour from God, nor honour to yourselves with the generations to come, when that shall appear to be the way of Christ.  
I have no more to add, but that poor New-englands' superadding hereunto the concurring Testimony of the Synod, Court, and Churches respectively, to what shall be found to be the Truth concerning Doctrine and Disciplihe (according as you were lately stirred up) shall thereby doubtless witness a good confession, a service of a high nature, which God will not forget, and posterity will reremember, gain to itself not the least name among the two Witnesses: Such work was worthy of Christ, and both the work and worth of those that during the Reign of Antichrist were and are designed to prophesy in Sackcloth.  
And lastly, help to prepare that choice weapon of bearing witness to the Truth, an Engine fit to do execution than Goliath's Sword; which together with the rest of like nature held forth in the Ages of the Patience of Saints, the true David hath promised to make use of and prosper unto victory, not only in the lighter skirmishes of the Lord, but in the great day of Battle of God Almighty at the Fall of Babylon, in the place of Armageddon: For even than it shall be said, They overcame by the Blood of the Lamb, and by the Word of their Testimony; Though the Witnesses die, their Testimony lives; This shall be when they are not, Higgajon Selah.  
The Lord lift up your hearts in his Name, always inspiring you with that divine discerning of the Seasons, that through his Grace you may quit yourselves as becometh his exiles in such a cause, and at such a time. So prayeth and ceaseth not to pray  
To your Worships and worthy Personages respectively, Sincerely addicted and devoted, JOHN NORTON.   

THE CONTENTS.  

PART. I.  

THe Introduction. Ch. 1 Pag. 1  
The stating of the Controversy. Ch. 2 Pag. 13  
The Vindication of Gen. 2.17. Ch. 3 Pag. 20  
The Vindication of Isa. 53.4, 5. Ch. 4 Pag. 35  
The Vindication of Isa. 53.6. Ch. 5 Pag. 32  
The Vindication of Exo. 20.10. Leu. 1.4. and 4.29. Leu. 8.14. and 16.20, 21. Ch. 6 Pag. 48  
The Vindication of 2 Cor. 5.21. Ch. 7 Pag. 53  
The Vindication of Matth. 26.37. Mar. 14.33. Luk. 22.43. Ch. 8 Pag. 56  
The Vindication of Heb. 5.7. Ch. 9 Pag. 70  
The Vindication of Psa. 22.1. Ch. 10 Pag. 77  
The Vindication of Gal. 3.13. Ch. 11 Pag. 90  
Christ redeemed us not from the curse of the Law by his Soul-sufferings only; And of the meaning of Haides. Ch. 12 Pag. 105  
Of the Dialogues Arguments taken from the description of the torments of hell, and from the place of suffering the torments of the damned. Ch. 13 Pag. 110    

PART. II.  

SECT. I.  

Of the nature of Mediatorly Obedience, both according to the Dialogue, and according to the Orthodox. Ch. 1 Pag. 135  
Of the divers ways of Redemption. Ch. 2 Pag. 141  
Of that wherein the true meritorious efficacy of the Blood of Christ lieth. Ch. 3 Pag. 147  
Whether the Jews and Romans put Christ to death. Ch. 4 Pag. 156  
Of the Dialogues distinction of Christ's dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor. Ch. 5 Pag. 164    

PART. II. SECT. II.  

Of the Moral Law. Ch. 1 Pag. 176  
The Dialogues Arguments against the Imputation of Christ's Obedience unto justification, Answered. Ch. 2 Pag. 185  
Of the Dialogues distinction between Legal and mediatorial obedience. Ch. 3 Pag. 195  
Of the Dialogues further Reasoning against the influence of Christ's obedience unto justification by way of Imputation. Ch. 4 Pag. 207  
Whether the justice and Righteousness of a sinner doth lie only in Gods merciful atonement, pardon, and forgiveness. Ch. 5 Pag. 216  
How Abraham's Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness. Ch. 6 Pag. 224  
Of the Enumeration of the causes of Justification, according to the Dialogue, and according to the Orthodox. Ch. 7 Pag. 233  
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. Ch. 8 Pag. 244  
Of Atonement or Reconciliation. Ch. 9 Pag. 246      

AN ANSWER TO A DIALOGUE ENTITLED The Meritorious Price of Man's Redemption, Reconciliation, Justification, etc.  
And pretending to Prove 

I. That Christ did not suffer for us those unutterable Torments of God's Wrath which commonly are called Hell torments, to Redeem our Souls from them.  
II. That Christ did not bear our Sins by God's Imputation, and therefore he did not bear the Curse of the Law for them.    

CHAP. I. The Introduction.  
THE Mediatorly obedience of Christ in the full extent thereof comprehendeth the universal execution of the whole Office of the Mediator, which he as King, Priest and Prophet, throughly performed, and still performeth to the glory of the Father, and salvation of the Elect. This Dialogue singleth out a principal part of his Priesthood, against which it contends primarily, and against the received doctrine of Justification secondarily; the later necessarily following upon the former. Omitting therefore the Kingly and Prophetical parts of the Mediatorship altogether, and so much of the Priestly part thereof as is herein untouched, for the better confining and guiding the apprehension of the Reader in the ensuing Dispute, before we close with the Discourse itself, give me leave (together with the foregoing intimation) to premise briefly certain Propositions, four Questions, five Distinctions, with some few Arguments. The Distinctions serving to Answer some chief Objections. The Propositions, Questions and Arguments, tending to clear and confirm the Truth.  
Prop. I The Lord Jesus Christ as God-man, Mediator according to the will of the Father, and his own voluntary consent fully obeyed the Law, doing the command in a way of works, and suffering the essential punishment of the curse, in a way of obedient satisfaction unto Divine justice, thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant; which active and passive obedience of his, together with his original righteousness as a Surety, God of his rich grace actually imputeth unto Believers, whom upon the receipt thereof, by the grace of Faith, he declareth and accepteth as perfectly righteous, and acknowledgeth them to have right unto eternal Life. More fully and particularly  
Prop. TWO God in the first Covenant (the substance whereof is, Do this and thou shalt live, Leu. 18.5. But in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, Gen. 2.17.) proceeded with man in a way of justice.  
Prop. III Justice in God is either Essential, whence God can do no wrong: Or Relative, in respect of the creature, viz. God's constant will of rendering to man what is his due; this is the free constitution of God's good pleasure, whose will is the first and absolute rule of Righteousness.  
Prop. IV Relative justice supposeth somewhat due from God to man in a way of debt, so as if God should not perform it, he should be unjust.  
That which thus obligeth God in a way of Reward, is called Merit, in a way of Punishment Demerit: yet so as the, word Merit is ordinarily used promiscuously.  
Prop. V Merit is either Absolute, so God cannot be a Debtor to the creature, no not to Christ himself: or By Way of free Covenant, so God hath in case made himself a Debtor to man. Justice then consisting in rendering to every one their due, and Gods will being the rule of Justice; it followeth that and only that to be the due, desert, merit or demerit of man, which God hath willed concerning him. The Moral Law itself, that eternal rule of manners, The recompense contained in the promise in case of obedience; The punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience, are all the effects of Gods good pleasure.  
Merit by virtue of free Covenant, notes such an obedience whereunto God by his free Promise hath made himself a debtor according to order of Justice. Demerit notes such disobedience whereunto by force of the Commination, death is due according to the order of Justice. Merit or Demerit is a just debt, whether in way of reward or punishment: the genus of merit is debt, i. e. To indebt or make due its form in a way of Justice.  
Prop. VI The demerit or desert of man by reason of sin being death according to Relative justice, the rule of proceeding between God and him, Justice now requireth that man should die. As God (with reverence be it spoken of him, who cannot be unjust) in case man had continued in obedience, had been unjust if he had denied him life: so in case of disobedience, he should be unjust in case he should not inflict death.  
Prop. VII The elect then having sinned, the elect must di●● if they die in their own persons, Election is frustrate, God is unfaithful; if they die not at all, God is unjust, the Commination is untrue: If elect men die in their own persons, the Gospel is void, if man doth not die the Law is void; they die therefore in the man Christ Jesus, who satisfied Justice as their Surety, and so fulfilled both Law and Gospel. As God's will is the rule of righteousness, so Gods will is the rule of the temperature of righteousness.  
Prop. VIII Though God by his absolute power might have saved man without a Surety, yet having constituted that inviolable rule of relative justice, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; he could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this rule; but man having sinned, man must die, and satisfy the Law that man may live Justice requireth that the Surety should die, th●● the Debtor may live, That he might be just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, Rom. 3.26. God suffereth multitudes of sins to be unpardoned, but he suffereth not one sin to be unpunished.  
Quaere 1 What is Vindicative justice strictly taken?  
Answ. It is an execution of relative justice rewarding sin with the punishment due thereunto according to the Law. Justice in God (as was said before) is either essential, which is in him necessarily hence he can do no wrong: Or relative which is in him freely, that is, it hath no necessary connexion with the Being of God: This Relative or Moral justice is an act of Gods good pleasure, whence flows his proceeding with men according to the Law of righteousness freely constituted between him and them.  
Quaere 2 What is the supreme and first cause why justice requireth that sin should be rewarded with the punishment due thereunto, according to the Law?  
Answ. The free constitution of God. The principal and whole reason of this mystery depends upon the good pleasure of God; 
Nam hujus mysterii summum, imo tota ratio independit, quis negat potuisse Deum alio quovis modo providere saluti hominum? sed hoc voluit, nec nisi hoc, Cham. de Descensu, To. 2. l. 5 cap. 12.  for who can deny that God could have saved man in another way? but he would save him thus, and no otherwise then thus.  
This great principle is all along to be kept in mind, and occasionally to be applied, serving not as a sword to cut, but as a leading truth to lose many knots of carnal reason. The good pleasure of God is the first rule of Righteousness, the Cause of all Causes, the Reason of all Reasons, and in one word all Reason in one Reason.  
Quaere. 3 Wherein consists the sufficiency and value of the obedience of Christ as our Surety?  
Answ. In three things 

1. In the dignity of the person obeying.  
2. In the quality or kind of his obedience.  
3. In the acceptation of this obedience.    
The person obeying was God-man. The first Adam was by God's institution a public person, hence in him sinning the world sinned, The second Adam is not only by God's institution a public person, but also an infinite person, because God: This public and infinite person doing and suffering, was as much as if the world of the Elect had suffered. If the first Adam a finite person, was by God's institution in that act of disobedience, A world of men; why should it seem strange that the second Adam being an infinite person should be by God's institution in the course of his obedience, As the world of the Elect? He being an infinite person there needed no more than God's pleasure to have made him The world of men, yea ten thousand-thousand worlds. That which is infinite knoweth no bounds but Gods will.  
The kind of his obedience was Legal, the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto.  
This his obedience to the Law was more acceptable to God, than the disobedience of Adam was detestable; yea more acceptable than the obedience of Adam, had he continued in the first Covenant.  
Though all these ingredients are so essentially requisite unto the obedience of the Mediator, as that the defect of any one of them renders Christ an insufficient Mediator, yet is it both the grand Error, and a great part of the unhappy Labour of the ensuing Treatise, to take away the Second of the Three.  
It is therefore unworthy a Christian to say with Fevardentius, One drop of the blood of Christ is sufficient to have redeemed us: Or with Bellarmine, That the bodily death of Christ is sufficient for the Elect, (though according to both performed in way of satisfaction to Divine justice.) But much more unworthy a Christian to say with the Dialogue, That the bodily death of Christ is sufficient for redemption, though not performed in order to satisfy justice.  
Quaere 4 How doth it appear that the justice of the Law is answered by a sinners suffering the punishment due to sin, either in their own person or in the person of their Surety?  
Answ. Because God, Gen. 2.17. no otherwise obliged himself by the Law to the punishment of sin with death, but so, as that it was free for him to execute that punishment, either upon the offender or upon the Surety.  
Distinct. 1 Distinguish between the Essential or Substantial, and the Accidental or Circumstantial parts of the punishment of the curse.  
The essential part of punishment is that execution of justice which proceedeth from the curse, 
Desperatio non est de essentia paenae infernalis, Bellar. enerv. To. 1. lib. 2. c. 2.  considered absolutely in itself without any respect to the condition or disposition of the patiented, this may be called The essence of punishment. The accidental part of punishment is that execution of justice, which proceedeth not from the cause considered absolutely, but from the disposition or condition of the patiented being under such a curse, this may be called A penal adjunct. For example's sake:  
In the execution of the sentence of death upon a malefactor; 
Mors Per se Aeterna.  the separation of the soul from the body is of the essence of the punishment; the gradual decay of the senses, impotency of spirit, loss of friends, are accidental parts of punishment or penal adjuncts, arising not from the mere separation of the soul and body, 
Polan. Carcer debiti pars nulla est. Parker de Descent. l. 3. num. 91.  but from the disposition of the patiented. In case of execution of the sentence of imprisonment upon a debtor; Imprisonment is of the essence of the punishment, but duration in the prison is from the disposition of the debtor, viz. his insufficiency to pay the debt.  
The essential punishment of the curse, is the total temporal privation of all the sense of the good of the promise, called by some, The pain of loss; and the inflicting of the positive evil flowing from the curse, considered absolutely in itself, without any respect to the disposition of the patiented, called The pain of sense: This essential punishment was that and only that which Christ suffered.  

Medulla. l. 1. c. 22. th'. 6.  The death which Christ died was in nature and proportion the same which was due unto the Elect for their sin according to justice.  
The accidental part of the punishment of the curse, is all the rest of the penal evil thereof, and befalls the reprobate, not from the curse simply, but from the disposition of the patiented under that curse. Of these accidental parts of punishment (which if you please may well pass under the name of penal adjuncts) are final and total separation from God; final death in sin, final and total despair, duration of punishment for ever, the place of punishment, etc.  

Pataeus in Matth. 27.46. p. 889.  Absolute separation from, disunion or discovenanting with God, is a consequent of reprobation, but not of the essence of punishment, because the elect, notwithstanding the Commination stood in as full force against them as against the reprobate, yet continued elected and in Covenant with God in Christ; the Elect were in Christ before they were in Adam. The personal union of Christ continued, notwithstanding he suffered the punishment due to the sins of the Elect.  
Sin is not of the essence of the punishment, because essential punishment is a satisfaction unto justice for injury done; but sin is a continuing of the injury, and a provocation of, not a satisfaction unto justice.  
Essential punishment is an effect of justice, of which God is the Author; but it is blasphemy to say God is the Author of sin. The Elect suffer no part of penal punishment, yet are left unto sin.  
Duration for ever and the place of the punishment are adjuncts, as the nature of them sufficiently shows.  
Distin. 2 Distinguish between the wrath of God as concerning the Elect, 
Vide Zanch. de natura Dei, l. 4. c. 6. Hatred is taken either for the willing of affliction, or for hatred opposite to eternal love; in the last sense God hates not the Elect. Odium sumitur pro 

volitione malorum  
odio opposito  
amori aeterno.   Twiff. Vind. Grat. l. 3. errat. 8. S. 7. Dei ira in electos non est odium oppositum dilectioni quam antea ipsos est prosecutus, Rhetorf. exc. 1. c. 2.  and the hatred of God strictly taken. Wrath is sometime taken for God's hatred of persons, and signifieth reprobation; thus the reprobates are called Vessels of Wrath, Rom. 9.22. Sometimes for the execution of Vindicative Justice, Rom. 1.18. & chap. 2.5. in this sense the elect are called the children of wrath, Eph. 2.3. because their state by nature is such whereunto vindicative justice is due by reason of their sin. Sometimes for the execution of corrective justice, Deut. 4.21. Psal. 78.62. in the first sense God is wroth with the reprobate: in the second sense he was wroth with christ, in the last he is wroth with the Elect: Though in the second sense, not in the first, God may be said to be wroth with Christ; yet in no sense could God be said ever to hate Christ: God hates both persons and sins of the reprobate, he hates sin in the Surety and in the Elect, but he ever loved their persons. God is wroth with all whom he hates, but he hates not all with whom he is wroth.  
Distinct. 3 Distinguish concerning imputation of sin. Imputation of sin is either of the commission of sin, or of the guilt of sin (guilt not taken for the commission of sin, but for the obligation unto punishment for sin committed) sin is imputed to Christ in the later sense, not in the former.  
Distinct. 4 Distinguish between such a measure of punishment and the particulars whereby that measure is made up. 
Parker de Desc. lib. 3. n. 55.  Such a measure is necessary; but that this measure should be made up by suffering these or those particulars, is arbitrary.  
Distin. 5 Distinguish between a Local hell and a Penal hell; 
Bonavent. li. 3. in Sent. didst 22. q. 4. Rivet. Cathol. Orthod. Tom 1. Tract. 2. qu. 60. Willet. Synops. Cent. 5. gen. contr. 20. p. 5. q. 3.  Christ suffered a Penal hell, but not a Local; he descended into hell Virtually, not Locally; that is, He suffered the pains of hell due unto the Elect, who for their sin deserved to be damned.  
Arg. 1 Either Christ suffered the justice of God in stead of the Elect, denounced against sin, Gen. 2.17. or God might dispense with the execution thereof without violation of his justice: But God could not dispense with the execution thereof without the violation of his justice. What was sometimes spoken of the Law of the Medes and Persians, holds true at all times concerning the Law of God, that it altereth not; for the confirmation of this truth Christ solemnly engageth his truth, Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no ways pass from the Law till all be fulfilled, Matth. 5.18. This sentence was universal given to Adam as a public person, and holds all his posterity, whether elect or reprobate in case of sin, guilty of death. Hereby the omnipotent hath so limited himself, as that now he cannot do that which else he could do, in respect of his absolute power. The command being given out for Lot's preservation, God could not destroy Sodom till Lot was secured, Gen. 19.22. for the Decree being passed, and the word gone out of his mouth, God cannot deny himself; Hence in the case of execution of justice, 'tis not only a truth, that God spared not the Angels, 1 Pet. 2.4. nor the old world, vers. 5. but it is also a truth that he spared not his Son, Rom. 8.28. Unto this purpose Piscator well interprets those words of our Saviour [If it be possible, etc.] Matth. 26.39. 
Confer. Piscat. Analys. & Observe. in Matth. 26. Davenant in Col. 1.20. p. 105.  That is, saith he, If in respect of the righteous will of God the father there could be any other way found to save the Elect, without Christ's suffering of the wrath of God for their sin, he prayeth that then the cup might pass from him, but because that could not be, he submits his will to his Father's will, the sum whereof is, God showeth by the example of his Son, that he having constituted his Law, the rule of relative justice, between him and man; the dispensation, with the exemption from punishment in case of sin was impossible.  
Arg. 2 Either Christ suffered the wrath of God, i. e. the punishment due to the sins of the Elect, or else God is untrue in that Commination, he that sins shall die, because the Elect themselves do not suffer it: But God is true. The strength of Israel will not lie, 1 Sam. 15.29. God cannot lie, Titus 1.1.  
Arg. 3 He that was the Surety of the Elect, was bound to pay their debt, and consequently to satisfy the Law for them: 
Polon. ●ynt lib. 6. c. 36.  But Christ was the Surety of the Elect, Heb. 7.22. By so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better Covenant. Neither is the Argument at all infringed, by saying he is our Surety in regard of the Covenant of grace here called a better Covenant, but not in respect of the Covenant of works; for besides that the word better is not to be referred unto either Covenant itself, but to the manner of the dispensation of the Covenant of grace under the Gospel: we are to know that the Covenant of grace itself obligeth us to fulfil the Covenant of works in our Surety. Faith establisheth the Law, Rom. 3.31. We cannot fulfil the Covenant of works, or the righteousness of the Law in our Surety by believing, if it were not a truth that he fulfilled the Covenant of works for us.  
Arg. 4 Either Christ suffered the punishment due to the Elect for sin, or the Law remaineth for ever unsatisfied: for it is as true as salvation itself, that the Elect satisfy it not in themselves.  
Arg. 5 If the Gospel save without satisfaction given to the Law, than the Law is made void by the Gospel, and the Law and the promises are contrary: But neither of these are so, Rom. 3.31. Gal. 3.21. Therefore.  
Arg. 6 If Christ suffered not the punishment due to the Elect, than the Elect must suffer it in their own persons; man hath sinned, therefore man must die, Therefore in his own person, if not in his Surety.  
Arg. 7 If Christ did not suffer the wrath of God, a punishment due unto the Elect for sin, than there can be no justification of a sinner, without Christ's suffering of the punishment due to sin, i.e. his passive obedience, there can be no remission of sin without obedience, there is no reason to acknowledge his active obedience (whence we are accepted as righteous) this being in vain without that: if there be neither passive obedience nor active, then there is no remission of sins, nor acceptation as righteous, and consequently no justification.  
Arg. 8 If justifying faith establish the Law, than Christ the object of faith hath established, that is, fulfilled the Law, for otherwise the Law cannot be established by faith: But justifying faith establisheth, Rom. 3.31. Do we then make void the Law through faith God forbidden: yea we establish the Law.  

Willet. Synops. Cent. 5 gen. contr. 20.  Christ suffering the essential punishment of the curse, i.e. the wrath of God, containeth nothing derogatory from the worth of his person, nor prejudicial unto Redemption.  
The denial then of Christ to have satisfied the wrath of God, in that it renders the Mediatorship of Christ insufficient, takes away the being of the Justification of a sinner, and leaves the elect to suffer the wrath of God in their own persons, which who can exempt (to use Peter's words) from the charge of a damnable heresy? and if so, in that it so denies Christ to have suffered the wrath of God as therewithal it not only exceedingly diminisheth the love of God and the love of Christ; but also imputes injustice and untruth unto God, leaves the Law for ever unsatisfied, made void by the Gospel, and not established by faith: one and the last of which Paul looketh at as abomination, Rom. 3.31. I see not how it can be pronounced less than both an abominable and damnable heresy.  
These premised, come we now to the Dialogue itself, beginning with its beginning, viz. the stating of the Controversy.   

CHAP. II. The stating of the controversy.  
Dialogu I Hold that Jesus Christ our Mediator did pay the full price of our Redemption to his father by the merit of his mediatorial obedience, which according to God's determinate counsel, was tried through sufferings, inflicted upon his body as upon a Malefactor, by Satan and his Instruments.  
Answ. Neither the merit of Christ without his mediatorly obedience, nor his mediatorly obedience without his merit, but both conjoined are the meritorious price: whence according to the language of the Orthodox the mediatorly obedience of Christ is the meritorious price of our redemption; but this manner of speech the Dialogue declines, choosing rather to express itself by affected if not ambiguous terms, viz. [Christ paid the price of our redemption by the merit of his mediatorial obedience] the meaning of which Sibboleth we shall soon see.  
The Question between the Orthodox and the Dialogue is not whether the Mediatorly obedience of Christ be a meritorious price of redemption, but whether the Mediatorial obedience of Christ in the Dialogue be the Mediatorly obedience of Christ; So that hitherto you do but beg not state the Question, or rather boast of a question begged, than state a Question to be disputed. That part of the Controversy which concerns Mediatorly obedience shall be truly stated in its due place.  
It is very true that the Mediatorly obedience of Christ is the meritorious and full price of redemption, but most untrue in the sense of your Mediatorial obedience for you leave out and reject from thence Christ's obedience to the Law of works as God-man, his judicial bearing of sin, his suffering the punishment due for sin, in way of satisfaction to divine justice, 
Sustinent quidem, sed non ita ut usquam satisfaciant justitiae Dei Ursin. Ex. plic. Catech. par. 2. q. 17  and all this as the Surety of the elect, without which the Mediatorly obedience of Christ is insufficient and uneffectuall, for we cannot bear sin nor endure the punishment of sin so as to satisfy the justice of God, nor can we perform legal obedience, yet all these must be suffered, Gen. 2.17. overcome, 1 Cor. 15.17. and done Leu. 18.5. otherwise no salvation, Gal. 3.10. otherwise sin still reigns, the curse hath dominion, and justice remaineth in its full force to the execution of eternal death.  
The Mediatorly obedience of Christ being by your leaving out these essential parts thereof made unsufficient, there can be no mediatorly sacrifice, satisfaction, price, or any merit therein or therefrom.  
The trial of Christ's Mediatorly obedience lay in the greatness of those sufferings, which as Mediator he was to undergo, and was so much greater in respect of God, than it was in respect of Satan and his instruments; as the sufferings of the soul exceed the sufferings of the body; the just charge of all the sins of the elect, the unjust charges of men; and as the righteous wrath of God exceeded the unrighteous wrath of Satan and his agents.  
Dialogu. I put as much worth and efficacy in Christ's Mediatorial obedience so tried, as they do that plead most for our redemption by his suffering Gods wrath for us.  
Answ. If you did not say so, your Reader might well dread harkening to such a mediatorial obedience which the Teacher thereof durst not profess to be saving.  
Though you do say so, yet if you say not the truth, your so saying makes your doctrine never the more safe, but so much the more perilous as by such specious pretences it is rendered more apt to be received. Aaron's Calf was never the less an Idol notwithstanding those glorious words spoken of it, these are thy Gods that brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt, Exo. 32.8. the fictitious Mediatorial obedience of the Dialogue is no whit altered from itself, howsoever guilded over with the falsely arrogated attributes of the obedience of Christ.  
Dialogu. They place the price of our Redemption in his suffering Gods wrath for us in the full weight and measure, as it is due to our sins by the Curse of the Law: I place the price of our redemption in the merit of his Mediatorial obedience, whereof his mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement was the Masterpiece.  
Answ. We place it not only in Christ's sufferings, but both in Christ's sufferings and Gods acceptation; the worth of a thing and the price are to be distinguished; 
Vid. Cham l. 9 p. 121. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 

Materialiter.  
Formaliter.   Rhetorf.  the full worth may be tendered by the buyer, but the worth is not a price without the acceptation of the seller. Ahab offers the worth of the vineyard, 1 Kin. 21.21. but it was not a price without Naboths consent: though the obedience of Christ being the obedience of God-man, was of infinite virtue in itself, yet it could not have obliged God to the acceptation thereof, nor make him a debtor thereunto without his consent.  
What to judge of your mediatorial obedience we saw before, which being null, its merit, price and sacrifice must needs perish with it.  
Dialogu. I agree with others in this, that divine wrath is fully satisfied for the sins of the Elect, by the merit of Christ's. mediatorial obedience; I differ from others in this, namely, in the manner of his satisfaction, I say, that Christ did not suffer God's wrath for our sins, by suffering the extremity of his wrath, neither did he suffer the torments of hell neither in his body, nor in his soul nor any degree of God's wrath at all.  
Answ. No, no; you agree not with us in this, that divine wrath is fully satisfied; but deal therein like Epicurus, who in his disputation concerning the Gods, abused the hearers with yielding that verbally which he took away really; so while you yield verbally that divine wrath is fully satisfied, you steal away the truth from the less wary Reader really; for in the very next line but one, you say, Christ did not satisfy God's wrath for our sins by suffering so much as any degree of God's wrath at all.  
And though you would seem to qualify and hid your vast and sad difference from us, saying, you differ from us in respect of the manner, yet you cannot but know full well that you differ from us not only in the manner, but also in the matter of Christ's satisfaction. Whilst you deny and oppose what you know we affirm and defend, namely, Christ's suffering of the wrath of God, and that in way of satisfaction to divine justice. For the confirmation whereof, give me leave upon this occasion to insert an argument, otherwise somewhat out of its place.  
Such meritorious, mediatorly obedience as indebted to God in point of justice to remit the just punishment of sin without any violation of justice, nay, with the establishment of justice, must needs be done in such a way of satisfaction unto justice, as includes also a suffering of justice. But the meritorious mediatorly obedience of Christ is such meritorious mediatorly obedience, whereby God is indebted in point of justice to remit the just punishment of sin: If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins; 1 Joh. 1.9. without any violation of justice, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, Rom. 3.36. yea, with the establishing of justice; Do we then make void the Law by faith? God forbidden: Yea, we establish the Law, ver. 31.  
Therefore the meritorious mediatorly obedience of Christ was performed in such a way of satisfaction unto justice, as included also a suffering of justice. You disagree with the truth and us, and scarcely agree with yourself.  
Dialogu Secondly, Though I say that Christ did not suffer his Father's wrath neither in whole nor in part, yet I affirm that he suffered all things that his Father did appoint him to suffer, in all circumstances, just according to the prediction of all the Prophets, even to the nodding of the head, and the spitting of the face, as these Scriptures do testify.  
1. Peter told the Jews that they had killed the Prince of Life, as God before had showed by the mouth of all the Prophets, that Christ should suffer, and he fulfiled it so. Act. 3.17, 18.  
2. Christ did expressly by his Disciples tell, that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things of the Elders and chief Priests and Scribes, and be killed and raised again the third day, Mat. 16.21.  
3. After his resurrection he said to the two Disciples, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory? Luk. 24.25, 26. and in ver. 44.46. he said thus to all his Disciples; These are the words which I speak unto you, that all things must be fulfiled which are written in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me, thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day.  
4. Paul told the men of Antioch, that the Rulers of the jews condemned him because they knew not the voices of the Prophets concerning him, and therefore though they found no cause of death in him, yet they desired Pilate that he should be slain, and when they had fulfiled all things that were written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre, Act. 13.27, 28, 29. mark this phrase, They fulfilled all things that were written of him; if they fulfilled all his sufferings, than it was not God's wrath but man's wrath that he suffered.  
5. The Lord told Adam not only that the promised seed should break the devil's headplot, but also that the devil should crucify him and pierce him in the foot-sole, Gen. 3.15. the devil did it by his instruments, the Scribes and Pharisees by Pilate and the Roman soldiers.  
Answ. He that saith, Though Christ did not suffer his Father's wrath in whole, nor in part, yet he suffered all things that his Father appointed him to suffer, saith, that his Father did not appoint him to suffer his wrath either in whole or in part: That you say thus cannot be denied, but with what reason you so say, let the Reader judge by what follows. None of the Scriptures alleged by you confirm, though some of them alleged by you, deny what you affirm.  
Christ showeth that he must suffer many things by the Elders, chief Priests, and Scribes, Matth. 16.21. true, yet he doth not there show that he must not suffer the wrath of God. God fulfiled those things which he had before showed by the mouth of all his Prophets, that Christ should suffer, Act. 3.18. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  according to this sense the Greek Text is to be read, and not as you seem to mistake it; this may include, but certainly excludes not the suffering of the wrath of God, Luke 24.25, 26. concludes that Christ was to suffer: the word All ver. 26. includes the suffering of divine justice: the word All Act. 13.27, 28, 29. is to be taken in a limited sense, for all things that were written of him to be fulfiled by the Romans, and the Jews, as the instruments thereof; not absolutely for all things whatsoever he was to suffer from any.  
They fulfiled all things that he was to suffer from them, true, but it doth not therefore follow that they fulfilled all things he was to suffer: The meaning of those words, Thou shalt bruise his heel, Gen. 3.15. is, that Christ chief, and with him believers that live godlily; both which are the seed of Eve, shall suffer affliction and persecution by Satan and his malignant agents, which are the seed of the Serpent.  
Notwithstanding what you have hitherto said touching the stating of the matter controverted, that the Reader who shall be pleased to cast his eye upon this poor paper may not be at a loss; but may with the more facility, clearness, and distinctness go along with us in the following discourse: he is desired here to take just and seasonable notice, that the whole controversy between you and us consisteth of four parts.  
1 Concerning Christ's suffering the wrath of God due to the elect for sin.  
2. Concerning Gods imputation of sin to Christ.  
3. Concerning the nature of Mediatorly obedience, or the meritorious price of redemption.  
4. Concerning the Justification of a sinner.  
The Dialogues method wherein (though in respect of the two first immethodical, for the second should have been first) the answer is constrained to observe; and accordingly to begin with the first, viz. Whether Christ suffered the wrath of God due to the Elect for their sins; we assert the Affirmative, you endeavour to prove the Negative; and that first by disproving the received interpretation of Certain Texts, alleged by the Orthodox for the proof of the Affirmative, which we are now (Christ assisting) to consider with you.   

CHAP. III. The Vindication of Gen. 2.17.  Gen. 2.17. In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the death. 
Dialogu. YOu say that the term Thou is thou in thine own person, and thou in thy posterity; thus far I approve of your exposition: but whereas you extend the term Thou unto the Redeemer, this last clause I dislike: for the death and curse here threatened cannot extend itself unto the Redeemer in the manner of his ing out our redemption.  
Answ. For the better understanding this Text, the misunderstanding whereof seemeth not a little to have misled the Author, and the true understanding whereof may be of good use to preserve the Reader; Consider these three things.  

1. What is here intended by death.  
2. The distribution of death.  
3. The application of that distribution.   
The Death here spoken of is the wages of sin, Rom. 5.21. and 6.23. That is, all evil (the evil of Adam's sin excepted) in one word. As all lines unite in the centre, so all sorrows meet in that one term Death. The commination Thou shalt surely die, is not particular concerning some kind of Death, but indefinite, therefore equivalent to a universal comprehending all kinds of death; God inflicts no evil upon man but for sin, and all evil not only of affliction, but also of sin followeth upon Adam's sin; Original sin proceeding thence as an effect from the cause, and actual sin as an act from the habit: As all evil is inflicted for sin, so all evil in Scripture-language is called Death. The evil of affliction Exo. 10.17. Of bodily Death, Gen. 3.15. Rom. 8.10. Gen. 26.10. Exo. 21.16. Of spiritual death, i.e. the death of the soul in sin, 1 Tim. 5.6. 1 Joh. 3.14. Of eternal death, Joh. 8.51. Ezek. 33.8.  

Concerning the Distribution of Death.  

Punishment is taken in a large or strict sense, If taken largely, the castigations of the elect are punishments but not so, if taken strictly. Poena est castigatio aeterna, vel vindicta poena correctionis vel maledictionis Oecolampad. in Ezek. 22. Castigatio electorum est poena latè sumptâ voce poenae eadem non est poena, strictè sumptā voce poenae. Polan. l. 6. c. 4. The sufferings of the Elect are not vindicatively-paenall in a strict sense, i.e. they are not inflicted by God upon them in a way of satisfaction to justice.  Death is either Death 

In sin 

Separation of the Image of God from the soul, and the 

Castigatory or correctively-poenall and temporary in the Elect.  
Properly poenall, viz. Vindicatively, or strictly-poenal, i.e. in way of satisfaction to divine justice.    
Presence of sin.    
For sin 

Separation of the soul from the body 

Temporal and castigatory in the Elect.  
Temporal and properly-poenal in Christ.  
Temporal and properly penal in the Reprobate.    
Separation from the sense of the good things in the promise, 

Partial, temporary, and castigatory in the Elect.  
Total, temporal, and properly-poenall in Christ.  
Total, perpetual, and properly-poenall in the Reprobate.    
Presence of the evil things in the Commination.  
Separation of the whole person, soul and body from God. 

Totall, eternal, and properly penal in the Reprobate.         
The castigatory or correctively poenall part of death only was executed upon the elect, the essential properly poenall part upon Christ: both the essential and circumstantial properly-poenall parts of death upon the Reprobate.  
The castigatory but not poenall, i. e. strictly-poenall part was and is executed upon the elect, 
Post remissam culpam adhuc tam multa patimur, & tandem etiam morimur, ad demonstrationem debitae miseriae, vel ad emendationem labilis vitae, vel ad exercitationem necessariae patieutiae. August. tractat. 124. in Joannem.  for though Christ freed his from the punishment of sin; yet not from the castigation or correction for sin, thereby leaving a testimony against sin, a remedy for sin, a place for conformity unto their head.  
The whole essential properly-poenall death of the curse, that is, the whole essential punishment thereof was executed upon Christ.  
The whole properly-poenal death of the curse is executed upon the reprobate both in respect of the essential and accidental parts thereof.  
Adam then standing as a public person containing all mankind (and which is more: so standing as that the first Adam a public person contaiing all mankind disobeying, was a figure of Christ the second Adam a public person containing all the Elect obeying; so Paul expressly, who is the figure of him that was to come, Rom. 5.14.) the meaning of these words, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die, is this: If man sin man shall die, either in his own person as the Reprobate, or in the person of the man Christ Jesus their surery, as the elect, according to the distribution above: so is the Text a full and universal truth, Man sins, and man dies.  
Touching the Reprobate there is no controversy: Concerning the Elect thus, Either Christ suffereth the poenall Death of the curse due to the Elect for sin, or the Elect suffer it themselves, or the curse is not executed; but the Elect suffer it not themselves, neither is the curse not executed; for then the truth of the Commination, and Divine justice should fail. Therefore Christ suffered the poenall Death of the curse due to the Elect for sin.  
Briefly, this Text Gen. 2.17. is God's judicial denunciation of the punishment of sin, with a reservation of his purpose concerning the execution of the execution of it. The punishment is denounced to show divine detestation of sin, to deter man from sin, to leave man the more inexcusable in sin: his purpose concerning the execution is reserved, that the mystery of the Gospel might not be opened before its time. This for the clearing of the Text.  
Since you dislike the last member of the disjunction you do ill to approve the former, for thence it followeth, Either that God is not true, or else that Adam with his Elect posterity must perish: for they sinned, yet by your exposition neither die in themselves nor in their surety, notwithstanding the Divine Commination; and so either you take truth from God, or salvation from the elect (which also denieth the truth of God in the promise) in your very entrance.  
But why cannot the curse here threatened be extended unto the Redeemer?  
Dialogu. This Text doth not comprehend Jesus Christ within the compass of it, for this Text is a part of the Covenant only that God made with Adam and his posterity, respecting the happiness they had by Creation.  
Answ. Though Christ do not fall within the compass of the Covenant of works, it doth not thence follow that he is excluded the compass of the Text. Damnation is no part of the Gospel, yet it is a part of the verse wherein the Gospel is revealed; He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.  
Adam in his eating intended and prohibited in this verse, was a figure of Christ to come, Rom. 5.14. 
Vel potiu● ex ipso eventu & Evangelij patefactione hunc typum Apostolu● nos vult intelligere. Pareus in loc. Sequitur illam comminationem (quo die comederis morieris) ex intention divinam non fuisse purè legalem, etc. Vide Rhetorf. exercit. pro div. gratia ex. 2. c. 2.  'Tis certain then (though Adam during the first Covenant perceived it not) yet that Christ was couched and comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God, during the first Covenant. 'Tis very probable that the Tree of Life Gen. 2.9. was a Figure of Christ, who is called and indeed is the Tree of life, Rev. 22.2. If Christ be not within the compass of the Text, the Text is not true.  
Dialogu. Death here threatened concerns Adam and his fallen posterity only, therefore Christ cannot be included within this Death.  
Answ. This is nakedly affirmed, your reason annexed being impertinent, and the contrary to your assertion is already proved.  
Dialogu. God laid down this rule of Justice to Adam in the time of innocency, Why should the Mediator be comprehended under the term Thou?  
Answ. Because God so pleased. Because elect sinners, not dying in their own persons must die in their surety, else the Text should not be a truth. 
Unde admirabilis Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cognoscitur qui in morbo remedium, in morte vitam, in perditore ●ervatorem adumbratum voluit. Paraeus in locum.  He that compareth Rom. 5.14. with Gen. 2.17. hath an unspeakable ground of consolation, whilst he reads God's purpose to redeem us in our first fathers sinning, and we in him. From hence Paul gathers an argument to conclude that all Adam's posterity descended from him by way of ordinary generation to be guilty of Adam's sin. Whilst you acknowledge that in Gen. 2.17. God laid down a rule of justice to Adam, you must needs imply the surety of the elect to have satisfied that rule of justice, and consequently to have suffered the wrath of God, and in conclusion you tacitly contradict yourself, and act our cause.  
Dialogu. The nature of death intended in this Text is such as it was altogether impossible the Mediator should suffer it.  
Answ. The distinction premised concerning death in sin, and death for sin, is here to be applied; and accordingly the castigatory part of death in sin was intended to the sinner, not to the surety.  
The essential part of death for sin was intended to the surety not to the elect sinner. The essential and circumstantial poenall part of death in sin and death for sin, was intended for the Reprobate.  
The Text must needs proceed according to this interpretation in respect of the elect. There i● as good and greater reason why it should so proceed in respect of Christ, it being much more impossible that he should suffer death in sin, that is, become a sinner, then that the elect sinners should suffer poenall i e. properly-poenall death for sin: that is, be damned, though both be impossible.  
Dialogu. The death here threatened must be understood primarily of a spiritual death or death in sin.  
Answ. All that you say concerning spiritual death befalling Adam in the day that he sinned, and therefore primarily inflicted, is vain and impertinent; for that denyeth not the inflicting of eternal death to be intended afterward, nay, it rather argueth eternal death to be primarily intended, because not executed; according to that Proposition, That which is first in intention is last in execution.  
That which is of the essence or substance of the punishment of sin, is primarily in the curse, and therefore primarily to be understood; but death for sin, not death in sin is of the essence of the punishment of sin, as we saw in the first Distinction, Chapter the first.  
Instead of proving your assertion, viz. That it was impossible for Christ to suffer any of the cursed death, intended Gen. 2.17. your arguing only proves another thing, viz. that the death here primarily intended was spiritual death, i. e. death in sin, which Christ could not suffer, and so you lose your Question.  
Though it be granted that death in sin be here understood primarily; yet if death for sin be understood secondarily, than this argument concludes not against Christ's suffering any death intended, but only against his suffering the death primarily intended in the text.  
Though death in sin compared with eternal death be primarily intended in regard of Adam's reprobate posterity; yet it cannot be said it was primarily intended in respect of Adam himself (if you will yield him to be saved) and his elect posterity; because that would imply eternal death to be secondarily intended, which was never at all intended as concerning them. Howsoever, certain it is, that death for sin as concerning the essential poenall part thereof, is solely intended concerning Christ; and death in sin, not at all.  
Dialogu. Calvin in Gen. 2.17. demandeth what kind of death it was, that God threatened to fall upon Adam in this Text; he answereth to this purpose, It seemeth to me (saith he) that we must fetch the definition thereof from the contrary: Consider (saith he) from what life Adam fell, at the first (saith he) he was created in every part of his body and soul with pure qualities after the image of God, therefore on the contrary (saith he) by dying the death is meant, that he should be emptied of all the image of God, and possessed with corrupt qualities as soon as ever he did but eat of the forbidden fruit.  
Answ. It is a vain question (saith Calvin) upon the place, how God threatened death unto Adam, in the day wherein he touched the fruit, since he deferred the punishment unto a long time afterward.  
Your labour to confirm Adam's falling into death in sin the same day that he sinned, is altogether impertinent: the Question being, Whether ●uch poenall death for sin is not here intended, as it was possible for Christ to suffer? 
Mihi definitio petenda ex opposito videtur: tenendum inquam est ex quâ vitâ homo ceciderit; erat enim omni ex parte beatus. Calvin in loc.  That poenall death for sin is here intended, Calvin proveth (though you omit his proof) by the nature of opposites, thus: The death that he fell into was opposite to the good he fell from. But the good he fell from was all kind of blessedness. Therefore the death he fell into comprehended all kinds of misery. This is the scope of his argumentation, your mistake thereof, though it is easily pardoned; yet your other defect in the citation, the Reader that compareth Calvin and the Dialogue together can hardly excuse.  
Dialogu. If there be good and necessary reason (as there is) to exempt our Mediator from suffering the first cursed spiritual death, than there is good reason also to exempt him from suffering any other curse of the Law whatsoever.  
Answ. The sum is, Christ could not sin, Therefore he could not suffer the punishment due to the elect for sin as a surety; a most reasonless and sick consequence, and the contrary true; He could not as Mediator and Surety have suffered satisfactorily the punishment for sin, if he had not been without sin.  
Though Christ was not a sinner inherently, yet he was a sinner imputatively, whereupon the substantial curse of the Law was justly executed upon him.  
Dialogu. Examine the particulars of any other curse of the Law, and they will be found to be such as Christ could not suffer. Diseases, natural death, putrefaction of body after death, eternal death, are curses of the Law; Christ did not bear diseases and bodily infirmities, yet by the common doctrine of imputation you must affirm it: nor suffer natural death in our stead, nor see corruption, nor suffer eternal death, therefore he did not suffer the cursed death meant Gen. 2.17.  
Answ. We are to distinguish between the sufferings which are of the essence or substance of the curse, and those the inflicting whereof in particular is not of the essence of the curse. Bodily diseases, Putrefaction, the duration of punishment for ever, are not essential to the curse; because the wrath of God may be suffered where these are not: The Devils are not sick, the reprobate that shall not die but be changed (therefore not see corruption) yet shall suffer the wrath of God. No reprobates endure all miseries formally and individually, yet all suffer the wrath of God. Eternal death is an evil, not in kind but in value: not formally but virtually: As the enjoyment of blessedness doth not presuppose all temporal good things enjoyed in kind, so neither doth the suffering of the wrath of God suppose the suffering of all temporal evils in kind.  
Duration of punishment for ever is not of the substance of punishment, but is an adjunct following upon the inability of the Patient to satisfy justice; as continuance in prison is no part of the debt, but the consequent of the debtor's inability to pay the debt; the punishment of the damned continueth for ever, because they can never satisfy divine justice; The punishment of Christ endured but a time, because he satisfied justice: The sufferings of Christ were eternal in value, though temporal in duration; 
Mors aeterna duratione & pondere. Paraeus in Rom. 3. Willet. Synops. cen. 5. gen. count. 28. par. 4. qu. 3.  had they been eternal in duration, he had been overcome by the curse; had they not been eternal in value, he had not overcome the curse.  
Christ suffered death as inflicted upon him by the justice of the curse, Gal. 3.13. 1 Pet. 2.24. hanging on the tree was a type, therefore a divine testimony of a cursed death: The curse notes the execution of justice, and that executed upon sin in our stead, Rom. 5.25. Who was delivered for our offences.  
The bodily death of Christ alone did not redeem our bodies, nor the spiritual death of Christ alone redeem our souls, but the whole suffering of that person who was God; In respect of his humane nature both body and soul from the instant of his incarnation to the instant of his death redeemed our whole persons, both bodies and souls. Those places of Scripture, which attribute our redemption unto his blood, are to be understood synechdochically, mentioning a more visible part of his sufferings for the whole.  
Dialogu. My reasons why Christ could not suffer eternal death for our redemption therefrom, are first, Then he must have suffered all other curses of the Law to redeem us from them, but I have showed that utterly impossible immediately before. 2. Then he did descend locally into hell itself to suffer it there: for no man can suffer death eternal in this life: no man can suffer the second death till after this Life is ended.  
Answ. Your first reason is in effect satisfied in the foregoing answer, where we saw that Christ suffered the eternal wrath of God, and consequently eternal death in value, equivalent unto, yea, exceeding of eternal death in kind: it doth not follow that he must suffer all the other curses of the Law in kind; but the contrary followeth, he hath satisfied the debt, therefore there can be no more required.  
Sufferings for sin (as we have divers times said before) are such as are poenall essentially, viz. in respect of the punishment considered in itself, namely, the privation of the present fruition of the good of the promise, and inflicting of the sinless misery of the curse: or consequentially, viz. not in respect of the punishment itself, but in respect of the condition of the Patient, such are called detestable consequents, namely sins, imperfections, etc. And evils that are proper to the reprobate. 3. Innumerable common sorrows of this life. 4. The duration of the punishment for ever.  
As the eternal virtue of Christ's sufferings redeemed us from the eternity of suffering formally, so Christ in suffering the wrath of God formally, suffered virtually whatsoever was due to the Elect for their sin, and so by suffering redeemed us from all the properly-poenall curses of the Law whatsoever.  
'Tis true, Heb. 2.17. and 4.15. 
Omnis poena damnatorum his duobus continetur generibus, ut aliae pertineant ad corpus, aliae ad animam. Cham. 1.2. l. 5. c. 19 s. 14.  in all points he was like unto us, sin only excepted; in [All] generically, not individually; that is in [All] in respect of the general kinds of temptation, namely both bodily and spiritually, but not in [All] in respect of each particular passion and malady.  
As concerning your second Reason. The place of punishment is not of the essence of punishment. Malefactor's may and oft do suffer out of the ordinary place of execution. The devil always suffers hellish pains in some degree, yet is many times out of the place of hell. Souls in this life feel the wrath of God in some degree; 'tis not impossible then in respect of the thing itself, but that it may be felt in its full degree. Christ felt the joys of heaven out of heaven in his transfiguration and after his Resurrection; so he both might and did feel the pains of hell out of hell: There is a poenall hell and a local hell; a poenall hell may be where there is not a local hell.  
'Tis from the free dispensation of God, not from the nature of the things themselves, that the full measure of the wrath of God is not ordinarily executed in this life. As Enoch and Eliah entered into the joys of heaven without death. So (if God please) may a person enter into the pains of hell without death: The Reprobate alive at the last day shall not die, and yet shall suffer the pains of eternal death.  
The distinction of the first and second Death in respect of the order of the execution holds only concerning the Reprobate; Christ suffered the essential poenall wrath of God, which answers the suffering of the second death due to the elect for their sin, before he suffered his natural death.  
Dialogu. If Christ bore Adam's sin by God's imputation, and his curse really, than you make Christ to be dead in sin.  
Answ. We distinguish between the imputation of the Commission of sin, and the imputation of the guilt, i.e. the obligation of the punishment.  
God imputed not unto Christ the guilt of Commission of sin, but the guilt of obligation unto punishment for sin committed; and because so, the contrary followeth from our doctrine, viz. that Christ is not dead in sin,  
As it is not the inherent righteousness of, or actual working of Righteousness by Christ, 
Willet. Synops.  but the virtue, power, and efficacy which is imputed to the believer; so it is not the inherence or commission of sin, but the guilt and punishment of sin that is imputed to a Believer.  
Dialogu. Consider the true force of the Word Impute, in the natural signification thereof, and then I believe you will acknowledge that it cannot stand with the justice of God to impute our sins to our innocent Saviour; for to impute sin to any, is to account them for guilty sinners, and to impute the guilt of other men's sins to any, is to account them guilty of other men's sins by participation.  
Answ. To impute in Court-language is judicially to reckon unto a person either that which is his properly, and not only as a Legal Surety; so sin is imputed to the offender, Leu. 17.4. Or that which is not his properly, but as a legal Surety only; So Philemon may put Onesimus his debt on Paul, ver. 18. or that which though it be not his properly, yet is his in a way of grace; So the word Impute is used ten times, Rom. 4.  
Distinguish between the nature of sin, and the guilt of sin, and there will be no cause to say with Socinus, that it is against justice to impute sin (understanding thereby the guilt of sin) unto an innocent person, especially upon these considerations.  
1. If the innocent be of the same nature with the nocent. 
Ursin. Paraeus in Rom. 5. Dub. 5.   
2. If he voluntarily undertake the penal satisfaction of the debt.  
3. If he can satisfy the punishment.  
4. If he can thereby free others from the punishment which they cannot undergo.  
5. If in this satisfaction he looks at the glory of God and the good of man. It is therefore not only a perilous untruth, but a high blasphemy to say, and that without any distinction; should God impute our sin to our innocent Saviour, he should be as unjust as the Jews were.  
The mere imputation of the guilt of sin, doth no more infer a participation with the commission of sin, than the imputation of the righteousness of Christ inferreth a participation in the working thereof.  
Dialogu. If our Mediator had stood as a guilty sinner before God by his imputing of our sins to him, Then he could not have been a fit person in Gods esteem to do the office of a Mediator for our Redemption.  
Answ. As it was requisite that Christ should be without sin, i. e. without the commission of sin, Heb. 7.26. So it was requisite that Christ should be made fin, i. e. that the guilt of sin should be legally imputed to him, 2 Cor. 5.21. both were necessary to make him a meet Mediator.  
You err, not distinguishing according to the Scripture.  
Dialogu. The common doctrine of imputation, is I know not what kind of imputation; it is such a strange kind of imputation, it differs from all the several sorts of imputing sin to any that ever I can meet withal in all the Scriptures.  
Answ. It is a judicial imputation of that unto a person, which is not his properly, but made his by way of voluntary, and both Legal and Evangelicall account.  
If you know not what kind of Imputation it is, the being of things depends not upon man's knowledge, much less upon his ignorance, but upon the will of God: notwithstanding the term of imputation in this sense were not in the Scripture, yet the thing intended by it is: The terms of essence, trinity, satisfaction, merit, etc. are not in the Scripture expressly, yet are they acknowledged generally to be contained in the Scripture by just consequence; because the things contained by those terms are found therein expressly: The very term Impute taken for judicial imputation of that unto a person, which is not his properly; yet reckoned to be his in a way of grace, is (as was said before) ten times used Rom. 4.  
Your other Reasons for what you assert, which you promise immediately before, we shall expect in their place.   

CHAP. IU. The Vindication of Isa. 53.4, 5.  Isa. 53.4. Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows. 
Dialogu. HE saith not only (saith M. Jacob) that he sustained sorrows, but [our] sorrows: yea, the Text hath it more significatively [our very] sorrows, or our sorrows themselves, that is to say, those sorrows that else we should have born.  
Answ. This Exposition of M Jacob understood according to that distinction premised, Chap. 1. 
M. Jacob on Christ's Sufferings. p 33.  is both solid and acute, and that this Learned Author is so to be interpreted, his own words sufficiently argue.  
Dialogu. The Evangelist Matthew hath expounded this text in a quite contrary sense, Mat. 8.17. saying, that this Text was fulfiled when Christ did bear our infirmities and sicknesses from the sick, not as a Porter bears a burden by laying them on his own body, but bearthem away by his own power.  
Answ. That the Prophet in this Text by griefs and sorrows intends sufferings due to us for sin, is plain from the scope of the Chapter, and the comparing of the 4. and 5. verses with 1 Pet. 2.24. that by bearing those griefs and sorrows, he intends Christ's bearing them in our stead, appears for 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12. of this chapter, as also from the collation of the two Hebrew words used in this very place; for though Nasa, he hath born, be of more general use, signifying sometimes to bear as a Porter beareth a burden, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and sometimes otherwise; yet Sabal he hath carried, signifying properly to bear as one beareth a burden, restraineth the sense of the former word, and limits it to the received interpretation.  
This Text therefore in Isaiah may either be understood as a compound Proposition, containing these two truths,  
1. That Christ should bear our spiritual griefs and sorrows for us.  
2. That he should heal bodily diseases as a type and figure of his bearing our spiritual griefs and sorrows. 
Piscat. in Mat. 8.17. Veritas magis quid quam figura habere debet, sicut dicitur plus hic est quam Ionas. Park. l. 3. de Desc. n. 63. Dialogu.  So the word [fullfilled] in Matthew is true properly of the type or specimen, and symbolicaly or typically of the thing signified: or the word [fullfilled] in Matthew is taken figuratively, i. e. metonymically, viz. the sign, namely, healing bodily diseases, put for the thing signified, namely, a healing-bearing of spiritual diseases.  
That of your coherence which concerns the question, is already answered, the rest is either impertinent or uncontroverted.  
Isa. 53.5. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.  
These words I confess do plainly prove that Christ did bear divers wounds, bruises, and stripes for our peace and healing: but yet the Text doth not say that he bore these wounds, bruises, and stripes of God's wrath for our sins.  
1. It was Satan by his instruments that wounded and bruised Christ, according to God's prediction, Gen. 3.15.  
2. Christ bore these wounds bruises and stripes in his body only, not in his soul; for his soul was not capable of bearing wounds, Satan could not wound his soul: the Jews fulfiled all his sufferings, Act. 13.27, 29. Peter expounds the Text of his bodily sufferings only, 1 Pet. 2.24. If Peter's phrase, He bore our sins in his body on the Tree, had meant any thing of his bearing Gods wrath for our sins, the case of his sufferings had not been a fit example to exhort to patience, his appeal to God had ●ot been suitable. 3. The end was a trial of his mediatorial obedience and our peace.  
Answ. Satan by his instruments did wound and bruise him; true; but not only Satan by his instruments, Satan and his instruments were all instruments herein: In those effects wherein Satan and men are instruments; God is the first and universal efficient, not a mere counsellor, fore-speaker, and permitter. The efficiency of the second cause is the effect of the first cause: Satan, the Sabeans and Chaldeans were subordinate causes and instruments of Jobs sufferings, yet he saith God hath taken away, Job 1.21. So Joseph Gen. 45.8. David Psa. 39 9 in cases much alike.  
Satan and men were Instruments in inflicting such a stroke, therefore it is no stroke of divine vindicative justice, is no good consequence: All evils inflicted upon the reprobate, whether corporal or spiritual, are strokes or acts of vindicative justice: So often then as Satan or men are instrumental in inflicting such evils, so often Satan and men are instrumental in strokes of vindicative justice, judicial punishment of sin with sin is an act of vindicative wrath; but of this parents are instrumental in the propagation of original sin to their Reprobate children. The spiritual distress of an excommunicate person that is a Reprobate, is an effect of vindicative wrath; But in such distresses Satan is instrumental, 1 Cor. 5.5. That delusion of which, 2 Thes. 2.9, 10, 11, 12. is an act of vindicative justice; But in working it, Satan and men are instrumental. Casting the wicked men into hell, is also an act of vindicative justice; in which Gods Angels are instruments, Matth. 13.42. Creatures than both good and bad may be instruments of Gods vindicative wrath inflicted both on body and soul. Yet we must distinguish between the wounds, bruises, and stripes inflicted upon Christ, and the sin in inflicting of them. Satan and his agents were the sole authors and actors of sin, yet as concerning the wounds, bruises, stripes themselves: though Satan and men were the subordinate instruments, yet God himself was the Author and principal efficient of them. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all, Isa. 53.6. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him, vers. 10.  
The sufferings of Christ included in this Text, are not only such wherein Satan and men were Instruments, but some of them were inflicted immediately of God, without any second means as instruments thereof.  
Not only the body but the soul also is capable of bearing wounds, bruises, and stripes: hence we read of a wounded spirit, Pro. 18.14. A wounded conscience, 1 Cor. 8.12. The broken and bruised in heart, Luke 4.18. The plague of the heart, 1 King. 8.38. The words proceeding from the very same Hebrew roots, with the very words used in this Text, are in the Scripture applied to the soul: My soul is wounded within me, Psa. 119.22. A broken and a contrite spirit, Psa. 51.17. Receive instruction or castigation and not silver, Pro. 8.10. which words proceed not only concerning corporeal, but also concerning spiritual chastening. Should the soul be supposed to be uncapable of wounds, bruises chastenings properly, yet experience shows it is capable of them metaphorically. Satan being a spirit may have access unto, and consequently both may and doth afflict the spirit, 1 Cor. 5.5. Eph. 6.12, 16. If Satan could not, God can. Christ suffered not only in body but in soul, Isa. 53.10. when thou shalt make his soul a sacrifice for sin: My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death, Mat. 26.38. Mar. 14.13. His great heaviness, sore amazement, agony, sweat as it were drops of blood, Mar. 14.33, 34. Luk. 2●. 44. cannot be looked at in a person that was God-man as less than the effects of soul-sorrows, hell-sorrows. Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, The soul is by judicious and learned Authors understood properly, 
Rivet.  Hell metaphorically, that is for pains equivalent to the pains of hell itself. 
Parker de Desc. l. 3. n. 62. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vir dolorum.  His sufferings are in the plural number called passions, not a single passion, 1 Pet. 4.13. Death's not a single death, Isa. 53 9 to show, as some conceive, his sufferings, both of soul and body. He was a man of sorrows, Isa. 53.3. The word [All] Act. 13.29. is to be taken in a limited sense (as you were told before) for all that he was to suffer by them there mentioned, not for all that he was to suffer.  
He bore our sins in his body, 1 Pet. 2.24. therefore our sins were imputed to him; he bore them in his body, but not only in his body: he hung upon the tree being made a curse, Gal. 3.13.  
The curse is not only bodily but spiritual: As we were delivered from our sin, so he bore our sin. But we were delivered not only from the bodily, but also from the spiritual punishment of sin. Therefore  
Most aptly from the example of Christ's suffering patiently the punishment of our sins he committed not, are we exhorted to suffer patiently our chastisement for the sins which we have committed.  
With good reason did he appeal in his sufferings unto the righteous Judge; because though he suffered justly in respect of God, yet he suffered most unjustly in respect of men.  
The demonstration of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ is truly acknowledged as a subordinate end of his sufferings, but the supreme end you leave out, namely, the manifestation of the glory of God's mercy tempered with justice; Mercy to the elect, justice unto Christ. To declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness [or justice] that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.  
Whilst you so often affirm the obedience of Christ to be meritorious, and yet all along deny it to be performed in a way of justice, you so oft affirm a contradiction: The very nature of merit including justice: for merit is a just desert, or a desert in way of justice, as Chap. 1.  
Dialogu I hold it necessary often to remember this distinction, namely, that Christ suffered both as a malefactor, and as a Mediator at one and the same time.  
Answ. Though the notions of a Mediator and a Malefactor are clearly distinct in themselves, yet your distinguishing between Christ dying as a Mediator and as a malefactor is unsound; because it implieth that in dying as a Mediator, he died not as a Malefactor, no not imputatively; whereas to be a malefactor imputatively was (for the times) a part of his Mediatorly office, and essential to the death of the Mediator.  
The Dialogue makes him a malefactor, in respect of men's false imputations only, but denies any imputation of sin unto him by God.  
Dialogu. He bore our sins in his body upon the tree, 1 Pet. 2.24. Peter means he bore the punishment of sin (inflicted according to the sentence of Pilate) in his body on the tree: sin is often put for the punishment of sin.  
Answ. True; sin is here taken for the punishment of sin, though not only so, but for the guilt of sin also: 'Tis true also that Christ in enduring the sufferings inflicted upon him by the Jews, bare, as you say, our punishments and our sins, i. e. the essential part of our punishment due to us for our sin; From your own words I infer then; Christ bore our punishment and our sins, either in the account of the Jews, or in the account of God: Not in the account of the Jews, they charged them as his proper crimes, without any regard to the sins of the elect; therefore he bore our punishment and our sins in the account of God.  
In that then Christ suffered punishment. 
Paraus in Heb. 10.  and bore our sin in the account of God, it followeth, Christ bare guilt in the account of God, because guilt and punishment are relates.  
Punishment doth not only signify a suffering, but such a suffering, that is, suffering for offence in way of justice. Had Christ suffered death without guilt imputed, his death could not have been called a punishment: thus, whilst you acknowledge Christ to have born punishment and born sin, and that by just consequeoce at least in the account of God, and yet deny the imputation of sin, you run yourself into a contradiction.  
He bore our sins in his body, but not only in his body: Body is here taken synechdochically both for body and soul: a part of the humane nature for the whole: he bore them upon the tree, that is, he bore the curse due to sin, Gal 3.13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: he bore the moral curse which was the truth signified by the Ceremonial curse, Deut. 21.23. the moral curse extendeth both to soul and body.  
Dialogu. I will show you how Christ did bear our sins divers ways, in several senses.  
1. When he bore away our diseases as I have expounded, Isa. 53 4.  
2. As our Priest and sacrifice, as I have expounded, Isa. 53.5.  
3. As a Porter bears a burden, as I have expounded, 1 Pet, 2.24.  
4. When he did patiently bear our sinful imputations, and false accusations, and imputations of the malignant jews, Psa. 40.12. Psa. 69.5. In these words Christ doth not complain or grudge against his father for his imputing of our sins unto him, as the common doctrine of Imputation doth make the stream of Interpreters to speak  
Answ. How the Dialogue hath not only not expounded, nor only misinterpreted, but corrupted the three former texts, viz. Isa. 53.4, 5. 1 Pet. 2.24. We have seen before. 'Tis very true that Christ bore our sins as our Priest and sacrifice, and as a porter bears a burden, yea as a surety: but very false that he bore them only in your sense. Scripture is in sense and not in sound only.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Your calling of the Jews unjust criminations of Christ, sometimes our sinful imputations, sometimes the false accusations of the Jews, sounds too harsh, without a distinction.  
'Tis true that Psal. 40.12. and Psal. 69.5. hold forth a type of Christ complaining under the injuries of the Jews, from which their false imputations are not excluded, though neither of them only, nor chief. To complain unto God is blameless and no grudging: To cemplaln against God is a sin and showeth grudging. M. Ainsworth whom you oft make use of in his notes on Psal. 69.5. is amongst those who acknowledge sin to be in Christ by imputation, yet (your conscience herein appealed unto) where did you ever read in him or any other orthodox Interpreter, that Christ complained against God, as (say you) the common doctrine of Imputation doth make the stream of Interpreters to speak.   

CHAP. V The Vindication of Isa. 53.6.  Isa. 53.6. All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 
Dialogu. THe Lord laid not the sin of the Elect upon Christ by imputation; The true manner how the Lord laid all our iniquities upon Christ, was the very same manner as the Lord laid the sins of Israel upon the Priest and sacrifice, and no other.  
Answ. If he laid them not otherwise on the Antitype then upon the type, than sin was laid typically only; and not in truth upon Christ, consequently the type and the antitype are confounded; and those types are so many untruths, yea, we are yet in our sins. But whatsoever your words are, we presume your meaning is: The types instanced in, did not typically hold forth any imputation of sin unto Christ the antitype.  
How then did the Lord lay the sins of Israel upon the Priest, and upon the sacrifice?  
Dialogu. The Priest bore the iniquity of the holy things by his Priestly appearing before jehovah with his priestly apparel, especially with the golden plate, Exo. 28.38. he bore the iniquity of the Congregatton by eating the people's sin-offering in the holy place to make atonement, Leu. 10.17. The Lord laid all our sins upon Christ as upon our sacrifice, Isa. 53.12. where dying, bearing sin, intercession, are Synonima's. He bore the sins of men, namely, by his mediatorial sacrifice. God laid all our sins upon Christ as our sacrifice of atonement; In this sense Paul explaineth the Levitical bearing of sin, Heb. 9.26, 28.  
Answ. It is not requisite to the nature of a type in all respects to answer the Antitype; 
Similitudo non currit quatuor pedibus. Paraeus Log. 122. Figura non habet quodcunque habet veritas.  but to testify and according to the pleasure of the Author to exemplify the thing typified. Logic refers types to similitudes, and you know the Proverb, Similitudes run not on four feet; there is always some dislikenesse between the parts of the comparison: jonah was a type of Christ lying dead in the grave, yet jonah though he lay in the Whale's belly, did not lie dead there.  
Put case you produce a type which holdeth not forth bearing of sin by imputation in the Antitype; except it may appear, that the manner of Christ's bearing sin was thereby fully intended, you conclude nothing. Aaron the Highpriest wearing the golden plate upon his forehead, having engraven thereupon HOLINESS TO THE LORD, typified the perfect holiness in Christ, by reason of the Divine nature, whereby he was able effectually to bear, and bear away sin; What is here against Imputation? nay, it is implied in the Priesthood of Aaron,  
The Priests Leu. 10.17. by eating the people's sin-offering, declared by that act, together with the  appearing in their stead, confessing of their sin, and offering sacrifice for them; that by divine institution they took upon them typically to make atonement for their sin. Hereby it is more plainly figured that Christ should bear away our sin by bearing it in our stead. This Text maketh against you.  
It is very true, God laid our sins upon Christ as our sacrifice, Isa. 53.12. therefore (say we) by imputation: for Christ's sacrifice is his voluntary and obedient yielding himself unto death, according to the Covenant of God in a way of satisfaction to divine justice for sin, and meritorious expiation of sin. Hence in your saying he bore sin, ergo not by imputation, you may see yourself entangled in a contradiction, and the argument turning head directly against you. In but saying so and not proving it, you beg, but do not prove what you say,  
Synonima's are divers words signifying the same thing, but death, bearing sin, intercession, are doubtless divers things, though they concur as ingredients into the same whole of Mediatorship.  
Those other words [OF ATONEMENT] are here only superadded unto your reason immediately before-going, and were also necessarily implied there: this then being the same reason with the former, the former Answer may satisfy both.  
The force of this reason is; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sursum tulit Piscat. in 1 Pe. 2.24.  Christ's sacrifice was effectual to procure Atonement, therefore sin was not imputed to him: a mere nonsequitur; nay, the contrary consequence is true: Christ appeared, that is, was manifested in the flesh to put away sin. Heb. 9.26, 28. was once offered to bear the sins of many, ver. 28. The greek word used here by Paul, and elsewhere by Peter, 1 Pet. 2.24. signifieth to take, carry, or bear up open high, and that so as to bear away; and is an allusion unto the whole burnt-offering; that we may then have the clear and full sense of the Apostles phrase, we must inform ourselves, as concerning the type or manner how the burnt-offering was laid upon the Altar (whereunto the cross is in some respect tacitly compared) which was thus.  
The Person that brought the sacrifice was to put his hand (lay his hand saith Ainsworth) upon the head thereof, yet living. Leu. 1.4. as confessing his guilt, and putting, or imputing it upon the Beast to be sacrificed. Compare Exo. 29.10. Leu. 4.24, 29. & 5.5, 6. & 16.21. By the like ceremony of Imposition of hands sin was charged, both for the testifying of the accusation, and the stoning of the offender, Deut. 17.7. Gild thus typically imputed to the Beast, it was slain and laid upon the Altar.  
The Apostle then whilst he is speaking of the Antitype, choosing out such a word to express Christ's bearing of sin, teacheth us thereby that Christ did both carry up and bear the load of our sins imputed to him upon the cross, and also bear them clear away: and thus Isaiah, Paul, and Peter sweetly agree together, and interpret one another, as concerning Christ's bearing the imputation of guilt and punishment of sin.  
Dialogu. If you will build the common doctrine of imputation upon this phrase, The Lord laid all our iniquities upon Christ, then by the same phrase you must affirm that the father laid all our sins upon himself by imputing the guilt of our sins to himself, for the father is said to bear our sins as well as Christ, Psal. 25.18. & 32.1. and elsewhere.  
Answ. This place is but one of very many, whereupon the doctrine of Imputation is builded.  
The Hebrew word NASA signifieth sometimes to take up a burden simply, as is to be seen in the places mentioned by you; sometimes to sustain or bear a burden as a Porter beareth it, Levit. 5.1. Numb, 18.1. Deut. 1.31. Isa. 49.12. the word therefore is to be interpreted according to the nature of the agent spoken of, Christ beareth away our sins, as the surety, by satisfying the debt; God taketh away sin as the creditor, by acquitting the debtor upon satisfaction given. Your reasoning is as if one should say, Upon the payment of the debt to the Creditor by the Surety, the Creditor dischargeth the debt. Therefore the Creditor payeth the debt.  
Sure you mistake yourself in arguing out of this Text from the word NASA, against concluding the doctrine of Imputation therefrom, because the word NASA is not in the Text.  
Dialogu. Those three terms, Blessed is the man whose transgression is born, whose sin is covered, whose iniquity is not imputed, are Synonima's, and they do sweetly expound each other, and they do also set out the true manner how sinners are made just and blessed, namely, when their sins are born away, covered, and not imputed by the father's merciful atonement, pardon, and forgiveness.  
Answ. Paul alleging these words of David Rom. 4. showeth us that the Psalmists scope therein, was to teach us justification by faith.  
Paul finds imputation of righteousness, Rom. 4.6. in david's not imputation of sin, Psal. 32.1.2. Imputation of righteousness, the effect whereof is our justification, consisting of the not-imputing of unrighteousness, and the accepting of us as righteous: Paul teacheth expressly, David by consequence.  
The justification of a sinner held out by the Dialogue, which not only denies itself to be the effect of, but also denies, and well nigh defies the very being of Christ's mediatorly obedience to the Law, is a pestilent fiction. You here preproperate your conceit, concerning the formal cause of justification; but of it in its proper place.  
Dialogu. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is translated in ver. 6. hath laid upon, is translated in the 12. ver. of this 35. ch. hath made intercession, and therefore the Verb signifying both incurrere fecit and intercessit, is too weak a foundation for the doctrine of imputation, and of Christ's suffering God's wrath.  
Answ. If this reason holds, than your own translating the word in Hebrew, Psa. 22.1. Why hast thou left me? will not hold: because the same word elsewhere signifieth to help up or fortify, Neh. 3.8. and 4.2.  

Piaculum significat sacrificium, & flagitium. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat sanctum & profanum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat benè precari, & male precari.  Who indifferently acquainted with the Languages, is ignorant that one Hebrew root hath not only various, but sometimes contrary significations (the like whereof is observed in other, and may be in our English tongue) in such cases, which signification is here or there intended, the learned know: how they know it, is not here the place to speak.  
The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by virtue of the conjugation, signifieth to cause to meet together upon a heap: the root signifieth properly to meet one, or fall upon, metaphorically to intercede, because the intercessor doth as it were meet the offended by his prayers, and interposes between him and the offender. We look at this text, not as a foundation, but as a solid argument of imputation.   

CHAP. VI The Vindication of Exod. 20.10. Leu. 1.4. & 4.29. Leu. 8.14. & 16.20, 21.  
Dialogu. EVery owner must impose both his hands upon the head of the sin-offering, this imposition of hands did (as the assertors of the doctrine of imputation say) typify the Lords laying our sin upon Christ by imputation: and so godly expositors do understand it. See Exo. 20.10. Leu. 1.4. and 4.29. and 8.14. and 16.20, 21.  
Answ. Aaron and his sons imposed their hands on the head of the sin-offering, Exod. 29.10. the owner thereof laid on his hands, Leu. 1.4. and 4.29. the Elders of the Congregation lay on their hands, Leu. 4.15. the Priests, Leu. 4.4. & 8.14. Aaron himself layeth both his hands upon the live goat, and confesseth over him the iniquity of the children of Israel, Leu. 16.21. which confession of sin though it be only expressed in the case of the Scape-goat, yet it is judged to have accompanied imposition of hands upon the sin-offering; From the collation of the texts with Leu. 5.56. as also because there is like reason in all. 
Calvin in Leu. 1.1. Junius in Leu. 1. Ainsworth Leu. 1.4. Willet in Leu. 1. qu. 9 & 4.10. & 16.23. Annot. in Le. 16.21. Ita per fidem oportet nos peccata nostra imponere Christo, h.e. certò sta●uere quòd illa ei impofita sint â Deo ut ea expiaret.   
Orthodox and judicious Expositors seem rather to understand that the rite of imposition of hands did typify the profession of their faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for sin imputed to him: and that the present sacrifice (or beast slain) was a type thereof: then that it did typify the Lords laying our sin upon Christ by imputation: there is difference between an act typifying Gods imputation of sin unto Christ, and an act testifying our faith concerning God's imputation of sin unto Christ. You should have produced your Expositors, for they do not generally so speak: the man (saith M. Ainsworth) that brought the offering was to lay or impose his hands, thereby testifying his faith in Christ the true sacrifice to be slain for sin. But it being granted that Expositors did so understand it, how doth the Dialogue disprove their exposition?  
A private man's imposition cannot represent God's act, the imposition of the hands of the Elders cannot, for the Elders actions represent the Church's astions: neither can the imposition of the Priests and High-Priests, they were types of Christ's Priestly nature, and not of the father.  
Answ. If these Reasons were good for what they are alleged, yet they are impertinent as not reaching the mind of Expositors (at least generally) upon the place. There is nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing, but that the act of a private person was capable (if God so pleased) to become a type of God's act, which is also true concerning the Elders, Priests, and High-Priests. The act of an Israelite (though a private person) in letting his Hebrew servant go free for nothing, either at the seventh year, Exo. 21.2. or at the year of Jubilee, Leu. 25.40. figured or represented God the Father's gift of free redemption by Jesus Christ.  
Cyrus (as every King or Emperor which receiveth his office from the people) was Persia's representative; yet in letting the Jews go without price and reward, he typified our free salvation, which is the act of God the Father: the putting of God's name upon the children of Israel by Aaron and his sons, Num. 6.27. was (saith Ainsworth) a sign that the name and blessing of God was imposed upon them: It's improper to say the Priests were types of Christ's Priestly nature, they were types of his Priestly office, or if you please of the Priestly part of his office, whereof the person consisting both of divine and humane nature was the subject.  
Dialogu Imposition of hands with confession of sins upon the head of the sin offering, signified the owner's faith of dependence.  
Then it signified the owner's faith in Christ as the true sacrifice to be slain for our sin imputed to him; for besides that this notion of faith in particular is included in the faith of dependence as the part is in the whole; he that asserteth the faith of dependence, asserteth therewithal the object thereof: (for faith and its object are Relates) a part of which object, and that directly intended in these texts, is this truth, to wit, That Christ did bear and take away the guilt and punishment due to the elect for sin. In your reasoning against the doctrine of Imputation from the Text alleged, (omitting any other) you commit these two errors.  
1. You put upon us an interpretation which is not ours, nor hath our doctrine need of it; our conclusion sufficiently proceeding from these Texts, according to the Exposition given.  
The Question is not whether this rite of Imposition of hands with confession of sin doth represent Gods laying of the sins of the Elect upon Christ: but whether the sins of the elect were laid upon Chtist by God?  
2. In disputing for these rites to signify faith of dependence, you do not only not dispute against us, but in conclusion against yourself, because the faith of the truth controverted, is included in the faith of dependence; nor do you in your whole discourse concerning it interpose a syllable to the contrary, to provide against the retorting of your Argument upon yourself.  
The conclusion than you argue for being for us, though we approve not your arguments, we think it best to pass them by, and ease the Reader of so much impertinence, only minding you that your assertion so often used, viz. that they imposed hands, and leaned upon the sacrifice with all their might, is groundless, whatsoever you refer us to in Ainsworth out of Maimony: neither the Hebrew text, nor any other reason countenancing of it.  
Dialogu If you make the act of laying on of hands on the sin-offering, to signify Gods laying our sins upon Christ by imputation, than the same act of laying on of hands with confession of sins upon the Scape-goat must also signify that God did impute our sin to Christ as well after he was escaped from death by his resurrection and ascension, as when he made his oblation here upon earth, and thus by this doctrine Christ is gone as a guilty sinner into heaven.  
We have already said that we make not this act a type of Gods laying sin upon Christ: the live-goat and the scape-goat were both types of Christ, that of him dying, this of him delivered from death: sin was laid upon the escape goat not after but before its escape; and signifieth that notwithstanding his bearing of sin typified by both goats, yet after he had suffered, which was typified by the killed goat, he then should be delivered from those sufferings which were typified by the scapegoat: and thus by the doctrine of the Scapegoat Christ is risen again, ascended, and sits at the right hand of God the Father acquitted from all sin.  
Dialogu. But the Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition of hands with confession of sins of God's imputation: but they understood it to be a typical sign of the faith of dependence upon Christ's sacrifice of Atonement; and so much the prayer of the Highpriest imports. See Ainsworth Leu. 16.21.  
Answ. M. Ainsworth on this very place saith, that this act shown how our sins should be imputed unto Christ; it is not likely therefore he so understood the Hebrew doctors, otherwise we might well think he would either have forborn a needless citation contrary in his judgement to the truth, or would have taken notice thereof. Neither is there any reason so to interpret their meaning from the words cited by him out of Maimony or yours out of him: the Atonement rightly understood is so fare from opposing, that it presupposeth satisfaction to divine justice by the surety of the meritorious cause thereof.  
Dialogu. If Gods imputing of the sins of the Elect to Christ was the cause of God's extreme wrath upon him, then by the same reason Christ doth still bear the wrath of God, for Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much as ever be bare them upon earth.  
Answ. Christ on earth suffered the wrath of God, that is, the execution of divine justice, because than he stood as a surety to satisfy the curse due for sin, Isa. 53.10. But having satisfied it, Joh. 19.30. Col 2.14. the same justice that before punished him, now acquits him, Rom. 8.34. If the debtor be discharged, and the Bill canceled, doubtless the surety is free; the same justice that holds the surety obliged to the creditor, whilst the debt is unpayed, acquits him when the debt is paid.   

CHAP. VII. The Vindication of 2 Cor. 5.21.  2 Cor. 5.21. God made him to be sin for us which knew no sin. 
Dialogu. THe meaning of these words is not that he was made sin for us by God's imputation, but that he was made sin for us, that is to say, a sacrifice for our sin; sin is often used for a sin-offering, sacrifices for sin are often called sin: the word Made is a word of Election and Ordination.  
Answ. He was made sin for us as we were made righteousness, that is, by judicial imputation, without the violation, yea, with the establishing of justice; he was made sin as he was made a curse, Gal. 3.13. the Greek used here and there are the same: But he was made a curse by judicial imputation. Because he was the sin-offering in truth, therefore he was made sin by real imputation, as the legal sin-offering was made sin by typical Imputation.  
The sum of what you say touching the word Made to be a word of Election or Ordination (how improperly soever) concluding that God ordained concerning Christ, so as he might make his soul a sin-offering, concludes not against, but consequently for us and against you, from the typical nature of a sin-offering; Of which in the foregoing Chapter.  
Dialogu. The Apostle doth explain the word Sin, Psal. 40.6. thus (for sin) Heb. 10.6. therefore seeing the Apostle doth explain the word Sin by the particle for, I may well conclude that Christ was not made sin by God's Imputation.  
Answ. What David expresseth by Sin Psal. 40.6. is expressed by For sin, Heb. 10.6. both places intent the sin-offering, therefore you still argue against yourself and for us: it is called a sin-offering because sin was typically imputed to it; it is said to be for sin, because it was offered for the expiation of sin; the same offering is said to be a sin-offering in respect of its nature, and said to be for sin, that is for the expiation of sin in respect of its use: the use of a thing destroyeth not the nature of it. The particle For besides the taking away of sin, notes the manner of its taking away, viz. by way of expiation.  
Dialogu. The water of purification from sin is called sin, Numb. 19.9. the money employed to buy the public sacrifice for sin, is called trespasse-money, 2 King. 12.16. and in this sense God made Christ to be sin.  
Answ. The water that did typically purify from sin, is metonymically called sin, Numb. 19.9. the money that was to buy the sin-offering, 2 King. 12.16. is also figuratively called sin; and Christ who is the tru● sin-offering is said to be made sin, 2 Cor. 5.21. true, Therefore;  
For Christ to be made sin is not to have sin imputed to him, 
Vide Bezam in Gal. 3.13.  is a mere non sequitur. If Christ be made sin for us in the same sense that the water of purification and trespasse-money are called sin: then Christ is made sin only figuratively; consequently suffered for sin figuratively not properly, the elect also are saved figuratively and not properly.  
To say God made Christ to be sin not by imputing their sin to him, but by ordaining him to be a sin-offering, is, as if you should say, God made Christ sin, not by imputing sin to him, but by ordaining him to have sin imputed to him. If sin was imputed to him, consequently the guilt of sin was imputed, which we here affirm, and you deny.  
Dialogu. Isaiah tells, that Christ made himself a trespass or a guilt for us, Isa. 53.10. and if Christ made himself a trespass for us by imputing all our trespasses to himself, than he must likewise inflict upon himself all the curses of the Law that are due to us for our trespasses.  
Answ. If Isaiah tells us Christ made himself a guilt for us, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  doubtless it is a truth. The Hebrew word is not made himself, but if his soul shall set itself. God chargeth Christ with sin as the supreme Lawgiver and Judge: Christ accepts the charge as a surety, and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of justice which is the part of a surety; but doth not execute that justice which is the part of a Judge; so Isaiah and Paul do not only sweetly agree with the levitical phrase, but Isaiah, Paul, and Moses jointly agree with us against you. Paul saith, Christ was made sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, Rom. 3.26. that is, that we might be justified: The same Paul saith, That the Believer in Christ is so justified as that God is just, which cannot be without a judicial imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety. So when Paul saith Christ is made sin, he means by judicial Imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin. Doubtless Paul to the Corinthians agreeth with Paul to the Romans.   

CHAP. VIII. The Vindication of Mat. 26.37. Mar. 14.33. Luke 22.53.  
Dialogu. MAthew saith, that Christ was sorrowful and grievously troubled, chap. 26.37. Mark saith, that he was sore afraid and amazed, chap. 14.33. Luke saith, that Christ was in an agony, chap. 22.53. Christ made all this ado about a bodily death only.  
Answ. If words have their taste, as Elihu implieth, Job 34.4. than your expression of the dolorous passion and lamentation of the Lord Jesus by that phrase of [making this ado] (for I believe it's not the language of any Orthodox writer) ordinarily used by way of diminution and rebuke; argueth a mind not affected as becomes a Christian with the sufferings of his Saviour.  
Dialogu. But how do you prove this sorrow and complaint to have proceeded from the fear of a bodily death only?  
Answ. Only do but consider what a horrid thing to humane nature the death of the body is, then consider that Christ had a true humane nature, and therefore why should be not be troubled with the fear of death as much as his humane nature could be without sin?  
Because Regular affections (such as Christ's were) are moved according to the nature of the object; so much therefore as bodily death is a less evil than eternal death; so much is the regular trouble of humane nature conflicting therewithal, less than that trouble which it is capable of suffering; in case of its conflicting with eternal death.  
All mankind ought to desire and endeavour to preserve their natural lives as much as lies in them in the use of means, Dialogu. and therefore seeing Christ as he was true man, could not prevent his death by the use of means: he was bound to be troubled for the sense of death as much as any other man.  
Answ. But it was more than manifest that his trouble exceeded the trouble of any other man as concerning mere natural death.  
Other men conflicting with death by reason of sin, do not conflict only with death: other men conflicting with natural death conflict also often with eternal death, Christ according to you conflicted only with a natural death: how do you say then without any distinction he was bound to be troubled with fear of death as much as any other man?  
Christ's mere inability as man to prevent death by the use of means; or other men's inability thereunto, and that at such times when they were not wanting on their part, neither was it their duty to endeavour continuance of life, but on the contrary to give up themselves to death, such as was the present case of Christ, and was long before the case of Isaac, and oftentimes hath been the case of the Martyrs, who notwithstanding have given up their lives with joy, cannot be looked at as a reason of his or their being bound to be so troubled with the fear of death.  
Dialogu. These were the true causes why Christ was so much pained in his mind with the fear of death not only that night before his death, but at other times also even long before.  
Answ. It's true Christ often in his life time made mention of his passion; but it's most untrue that he looked at a bodily death as the only matter of it: the two causes alleged were not the true causes why he was so much pained with fear, Luk. 12.50. showeth Christ not only to be held back with the fear of his sufferings on the one hand, but also that he was urged forward with the remembrance of the counsel of God, and the good of the Elect on the other hand, between these was he straigthned, whilst it was accomplished, whereunto calvin's interpretation of the place agreeth.  
Dialogu. But Matthew and Mark in the place cited speak only of these sorrows which fell upon him in the night before his death: Matthew saith, he began grievously to be troubled, i.e. he began afresh to be troubled with a nearer apprehension of his death then formerly: M. Calvin in his Harmony upon those words, speaks to this effect; We have seen (saith he) our Lord wrestling with the fear of death before: but now (saith he) he buckleth his hands with the temptation, Matthew calls it the beginning of sorrow.  
Answ. Be it so that he began to be troubled with the nearer approach of his death then formerly, this maketh nothing to prove your assertion, viz. that the death approaching was a bodily death only.  
The sufferings that fell upon Christ before his sufferings in the garden, because they were in degree much less than those that followed, are conveniently distinguished from them that fell upon him in the garden, and afterward Calvin's meaning is that he conflicted before with the fear of death, but now with the sight of death: he meaneth not a mere bodily death only (as you say) but such a death as wherein (saith he) he took upon him the curse; and wherein our sins, whose burden was laid upon him, pressed him with a mighty weight, and wherein he felt that he had to do with the judgement of God.  
Those words of Matthew c. 24.8. All these are the beginnings of sorrow, are spoken either in reference to the destruction of Jerusalom, or the end of the world, but not to the passion of Christ.  
Dialogu. By these sentences out of M. Calvin, we may see, that Christ was deeply touched with the fear of death, for he wept and groaned in spirit, and troubled himself for the death of Lazarus.  
Answ. Though Calvin speaking of those words John 11.38. inclineth to think that Christ by occasion of Lazarus death, called to mind his own death, yet you deceive yourself not a little in conceiving thence as if Calvin thought that the death of Christ was no other than a bodily death, and such as the death of Lazarus.  
Upon this occasion therefore and the rather because of your so frequently quoting of Calvin, it may be seasonable to present you with calvin's judgement in this point, that so it may appear how well Calvin and the Dialogue agree herein.  
The Dialogue saith, Christ made all this ado about a mere bodily death only; and that he suffered not any degree of God's wrath at all.  
Calvin saith, but whence is there both heaviness, 
Vnde autem illi & maeror, etc. Calvin in Mat. 26.36. Atque hic rursus tanti maeroris. Idem. Instit. l. 2. c. 16. s. 10.  anxiety, and fear upon him, except because he conceived something more sad and horrible, than the separation of the soul from the body?  
And here again, we ought to call to mind the cause of so great fear, for neither would the death of the Son of God by itself have so tortured him, except he had perceived that he had to do with the judgement, i.e. the divine justice of God.  
Christ's death had been of none effect, if he had suffered only a bodily death: And truly if his soul had not been partaker of pain he had been only a Redeemer of our bodies.  
The same Author speaking upon Isa. 53.6. saith, that he was put instead of the wicked doers as a surety and pledge, yea, and as the very guilty person himself, to abide and suffer all the punishment that should have been laid upon him.  

Calv. instit. l. 2. c. 16. s. 13.  Moreover in answer to some who being confuted, leaned (as he saith) to another cavillation, that though Christ feared death, yet he feared not the curse and wrath of God, from which he knew himself to be safe. After other discourse he useth words to this effect; whereby it appeareth (saith he) that those triflers against whom I now dispute, boldly babble upon things they know not, because they never earnestly considered what it is, or of how great importance it is that we be redeemed from the judgement of God: thus far Calvin.  
Dialogu I cannot apprehend that he was afraid of the wrath of God for our sin in the night before his death: for than he could not have said as he did, I have set the Lord always before my eyes, he's at my right hand, Psa. 16.8. therefore I shall not be moved. I cannot apprehend that his troubled fear exceeded the bounds of natural fear.  
Answ. His confidenee that he should not be moved by his sufferings, either from his hope, state, or the good hoped for; but that it should be with him as ver. 10. showeth us his certainty of victory; which doth not oppose but rather suppose the matter of his sufferings, which the Scripture manifests to be the wrath of God. Neither can we apprehend that Christ's fear exceeded the bounds of natural fear, understanding by natural fear regular fear, in which sense this distinction is used by Divines after Damascene; who distinguished fear into a fear according to nature (this was in Christ) and a fear besides nature, adverse to reason, this was not in Christ.  
Dialogu. These sentences of M. Calvin may advise us how we do attribute such a kind of fear to Christ as might disorder his pure natural affections, which doubtless would have fallen upon him, if he had undergone the pain of loss for our sins, such as the damned do feel in hell, as the common Doctrine of Imputation doth teach.  
Answ. It is vain labour to write so much out of Calvin to prove against us that the fear which was in Christ was pure, and not impure; it being the professed and known judgement of all: the inference of impure and vicious fear in Christ from his undergoing of the pain of loss for our sins, is your own, 
Institution. lib. 2. c. 16. s. 10. See Willet synops.  and an error: nor have you any greater adversary than Calvin therein, who not only affirms the fear and affections in Christ to be pure according to your citations, but also that in his soul he suffered the terrible torment of the damned and forsaken men. Yet because the sufferings of the damned differ in some things from the sufferings of Christ, later Writers choose rather upon just reason to say, he suffered the punishment of the elect, who deserved to be damned, then that he suffered the punishment of the damned.  
Dialogu And if he had died without manifesting fear of death, it would have occasianed woeful heresy; yea, notwithstanding the evident proof given of his humane nature, sundry heretics have denied the truth of his humane nature, it was necessary therefore that he should be pinched with the fear of death as much as his true humane nature could bear without sin, as Calvin well observeth.  
Answ. There's difference between manifest fear and excessive fear: to have feared natural death with excessive fear, and that such as never man or woman manifested, was to have manifested something less than man. It was a sufficient manifestation of Christ to be man, that he was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, that he was in all points tempted like to us, 
His words are these, speaking on Matt. 26.39. Sed quantum ferri potuit sana & integra natura hominis, metu percussus & anxietate constructus fuit. Dialogu  yet without sin. So far as I can find in Calvin (for you have not pointed to the place) you put in the word Therefore, and so force both it and the whole sentence to confirm your own premises, contrary to his mind, which is directly against you. See Calv. Comment. on Ver. 2.28. of the chapter mentioned.  
If the fear of death which he expressed to his Disciples in the night before his death, had risen on the sense of his father's wrath inflicted upon him for our sin, than you must also say, that he suffered his father's wrath for our sins six days before this, for six days before this he spoke those words, Luk. 12.50. where our Saviour doth express as much distress of mind as here: yet I know no expositor that ever gathered so much from this place of Luke.  
Answ. Expositors do generally agree, that as in Matthew and Mark, so also Luke 12.50. Christ speaks of his passion, as likewise that the wrath of God was the principal matter thereof; in Luke he's troubled at the remembrance of his future passion of his father's wrath, the sense of that wrath had at present in great degree taken hold upon him. Christ doth not express so much distress of mind in Luke, as here; he saith he was straightened, but here he professeth his sorrowfullnesse unto death, together with consternation and expavefaction; of which straightway.  
Dialogu. Our Saviour tells the two sons of Zebedee they must drink of his cup, and be baptised with his baptism, by these two expressions, which are Synonima's or equivalent, our Saviour doth inform the two sons of Zebedee what the true nature of his sufferings should be, viz. no other but such only as they should one day suffer from the hands of tyrants.  
Answ. Herein is a fallacy, confounding such things as should be divided, this Text (saith Piscator) is to be understood with an exception of that passion in which Christ felt the wrath of God for the Elect. 
Quod tamen intelligendum est cum exceptione passionis illius quâ Dominus pro electis sensit iram Dei. Pisc. in loc. Dialogu   
Christ suffered both as a Mattyr and as a satisfier: the sons of Zebedee drank of the cup of Martyrdom, not of the cup of satisfaction or redemption: James and John (the sons of Zebedee) were asleep whilst Christ was drinking of that cup.  
His son was not touched with any sufferings from God's wrath at all, except by way of sympathy from his bodily sufferings only.  
Answ. If his soul was touched with God's wrath by way of sympathy, than his body was touched with the suffering of his wrath properly: then Christ suffered the wrath of God by your concession.  
These sufferings in the soul were not by way of sympathy, his soul suffered properly and immediately, Isa. 53.10. Mat. 26.37. the cause of his sufferings required that his soul should suffer as well as his body; we sinned in soul properly, therefore our surety must suffer in soul properly. The greatest of the sufferings of Christ were spiritual, and such as immediately seized on his soul.  
As his active obedience was as properly spiritual as bodily: so his passive obedience was as properly spiritual as bodily.  
Much rather is their judgement to be embraced, who say, The body suffered by way of sympathy, because the soul is sensible of sufferings without the body, but not the body without the soul.  
Dialogu. If the circumstances of his agony be well weighed, it will appear that it did not proceed from his father's wrath but from his natural fear of death only: because he must be stricken with the fear of death as much at his true humane nature could bear; he must be touched with the fear of death in a great measure (as the Prophets did foretell.) Add to these pains of his mind, his earnest prayers to be delivered from his natural fear of death: the fear of death doth often cause men to sweat, and earnestly pray; as he was man he must be touched with the fear of death, as he was Mediator he must fully and wholly overcome his natural fear of death by prayers: therefore there was a necessity for him to pray, and to strive in prayer until he had overcome it, as I shall further explain the matter by and by, in Heb. 5.7.  
Answ. There can no reason be given why the fear of natural death should be as much as the humane nature of Christ could bear without sin, because the object of that fear may be and is much exceeded: paenal-spiritual death is a greater object of fear incomparably.  
Dialogu. Again, Because the humane nature of Christ, whatever had been inflicted upon it, could not have sinned: there can no sufficient reason be given why Christ should fear natural death either more or so much as other men: there being therefore not such a measure of fear in Christ of natural death (as the Dialogue affirmeth) there was no such fear foretold; nor was his earnest prayer to be delivered from that fear, which could not be: what it was, and what he prayed to be delivered from; we shall see where you promise us to explain Heb. 5.7.  
We must observe the due time of every action, the manner, the place, and the persons, and all other circumstances to fulfil every circumstance just as the Prophets had foretold nothing must fail; if he had failed in the least circumstance he had failed in all: and his humane nature could not be exact in these circumstances without the concurrence of the divine nature: in all these respects his natural fear of death could not choose but be very often in his mind, and as often to put him unto pain till he had overcome it.  
Answ. As things were foretold by the Prophets concerning Christ, so he fulfiled them, Act. 3.18. Luke 22.37. that there might be a ready concurrence of the divine nature with the humane, for the enabling of it unto the fullfilling of them, he was both God and man, Heb. 9.14. Rom. 1.4. there could not therefore be in Christ any fear, as concerning his failing to fulfil his office to the utmost. Your mentioning other causes (though false) of Christ's fear, besides his natural death, is a secret acknowledgement that his conflict with the fear of natural death only was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows felt before his death.  
Dialogu. Scanderbag was in such an agony when he was fight against the Turks, that the blood hath been seen to burst out of his lips with very eagerness of spirit only; I have heard also from credible persont, that Alexander the great did sweat blood in the courageous defence of himself and others. The sweaeting sickness caused many to sweat out of their bodies a bloody humour, and yet many did recover and live many years after, but if their sweeting blood had been a sign of God's wrath upon their souls (as you say it was in Christ) than I think they could not have lived any longer by the strength of nature.  
Answ. The effusion of certain drops of blood at Scanderbergs lips, through the commotion of his spirits, was no sweat; Your information concerning Alexander in all probability is a mistake, there being no such matter reported of him by the ordinary Historiographers of his life. It was but a bloody humour if so (and in a time of sickness) not blood, 
Arist. l. 3. depart. animal. c. 5. & l. 3. De Historia anim. c. 9 Fernelius lib. 6.  that you mention at the sweeting sickness. Aristotle reports of one that sometimes sweat a kind of bloody excrement, which yet he looked at proceeding from an evil disposition of the body. Theophrastus confirmeth the same. Fernelius writes that he saw blood effused out of the extremity of the veins, through infirmity of the Liver and the Retentive faculty. 
Lib. de dignosc morb. c. 11. & 8. Vid. Gerh. Herm. in Luc. 22.43  Rondelettius tells us, that he saw in the year 1547. a kind of bloody sweat in a certain Student, occasioned by some defects of the veins, bones, and thinness of blood. Maldonat upon Mat. 26. makes mention of a man at Paris, strong, and in health, who having received the sentence of death was bedewed with a bloody sweat. But this bloody sweat of Christ (properly so) flowing from such a person, and free from all distemper, either of body or mind, and in such a manner and plenty (as Luke reports) differed much from all these. Whether the sweat of Christ were natural or miraculous, we leave it to them that have leisure and skill to inquire, though the Evangelist mentioneth it as an effect proceeding from a greater cause than the fear of a meet natural death; all which notwithstanding, yet is not our doctrine built only or chief upon this Argument.  
Dialogu Do but consider a little more seriously what an horrid thing to nature the approach of death is, see in how many horrid expressions David doth describe it, Psa. 116.3. & 18.4. & 55.4, 5.  
Answ. There were many times many causes why David was much afraid of death, none of which are to be found in Christ; yet you make Christ much more afraid of death than David was. Though death be horrid unto nature, yet not so to faith; much less so horrid as to cause affections of fear above the nature of the evil feared; that is, erring affections in an unerring subject.  
Dialogu. Suppose Adam in innocency had grappled with the fear of death: like enough it would have caused a violent sweat over all his body.  
Answ. Adam being a sinner did grapple with death, Genes. 5.5. without any such sweat mentioned; doubtless Adam innocent would not have been inferior to Adam a sinner. Christ was much superior to Adam innocent, though you make him inferior in this matter to Adam a sinner.  
Dialogu. It's no strange new doctrine to make the natural fear of death to be the cause of Christ's agony, seeing other learned men do affirm it. Christopher Carlisle in his Treatise of Christ's desceut into hell, p. 46. saith thus, Was not Christ extremely afflicted when he for fear of death sweat drops in quantity as thick as drops of blood? John Fryth a godly Martyr saith thus in his answer to Sir Thomas Moor B. 2. Christ did not only weep but he feared so sore that he sweat drops like drops of blood running down upon the earth, which was more than to weep. Now (saith he) if I should ask you why Christ feared, and sweat so sore? what would you answer me? was it for fear of the pains of purgatory? he that shall so answer is worthy to be laughed to scorn, wherefore then was it? Verily even for the fear of death, as it appeareth plainly by his prayer, for he prayed to his Father, saying, If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.  
Answ. These Authors I not having by me, cannot examine the quotations, their words therefore rather better bearing the sense of the Orthodox, than the sense of the Dialogue, charity (until the contrary appeareth) construeth in the best sense. M. Fryth's other writings call to have it so. But (though Authorities also are incomparably for us) it is not man's Authority, but Scripture, and reason from thence deduced that conclude the question.  
Dialogu. It passeth my understanding to find out how an Angel could support our Saviour under the sense of his father's wrath. Can Angels appease God's wrath? or can Angels support a man's so●● to bear it? It's absurd to think so. God will not afford the least drop of water to cool any man's tongue that is tormented in the ●ames of his wrath: therefore that cannot be the reason why God sent an Angel to comfort him.  
Answ. 
Veteres dicunt Angelus confortat sed non portat. Ger. Harm  Had you accepted of that saying of the Ancients, viz. the Angel comforted him but carried none of his burden; you might have spared the Reader these Queries.  
The cause of the Angel's apparition and consolation, was to support the humane nature, from utter fainting before the time, and to strengthen it, not only at present, but so as it might be able to undergo the sufferings that remained; the necessity whereof argueth his conflict to have been greater than could be caused by the fear of a mere natural death.  
'Tis true, God will not afford the least drop of water to cool any man's tongue that is tormented in the flames of his wrath, viz. that is, totally in torment. He had a taste of consolation at present, but but there were times wherein he had not a drop of consolation, as, In his total desertion, in respect of sense, upon the cross, Christ had his interims of respite, and here an interval of consolation, otherwise he could not have fulfiled that which was written of him. It is no good argument to say he drunk not the cup off at once, ergò He drunk it not up. He tasted of it in the garden, he drunk it off upon the cross. The pain of loss and pain of sense which make up the full measure of the essential wrath of God, met both together in full measure upon him on the cross.  
Dialogu But on the contrary it's evident that God doth often use to comfort his people against the fear of death, by the Ministry of Angels.  
Answ. It followeth not, Men have needed the consolation of Angels against the fear of death, therefore Christ's consolation by an Angel was only to support him against the fear of a natural death: who can say it was only the fear of death that men were always in such cases comforted against? there are other concomitants of death, viz. the sting of death, the curse, guilt, unbelief, that are more terrible than death itself.  
Though Angels comfort sometimes against the fear of death, yet not only against the fear of death, but according to other temptations, and necessities of those whom they are sent to minister unto, 1 Kin. 19.5, 7, 8. Dan. 10, 17. Mat. 4.11.  
Dialogu The father's sending of an Angel to comfort his son in his agony, was not an evidence that the father was angry with him for our sin, but it was a sure evidence to him that his Father was highly well-pleased with him even in the time of his agony.  
Answ. Those sufferings whence he needed an Angel to he sent unto him, interpreted according to analogy of Scripture, are an evidence that his father was angry with him for our sins. As the love of God unto the person of Ghrist, and the wrath of God, that is, the execution of justice upon him as a surety, consist together, so may evidence of that love, and partial execution of that wrath, answerably consist and meet together.  
Dialogu. Good reasons there were why Christ should be more afraid of death than many Martyrs have been, namely, for the clear manifestation of his humane nature, and also for the accomplishment of the predictions that went before him touching his sufferings, if he would he could have suffered less fear of death, and shown more true valour then ever any Martyrs have done, but then his death would not have been so useful to his children, which for fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage.  
Answ. You make Christ not only more afraid of natural death than many Martyrs, but to show more fear of death than any man, yea, than any Malefactor. Your reasons are but deceptions, what clearer manifestation of the truth of his humane nature can be desired, then that he was in all things like unto us, except sin. It's a fiction to assert any divine prediction that Christ should only suffer a bodily death. There can be no reason given why the Martyrs, or other men, having received from Christ but a drop of that spirit which was in him out of measure, should endure with joy the same death which he himself entering but into the Porch and suburbs of, 
Cartwright in Rhem. Test. Mat. 27.46.  through anguish of his soul, had clods rather than drops of blood, streaming down his blessed body, a thing which neither was seen or heard before or since: The true reason thereof is, Christ died as a sinner imputatively, pressed under the sense of the wrath of God, and conflicting with eternal death.  
The Martyrs died justified, cheered with the sense of the love of God, and conflicting only with a temporal death: It is more useful unto those who for fear of death, i.e. eternal death, are all their life time subject unto bondage, that Christ conflicted with that death, wherewith they principally conflict, than otherwise.   

CHAP. IX. The Vindication of Heb. 5.7.  Heb. 5.7. Christ in the days of his flesh when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and he was heard in that which he feared. 
Dialogu I Reverence your Authors who expound the word Fear to mean the Fear of Astonishment at the feeling of God's wrath for our sin, but I must tell you; that there are other Learned and Godly Divines that are contrary to them in their interpretation of the word Fear. K. James his Translators do read it thus in the margin, He was heard because of his piety. M. Tyndal and M. Overdale translate thus, He was heard for his reverence. And the Geneva in other places translate the same Greek word Godly fear, as in Luke 2.25. Act. 8.2. Heb. 12.28. and in this very sense must this Greek word be translated in Heb. 5.7.  
Answ. It is sufficient that Christ's suffering of the wrath of God be taught in other Scriptures, though not in this, it may be taught in this verse, though not in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated In that which he feared.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a word that signifieth both Fear of reverence, and a fear of evil impending, notwithstanding the received rule of interpretation (which order such words to be expounded according to the nature and circumstances of the place) many godly learned have taken it, some one way, some another, yet all generally acknowledging that Christ suffered the wrath of God, though some acknowledge not this word to afford an argument thereof. K. James Translators, as they read piety in the margin, which you mention, so they read fear in the Text which you mention not. M. Tyndall and M. Overdale, though they translate the Greek as you say, yet how far that translation is from helping your cause, or prejudicing ours, will fully appear in the sequel of this chapter.  
If the Greek word be translated Godly Fear, Heb. 5.7. it may only thence be inferred, that this word affords not an argument, but it no way weakens the cause, which hath Arguments enough beside.  
Dialogu. The Greek word doth properly signify such a fear as makes a man exceeding wary, and heedful how he toucheth any thing that may hurt him.  
Answ. 
Cartwright in Rh. Test. Heb. 5.7.  Your explication is too general to give the property of the word, the word signifieth both Reverence and fear, but the proper signification of this word, being (saith Cartwright) never severed from fear, and yet sometimes disjoined from reverence; It followeth that the property of the Greek word serveth better for to note fear then reverence.  
Dialogu. I come now to explain the very thing itself from which Christ prayed to be saved, which was that he might be delivered from death, and this petition was the masterpiece of all his prayers.  
Answ. He prayed that he might be delivered from death, Good, but this death was the death of the cross; for unto it his strong cries refer, Mar. 14.37, the principal matter whereof was the curse, viz. the wrath of God, wherefore also out of this verse, from the word Death (if not from the word translated Fear) it is truly argued, that Christ suffered the wrath of God. Not Christ's salvation out of his sufferings, but the glory of God in the salvation of the Elect was the masterpiece of his prayers, Joh. 17.  
Dialogu. But for the better understanding the very thing itself that he did so often, and so earnestly pray to be delivered from, we must consider him with a twofold respect.  
1. As he was true man, so he prayed to be saved from death conditionally, Mat. 26.39.  
2. We must consider him in this Text as he was our Mediator, and so he prayed to be saved from death absolutely, namely, to be saved from his natural fear of death when he came to make his oblation: for he knew well enough that if there had remained in him but the least natural unwillingness to die, when he came to make his oblation, it would have spoiled the mediatorial efficacy of his oblation.  
Answ. To consider Christ as man distinct from the consideration of Christ as Mediator, is to consider the Mediator without the consideration of him as man, that is, to consider the Mediator as not a Mediator: for it is essential to Christ as Mediator to be Godman.  
That prayer of Christ Mat. 26.39. was as much the prayer of the Mediator as this Heb. 5.7. neither was the manhood more concerned in that then in this.  
To understand by death Heb. 5.7. his natural fear of death, and by that his fear of offending God by his natural unwillingness to die (for so you expound yourself) beside the manifest and fearless violence offered thereby unto the text, is (that you may wave the true cause of his fear, namely, the wrath of God, together with your silencing the wont cause asserted by you, namely, the fear of bodily death) to devise a new cause of the fear of Christ, viz. lest he should offend God, i. e. lest he should sin, choosing rather to say, that Christ was afraid of the evil of sin then of the evil of punishment for sin.  
That which it was impossible for Christ to be touched with, that Christ was not afraid of.  
But to offend God by his unwillingness to die, was impossible for Christ to be touched with.  
Therefore Christ was not afraid of unwillingness to die.  
Unwillingness to die in Christ had been a sin, he having received a command to lay down his life, 
Damasc. de fide orthod. l. 3. c. 23.  Joh, 10.17. Heb. 4.15. Natural fear is either pure, and without vice, this was in Christ; or impure, adverse to reason, this was not in Christ. So Damascene long since.  
This spoiling of the mediatorly efficacy of this oblation is a supposition of impossibility, therefore could not be an object of fear to him who was only subject to pure and reasonable fear. 
Significat timorem rationabilem. Cham. de descent. l. 5. c. 5.   
Dialogu. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is noted to signify a reasonable fear.  
For he had from eternity covenanted with his father to give his soul (by his own active obedience) as a mediatorial sacrifice of atonement for our sins, Joh. ●0. 17, 18. therefore he must not die a positive death by the power of man, but he must die as Mediator by the actual and joint concurrence of both divine and humane nature: no man could force his soul out of his body by all the torments they could devise, but he must separate his own soul from his body by the joint concurrence of both his natures.  
Answ. If he covenanted only to suffer a bodily death, as you say, you must needs think very unworthily (to say no worse) of him that was God, whilst you put upon him so great fear of breaking covenant upon so small temptation. Notwithstanding he covenanted to suffer spiritual death, i. e. the wrath of God, yet because he was God, it was impossible that he should break his word, and consequently impossible that he should fear an impossibility. He laid down his life as a surety, whic● none could have taken away against his will, but he took not away his life as an executioner.  
If he had covenanted to take away his own life as an executioner, neither then could he have broken his word, because he was God; nor had so covenanting opposed, but engaged him to the suffering of the wrath of God, his death being the cursed death of the cross.  
Dialogu. Christ made his oblation an exact obedience unto God's will, both for matter, manner, and time, and this mediatorial action of his was the highest degree of obedience that the father required, or that the son could perform for man's atonement and redemption.  
Answ. True. But in our sense, not yours: of which afterwards.  
Dialog. His obedience in his death was not Legal but mediatorial.  
Answ. It was both mediatorly and legal. It was the obedience of the Mediator, as such, unto the Law. Such a person obeying, and such obedience from that person, were both requisite for the meritorious procuring of our atonement and redemption.  
Dialog 2. He prayed also to be delivered from the dominion of death after he had made his oblation, and God heard him and delivered him by his resurrection on the third day, Act. 2.24, 27.  
Answ. By death then here we are not only to understand the fear of death which elsewhere you seem to say. He prayed to be delivered, and we delivered from the dominion of death, i. e. of the cursed death of the cross; therefore he suffered the curse, i. e. the wrath of God.  
Dialogu. Neither doth the word Fear in this Text signify such an amazed natural fear of death as the other word Fear doth signify, Mar. 14.33. which word I have expounded to signify our Saviour's troubled natural fear of death, and no more.  
Answ. According to you Fear Mar. 14.33. signifieth natural fear of death and no more: but Fear Heb. 5.7. signifieth a godly fear, lest he should offend God by his unwillingness to die, that is, Mark speaks of a natural fear of a natural evil, the Author to the Hebrews of a moral fear of a moral evil; a distinction as vain as weak, without any warrant. The object of fear in both places is the same, why should not the affection of fear at least for the kind of it be the same? He offered up prayers with strong cries, Heb. 5.7. and Jesus cried with a loud voice, Mar. 14.37.  
Dialogu. And therefore it caused him in the days of his flesh to offer up many prayers and supplications with strong cries and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, namely, from his natural fear of death, and he was heard because of his godly fear.  
Just now you interpreted the word Death in the Text properly, he prayed, say you, to be delivered from the dominion of death; now you interpret it figuratively, namely, for the natural fear of death, one and the same word (especially not being typical) is capable but of one sense in the same place.  
As concerning the meaning of the place. There are no greater asserters of Christ's suffering the wrath of God than those who translate the Greek word by Reverence, understanding it causally, viz. that Christ was heard for that humble reverence wherewith he was affected towards God in his prayers, yet those who translate it Fear, give many reasons leading thereunto.  

How terrible is eternal death, if natural death be called the King of terror! Job 18.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza in loc. Cham. the descent. Bellarm. enerv. t. 1. l. 2. c. 2.  1. The proper signification of the word.  
2. The frequent use of it in this sense by Greek Authors both sacred and secular, as also Philosophers, Historiographers, and Poets.  
3. Analogy of Scripture.  
4. The mention of death that great object of fear, together with the affection of fear in the same verse, And  
Lastly, Because the Greek preposition annexed thereunto, doth not well agree with the translation of it by reverence. For though the preposition according to Bellarmine's instances is read with a genitive case, and noteth the internal cause of an action; yet it never is observed to signify the external moving cause of an action, which is the present case. Pareus (who disalloweth neither of the interpretations, yet thinks the Syriack interpreter to have best understood the place, and cleared the text) rendereth it thus; 
Vid. Bezam & Paraeum in loc.  who also in the days of his flesh offered prayers and supplications with strong cries and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard. And though he were a son, yet learned he obedience from his fear, and the things which he suffered. Tremellius followeth him and Beza dislikes him not herein, the sense being the same.   

CHAP. X. The Vindication of Psa. 22.1.  Psa. 22.1. My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? 
Dialogu MAny Divines conclude from this Text, that God did forsake his son in his anger, because he had imputed to him all our sins: but yet other Divines differ from them. M. Broughton saith, My God, My God, showeth that Christ was not forsaken of God, but that God was his hope. 2. Saith he, The word forsaken is not in the Text, but Why dost thou [leave] me? namely, why dost thou leave me to the griefs following from the malice of the Jews? as they are expressed in the body of the Psalm. 3. Saith he, None ever expounded one matter, and made his amplification of another; but Psal. 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by men, and not from God's anger. Therefore the Proposition in the first verse is not a complaint to God that he forsook his soul in anger for our sins. M. Robert Wilmot showeth at large that the term forsaken is not so proper to this place as the term leave, and he doth parallel it with the word leave, in Psal. 16.10. M. Ainsworth saith, the Hebrew word which we translate [forsaken] may be translated, why leavest thou me? And he saith in a Letter to myself, that there is no material difference between leaving and forsaking, so as the meaning be kept sound. Therefore it followeth by good consequence that Christ doth not complain Psa. 22. that God had forsaken him in anger for our sins.  
Answ. The Hebrew word (as also the Syriack used by our Saviour, Mat. 27.46.) and the Greek word used here by the Septuagint, signifieth to leave another helpless in their necessity or extremiry, which appeareth not only in its frequent use in the Scripture, but also in that this very word per Antiphrasin (it being one of those Hebrew words that have two contrary significations) signifieth to help up that which is down, or fortify, Nehem. 3.8. & 4.2. and such leaving we usually express by forsaking, and accordingly its read by Latin Expositors promiscuously, who all do in effect say with M Ainsworth; there is no material difference betwixt leaving and forsaking, so as the meaning be kept sound, which with M. Ainsworth was, but with you is not, therefore you choose leaving, which with us is more general, and refuse forsaking which is a more proper term.  
The Hebrew word then signifying to Forsake; the word [forsaken] is in the Text more proper than the word [leave] contrary to M. Broughton.  
The leaving or forsaking here is not only bodily, but chief spiritual; The matter propounded in the first verse, and amplified in the body of the Psalm, is the same; namely, the passion of Christ, Psa. 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by men instrumentally, and by God's anger as the efficient cause; God's anger and men's herein are not opposite, but subordinate one to another. Anger in Scripture is taken sometimes for the hatred of God unto a person: sometime for the execution of vindicative justice, in the latter sense God was angry with Christ, not in the former. 
Separation from God in sense or feeling, Absolute separation from God this second was in Christ. Perk. Gal. 3.13.  Forsaking is either total and final, so God forsakes the Reprobate; or partial and temporal, as concerning the fruition and sense of the good of the promise, so God forsook Christ, and of this forsaking Christ complaineth in this place, being a principal part of that punishment, which Christ as the surety of the Elect was to undergo; the words clearly holding forth this truth, the Text neither according to Grammatical sense, nor Analogy of faith can admit of any better interpretation. Christ in his death was made sin imputatively, that is, he suffered the guilt and punishment of sin, a chief part whereof was this divine paenall desertion, his death was joined with the curse, made up of the pain of sense, and the pain of loss: If the pain of loss be not joined with the pain of sense, there can be no sufficient cause given of so bitter and lamentable a cry for that person who was God man, therefore it follows by good consequence, that Christ doth complain Psa. 22. that God had forsaken him in anger for our sin.  
Dialogu Our Saviour's complaint must run thus, Why hast thou left me into the hands of my malignant adversaries, to be used as a notorious malefactor? It's not so fit a phrase to say, Why hast thou forsaken me into the hands of my malignant adversaries, as to say, Why hast thou left me into the hands of my malignant adversaries?  
Answ. Our Saviour's complaint runs so in your interpretation, namely, as concerning men; but it runs not so according to truth either only or chief. He was not only a notorious malefactor (though unjustly according to men) as you would have it: but he was a notorious malefactor having upon him the guilt of the sins of the Elect by imputation, and that justly before God.  
It is as fit a phrase to say Why hast thou forsaken me in the hands of my malignant adversaries, as to say Why hast thou left me into the hands of my malignant adversaries. The words of the Psalmist are, Why hast thou forsaken me, or Why hast thou left me? and no more: the addition, fit or unfit is the Dialogues paraphrase, not the Psalmists phrase.  
Dialogu God forsakes the damned totally and finally, because there is no place of repentance left open to them, but he did not so forsake his son, neither did he forsake his son by any inward desertion, as he doth sometimes forsake his own people for the trial of their grace: but he left his son only outwardly when he left him into the hands of Tyrants to be punished as a malefactor without any due trial of his cause.  
Answ. Rather there is no place of repentance left open to the damned, because they are forsaken totally and finally: we say, that Christ was forsaken paenally, yet partially and temporally, not totally and finally: Christ was forsaken in way of trial, though not only, nor principally in way of trial, Luke 22.28. Heb. 2.18. & 4.15. And he was in all points tempted like unto us.  
Dialogu Therefore the complaint of Christ lies fair and round thus, Why hast thou left me in my righteous cause unto the will of my malignant adversaries, to be condemned and put to death as a wicked Malefactor?  
Answ. This is but the same in effect in more words with what you lately said in fewer words, and therefore receiveth the same answer.  
Dialogu. John Hus appealed to Jesus Christ for justice, saying, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? Ammond de la Roy Martyr, in the time of his torments said, Lord, Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?  
Answ. It's a most lame and sick consequence; The Martyrs or others in the time of their desertions under the castigatory wrath of God, complained in these words; therefore Christ suffered not paenall desertion. As weak is the other consequence, God for the manifestation of his glory in the witnessing of his truth; for the good example of others, the discovery of the tyranny of Antichrist, forsook David and others with a castigatory desertion: therefore he forsook not Christ with a penal desertion for the manifestation of the glory of his justice.  
Dialogu. Christopher Carlisle upon the Article of Christ's descent into hell, saith not one word of the suffering of his father's wrath, yet he makes use of Psal. 22.1. and of M. calvin's judgement in other points, though he doth differ from him in his exposition of Psa. 22.1.  
Answ. If he doth differ from him without reason, we may oppose calvin's authority with reason, against his without it. It's not the authority of Calvin that concludes for; much less the authority of Carlisle that concludes against: but the reason of either according to truth, that determines the question.  
Dialogu. The holy Ghost hath indicted this Psalm by the Prophet David in the Person of Christ. If so, than all the words of this Psalm must have relation to the person of Christ. The Psalm itself hath two principal parts, the first is from ver. 1. to 21. in all which Christ doth complain to his father of his unjust usage by his malignant Adversaries: the 2d part of the Psalm is from the 22. ver. to the end.  
Answ. The inditing of the Psalm by David with the distribution thereof, nothing disproveth the desertion mentioned vers. 1. to proceed from the wrath of God.  
In this Psalm Christ complaineth of his unjust usage by his malignant adversaries, but not of that only nor principally.  
The passions whereof Christ complaineth in this Psalm, may be conveniently distributed into four heads. The suffering the wrath of God, ver. 1.2.11. The grief of his spirit by reproaches, ver. 6, 7, 8, 17, 18. His fear from the cruelty of his enemies, vers. 12, 13, 16, 20, 21. The torture of his body by crucifying, ver. 14.15, 16, 17. the greatest whereof was the sense of the wrath of God.  
Dialogu Therefore seeing Christ in this place doth double the term of his affiance in God, saying, My God, My God; it proves evidently that God had not forsaken his Son in anger for our sins, but that God was still his hope; and that he would at last turn all his sufferings but unto the trial of his perfect obedience.  
Answ. Of forsaking and anger, we have distinguished before; where we saw that God forsook Christ temporally and partially, in executing upon him as our surety the vindicative justice due to the elect for their sins, all which consists fully With this steadfast and unshaken affiance in God. Therefore his sufferings were not only in way of testimony, but also in way of satisfaction to divine justice.  
Dialogu Why art thou then so far from my help, and from the words of my roaring? Why dost thou leave me unto the will of my malignant adversaries, notwithstanding my prayers, and my righteous cause?  
Answ. You wrong the Text in restraining it unto the wrath of man. Christ principally if not wholly herein, looks unto the wrath of God.  
Our Lord's complaint here expressed by a Metaphor of roaring, is by the Evangelists called crying with a loud voice, Mat. 27.46. Mar. 15.34. Luke 23.46. By Paul, strong crying, Heb. 5.7.  
This last Text M. Ainsworth citys to the same purpose, whose judgement the Dialogue seems much to account of.  
Dialogu. My heart is melted in the midst of my bowels, that is to say, the evil spirit that is in my malignant Adversaries, and their doctors, do make my humane affections to melt in the midst of my bowels.  
Answ. If your Exposition were good and full, yet it is impertinent unto the argument, taken from the first verse. The cause of the fainting of his spirit illustrated from a comparison of melting wax, was neither only nor chief his suffering from the wrath of men, but from the wrath of God.  
Dialogu Thou hast brought me unto the dust of death, vers. 15. God doth not so bring Christ unto the dust of death, as he doth other men, namely, not so as death is laid upon man for sin, Gen. 3.19.  
Answ. The Scripture mentioneth no other death then what is inflicted justly for sin, and M. Ainsworth whom the Dialogue often citys, seemeth to understand death to be laid upon Christ, according to the sense of Gen. 3.19. expressly quoting that Text in his Commentary upon this Verse. But do you show the difference between the death of Christ and the death of other men; whence it may appear, that death was not laid upon Christ for sin.  
Dialogu But for the better understanding of the true difference, I will distinguish upon the death of Christ; for God appointed him to die a double kind of death. 1. As a Malefactor, and 2. As a Mediator, and all this at one and the same time.  
1. He died as a Malefactor by God's determinate counsel and decree, he gave the devil leave to enter into Judas to betray him, and into the Scribes and Pharisees, and Pontius Pilate to condemn him, and to do what they could to put him to death, and in that respect God may be truly said to bring him into the dust of death, Gen 3.19.  
2. Notwithstanding all this, Christ died as a Mediator, and therefore his death was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor, for as he was our Mediator he separated his own soul from his body by the power of his Godhead. All the Tyrants in the world could not separate his soul from his body, Joh. 19.11. no, not by all the torments they could devise, till himself pleased to actuate his own death by the joint concurrence of both his natures, Joh. 10.18.  
Answ. The plain meaning of the Author in this distinction is, Christ died as a Malefactor only (though unjustly) in the Jews account, but not as a Mediator: As a Mediator only in God's account, but not as a Malefactor.  
This distinction in name, but in truth a Sophism, is used as a crutch to support the halting doctrine of the non-imputation of sin unto Christ.  
Christ's death as a Mediator (saith the distinction) was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor: the Jews are said to put Christ to death, because they endeavoured to put him to death, but did not separate his soul from his body; in that sense they did not put him to death, so is the distinction expressly interpreted, pag. 100  
If Christ's death was a suffering then the formal cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body, so often mentioned by the Dialogue, otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter, yea, and in this case his own Executioner, which last the Dialogue itself expressly rejecteth. But the Dialogue resuming and insisting further upon this distinction elsewhere, let the fuller speaking thereunto be referred till then.  
Though Haman according to the true sense of that Text, Est 8.7. be said to lay his hand upon the Jews, yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman. Abraham is said to have offered up Isaac, yet Isaac is not where said to be slain by Abraham, as Abraham did sacrifice Isaac, so was Isaac sacrificed, that is, interpretatively or virtually, not actually. But how often do we read in Scripture that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews, Act. 2.37. & 4.10. 1 Cor. 2.8. By this reason it may be said, that the Jews only endeavoured to offer violence unto Christ, and put him to smart, but did not actually and really, because they could do neither without the permission of the Divine nature, nor did either without both his Mediatorly permission and consent. The Jews accounting of Christ as of a Malefactor or Transgressor, was that the Scripture might be fulfiled, Mat. 15.28. and was just in respect of God, though unjust in respect of them.  
Christ in God's account suffered not only as a Mediator, but also as a malefactor or transgressor, i. e. a sinner imputatively in respect of the guilt and punishment of sin; he was such a Mediator to whom it was essential (for the time) to be a Malefactor, that is, to suffer the guilt and punishment of sin. The Priesthood was essential to the Mediator. To be a sacrifice for sin was essential to the Priesthood, Isa. 53.10. Therefore to be a sacrifice for sin was essential to the office of a Mediator.  
As Christ was by office, so he died. Christ died not only as a Mediator, Heb. 8.6. but also as a surety, Heb. 7.22. He shall bear their iniquity, Isa. 53.11. 
Bajulabit.  as a Porter bears a burden, and that upon the Tree, 1 Pet. 2.24. He was made sin, 2 Cor. 5.21. Christ separated his soul from his body, as a subordinate cause, not as a principal efficient, that is, as a surety, by voluntary yielding and offering up his life, Heb. 9.24. but not as an executioner. We read Joh. 10.18. that Christ laid down his life, but not that he took it away by violence; the same word that is here used concerning Christ, Peter hath concerning himself, I will lay down my life for thy sake, Joh. 13.37. and John hath concerning Christ and the Saints, because he laid down his life for us, we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren, 1 Joh. 3.16. But it was not lawful for Peter or the Saints to take away their own lives.  
Though Christ by his absolute power could have preserved his life against all created adversary power; none taketh it from me, namely, against my consent, whether I will or not, Joh. 10.18. yet by his limited power, he could not, but as our surety he was bound to permit the course of physical causes, and prevailing of the power of darkness, for the fullfilling of what was written concerning him; This is your hour, and the power of darkness, Luke 22.53. The Jews therefore doing that which according to the order of second causes, not only might, but also (through his voluntary and obliged permission) did take away his life, did not only endeavour but also actually kill him. Yet suppose the Jews were not instrumental, in the actual taking away of his bodily life, it is a mere non-consequence thence to infer the non-imputation of sin unto Christ. Briefly, as this distinction is a mere sophism and groundless, so the discourse concerning the Jews endeavouring to put Christ to death, but not really putting him to death, making Christ to take away his own life, and consequently to be his own Executioner, is false and impertinent. For which, though the Jews may owe the Author some thanks, yet Christ Jesus himself and all judicious Christians cannot but take it very ill.  
Dialogu. Thus have I showed unto you the dependence of the first part of this Psalm; by which you may see how the scope of this Psalm doth set out the sufferings of Christ to proceed not from God's wrath but from man's only. Neither do I find any thing of God's wrath either in this or in any other Psalm, and yet Christ doth make as doleful complaint to God of his sufferings, both in this Psalm, and Psal. 69. as any can be found in all the Bible.  
Answ. What you have said upon the first part of this Psalm of any weight against the sufferings of Christ as proceeding from God's wrath, hath been considered, and its insufficiency to that end sufficiently manifested. It hath also been proved out of part of the first part of this Psalm, viz. ver. 1.2.11. that Christ suffered the wrath of God; yet because (notwithstanding you cannot be ignorant of much that is spoken to that purpose) you do as much as say, that neither here or elsewhere you can find this truth in the Scripture, that the Reader may here see (for proofs from other places are to be expected elsewhere) how Christ's suffering the wrath of God, is argued from his doleful complaints in his passion: I shall close this discourse, presenting him with a brief yet sad and serious view of the passion of our Lord Jesus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It intends all the suffering of afflicting and conflicting affections under the sight and sense of great and eminent peril impending. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anima Christi fuit tristis usque ad mortem extensiuè & intensiuè. Gerharm. in ●.  a subject which the Angels themselves (how much more should all believers) desire throughly and narrowly to look into, 1 Pet. 1.12. by considering, 1. The nature. 2. The effects. 3. The adjuncts. 4. The subject of these sufferings.  
Luke expresseth the nature of his passion in general by an Agony, Chap. 22.44. it signifieth the sorrows of combaters entering the lists with the sense of the utmost danger of life, a metaphor taken from the passion of conflicting affections, in the greatest, eminentest, and most sensible perils, and so holding forth the sharpest of the fears of men. The parts of this Agony are.  
1. Extreme sorrow, and he began to be sorrowful and very heavy, then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death, Mat. 26.36, 37. His sorrow was lethal and deadly, both extensively and intensively; extensively, continuing unto the last gasp: intensively, killing of itself in time; had there been no other causes resolving and melting the soul gradually, as wax is melted with the heat. My heart is like wax, it is melted in the midst of my bowels, Psa. 22.14.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  2. Amazement, and he began to be sore amazed, Mar. 14 33. which signifieth an universal cessation of all the faculties of the soul from their several functions, Physicians call it an Horripilation, we usually a Consternation; Like a clock in kelter, yet stopped for the while from going, by some hand laid upon it. That such intermission of the operations of the soul, the effect of this formidable concussion, might be without sin, is evident to him that remembers Christ slept, Sleep ordinarily implying a cessation of the exercise of the intellectual faculties for the time.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  3. Expavefaction. He began not merely to be amazed but also to be very heavy, the word notes expavefaction, which was such a motion of his mind superadded unto his Consternation: whereby for the time he was disenabled, as concerning the minding of any thing else, being wholly taken up with the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God; as the eye intensely fixed upon some object, taketh no notice of any other object before it for the while.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  4. Fear, Who in the days of his flesh, i.e. of his infirm flesh before his death and resurrection, when he offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that which he feared, Heb. 5.7. his fear was an afflicting affection arising from the sight and sense of the greatest moral evil, namely, the fearful wrath of God.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  5. Desertion, or being forsaken of God, that is left helpless and succourless in his extremity, Mat. 27.46.  
The effects of his passion were.  
1. Fervent prayer, Mat. 26.36. earnest prayer, Luk 22.44. being fallen upon his face, ver. 39 with strong crying and tears, Heb. 5.7. three times saying the same words, My Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me, Mat. 26.44.  
2. Bloody sweat, and being in an agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground, Luke 22.44.  
Name ter humi strato, contritio cordis, & ille  
Sanguineus sudor, crux fuit ante crucem.  
3. That doleful, loud, and lamentable cry, and about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lamasabachthani, that is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me: Mat. 27.46.  
The Adjuncts of his passion were.  
1. An Angel comforting him, And there appeared an Angel to him from Heaven strengthening him.  
2. A miraculous Eclipse continuing three hours, 
Aut Deus naturae patitur, aut mundi machina dissolvitur.  so contrary to the course of nature, as that an understanding Heathen at the sight of it cried out, Either the God of nature suffereth, or the frame of this world is dissolved.  
Lastly, The subject of all these sufferings, namely, Jesus Christ God-man. Now sum up all these in order; An Agony wherein were lethal sorrow, consternation, expavefaction, fear, desertion, fervent prayer, bloody sweat, doleful and loud cry, need of strengthening from an Angel, put all these together in a person who was not a mere creature, but God-man, having a perfect soul and body, free from all moral infirmity, of sound health and exact temper, who not only was God, but knew that God was his, Mat. 27.46. fully understood the glory of the blessed, that his soul immediately upon its dissolution should be in Paradise, Luke 23.43. that his body after three days should rise again, Matt. 16.21. and that in the interim it should not see corruption, Psa. 16.10. and then I appeal to the conscience of each Christian Reader, whether such a passion in such a subject argueth not greater sufferings then of a mere natural death, or could argue less than the sufferings of the greatest evil that could befall him that could not sin; namely, the wrath of God.   

CHAP. XI. The Vindication of Gal. 3.13.  Gal. 3.13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, as it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs upon a tree. 
Dialogu. IN this Text the Apostle speaks of a twofold curse, 1. He speaks of the eternal curse in ver. 10.2. Of an outward temporary curse, in ver. 14. such as all men do suffer, who are hanged upon a tree; the Apostle brings in this latter curse in a Rhetorical manner only, saying thus, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law (namely, from the eternal curse at the very selfsame time) when he was made (not that curse, but) a curse for us according to Deuter. 21.23.  
Answ. The Apostle ver. 13. according to the stream of Interpreters answers an Objection arising out of vers. 10. thus, If every one be cursed that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them, it followeth then that all are accursed, because no one continueth in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them; No, saith Paul, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 actiuè, est sententia execratoria: passiuè, significat execrationis poenam transgresso: ribus legis statutam. Paraeus in loc.  for notwithstanding all are accursed in themselves, yet Christ hath redeemed us that believe (not only freed us, as you corruptly turn it) by laying down a just price, from the curse of the Law, i.e. from the sentence of the Law called a curse actively, and the execution of justice according to that sentence, called the curse passively. How? By being made a curse, i.e. that moral curse for us. But how doth that appear? For it is written, viz. Deut. 21.23. Cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree.  
The Apostle speaks of the eternal or moral curse, vers. 10. and of both the eternal and ceremonial curse, ver. 13. what more frequent then to hold forth a real truth by Rhetorical terms, yet here the Apostles stile is simple not Rhetorical. Your needless affecting a Rhetorical stile in this Text brings to mind the words of Beza, speaking of Erasmus, 
Imò verò in eo positae est tota nostra spes. Vide Bezam in Gal. 3.13.  seeking also a Trope in this place [Christ being made a curse for us] Nay, verily (saith he) in that is our whole hope laid up, in that appeareth the infinite love of God, in that is our salvation placed, that our God poured out all his wrath upon his own Son, properly and without any trope, he cursed him as he was our surety properly and without any Trope. The word [when] whereby you wrist that unto the time which is spoken of the manner how we are redeemed, is of your own putting in, and not in the Text.  
Dialogu. I confess that D. Luther was a rare instrument in the Church of God in his days, and he hath expounded the Epistle to the Galatians better than many others: but yet I believe he is far from the Apostles meaning in this matter, and it seemeth to me he had some doubt also about his Exposition. But he thinketh that the latter curse may well be expounded of his sacrifice for the Curse (and yet that Exposition is not right neither) for this latter Curse is no other than an outward temporary curse. For the Text in Deut. runs thus, If there be in a man a sin worthy of death, and thou hang him upon a Tree, etc. then he that is hanged is the curse of God.  
Answ. 'Tis true, that Martin Luther, as you immediately before said, commenting upon this Text, speaks as follows. And although these sentences may be well expounded after this manner, Christ is made a curse, that is to say, a sacrifice for the curse, and sin, that is, a sacrifice for sin, yet in my judgement it is better to keep the proper signification of the words, because there is a greater force and vehemency therein, as also that in the conclusion he affirmeth, that Christ bore all our sins by imputation, and that he bore the curse of the Law really for us, and in respect of bearing our sins by imputation he saith, that Christ was the greatest thief, blasphemer, etc.  
But because you so allege him, as if he were not so much against you, nor for us in this controversy, as indeed he is, and both of them so clearly and fully, as no man more, that the Reader may have a true taste of Luther's spirit and judgement in this point, I shall transcribe what he writes soon after what you have cited. Paul therefore (saith he) handleth this place with a true Apostolical spirit; there is neither Sophister, nor Lawyer, nor Jew, nor Anabaptist, nor any other, that speaketh as he doth, for who durst allege this place out of Moses, accursed is every one that hangeth on a tree, and apply it unto Christ: like as Paul then applied this sentence unto Christ, even so may we apply unto Christ not only the whole 27 Chapt. of Deut. but also may gather all the curses of Moses Law together, and expound the same of Christ; for as Christ is innocent in this general Law touching his person, so is he also in all the rest, and as he is guilty in this general Law, in that he is made a curse for us, and is hanged upon the Cross, as a wicked man, a blaspemer, a murderer, and a Traitor, even so is he also guilty in all others; for all the curses of the Law are heaped together and laid upon him, and therefore he did bear and suffer them in his own body for us, he was therefore not only accursed, but also was made a curse for us. This is to interpret the Scriptures truly, and like an Apostle. Thus Luther.  
There is not the least appearance that I can observe why Luther should seem, from what he writes on this Text, to doubt of his Exposition, but very abundantly much to the contrary.  
That Luther and others, who conclude from this Text Christ to have suffered the wrath of God, have the true meaning thereof, will appear by proving that the person hanged upon a tree and accursed, Deut. 21.23. was a type of Christ; for if the Type bore the Ceremonial, 'tis then manifest, that the Antitype bore the moral, that is, the eternal curse.  
If not only the malediction of every one that is hanged upon a tree be held forth, but also Christ's redemption of us from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us be both held forth and foretold, Deut. 21.23. than the Text Deut. 21.23. hath not only a proper but a typical signification.  
The malediction of every one that hangs upon a tree is contained in the Text properly. Christ's redemption of us from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us, is another thing, and cannot be contained therein properly, but only typically. Who, without the peculiar inspiration of the Spirit could have found that truth in that Text?  
But not only the malediction of every one that is hanged upon a Tree is held forth, but also Christ's redemption of us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us is both held forth and foretold, Deut. 21.23.  
The Minor is the Apostles, as appeareth by the causal particle, For, who proveth the foregoing part of the Text (which is his answer to the objection raised, as we saw before out of vers. 10. namely, Christ hath redeemed, etc.) by the following part, for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree. If those words, Gal. 3.13. Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree, and that Text Deut. 21.23. have both but one and that the same one sense, what then hinders that the foregoing part of the verse, namely, redemption of us from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us, is true of every one that was hanged upon a tree in Judea from Moses time until the passion of Christ inclusively, the latter words containing in them a proof of the former, as we saw just now from the causative particle, For. Then which inference what is more abominable?  
The typical reason excepted, namely, of signifying Christ bearing the moral curse upon the tree, there can be no sufficient nor probable reason given, why hanging upon a tree should infame and fasten upon the person hanged this special curse, whence followed the defiling of the Land, in case the body continued unburied after Sunset, above all other capital sufferings. For were all received which is said by the Hebrew Doctors, that is not repugnant unto Scripture, yet it is certain that some crimes for which they were hanged, were not so great as some crimes which were punished according to other capital sentences without hanging. As also that hanging after the manner of the Jews, was not so painful as some other deaths in use with them. Add hereunto, which is also acknowledged by you, that the Jews manner was often to hang them not alive, but after they were dead, yet not he that is stoned alive to death is accursed, but he that is hanged (though first stoned to death) is accursed; hanging after stoning, though it be acknowledged, yet it is not so clearly expressed in Scripture, as burning after stoning is, Josh. 7.25. burning the body to ashes, was as sore an execution in itself, as hanging up the body for a short space.  
There were Malefactors hanged before the giving of this Law, Deu. 21.23. yet we read not that they were accursed, during the space between the giving of this Law and the Passion of Christ, a malefactor hanged out of Judea was not accursed. In judea no person how great a malefector soever if not hanged was thus accursed: The person hanged was equally accursed, whether he was hanged alive or dead, whether he was hanged after this manner or after that, Jewish or Roman, etc. whether his crime were more heinous, or not so heinous. yea, for aught appeareth, though he were innocent, yet if hanged judicially he was accursed. Since the Passion of Christ, hanging in judea, is not ceremonially accursed.  
For otherwise (saith junius) neither according to the Law of nature, nor according to civil Law, 
Nam alioqui neque secundum naturae legem, etc. Junius paral. lib. 2. par. 52.  nor in respect of the thing itself, is he that is hanged, accursed; seeing therefore the cause why the carcase of him that is hanged, must not continue all night unburied, is ceremonial; Christ being the body, and fullfilling of the ceremonies, it is no doubt but in this ceremonial curse (Moses himself being a Type of our eternal Mediator) had respect unto our eternal and perfect mediation. This Exposition making the man that was hanged upon a tree, a ceremonial curse, and Christ hanged upon a tree a moral curse, is both generally received, and every way agreeing to the analogy of faith, which is a rule of interpreting Scripture.  
In that Christ Gal. 3.13. is expressly said to be a curse, it will thence unavoidably follow, that sin was some way judicially upon Christ; for we read of no curse inflicted according to the determinate and revealed way of proceeding with the reasonable creature, but presupposeth sin. Wherefore he could neither have been made a curse, nor die, since the only cause of the curse and of death is sin, from the which he was free, 
Luther in Gal. 3.13.  but because he had taken upon him our sins. So Luther.  
This Proposition then, Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree, is a typical proposition, and containeth in it these two truths. 1. That every one that hangeth upon a tree in judea from the promulgation of that curse until the Passion of Christ inclusively, is ceremonially accursed, i. e. all that are hanged shall be infamed with this special infamy, that the carcases of such, in case they be not buried before Sunset shall defile the Land. 2. That Christ in testimony that he redeemed us by beating the moral curse should be hanged upon a tree.  

Est enim propria & destinata. Jun. in Deut. 21.23. Suspensi propter crimen capitale, etc. Pisc. obs. in Deut. 21. Park. de desc. l. 3.  For Christ our Saviour by this manner (saith junius, speaking of hanging upon the cross) is figured by a ceremony proper, appointed of God and singular, who as the Apostle excellently delivereth, Gal. 3.13. was made a curse for us. They that were hanged for a capital crime amongst the Israelites typified Christ, who was to be hanged upon a tree for the sins of the Elect, Piscator, Parker, in his learned discourse of the Descent of Christ into hell, not only owneth and useth the distinction of the judicial and moral curse, but saith also that the malediction of the moral Law may be proved by the malediction of the judicial Law. How fare M. Ainsworth, 
Ainsw. on Exo. 27.1.  who (though the Dialogue often quote him) in this controversy is wholly ours, is like minded, judge by his ensuing words upon Deut. 21.23. and here in the utmost rigour and severity of the Law, God (saith he) fore-signified the riches of his grace toward sinners in Christ, who redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, as appeared in that he was hanged upon a tree, Gal. 3.13.  
This premised for the clearing of the Text, let us see, why according to you the word [Curse] in those words, being made a curse for us, Gal. 3.13. doth not signify the moral and eternal but an outward and temporal curse.  
Dialogu. This latter curse is no other than an outward temporary curse; for the text in Deut. 21, 22. runs thus, If there be in a man a sin worthy of death, and thou hang him on a tree, etc. then he that is hanged is the curse of God. What curse of God is it, that is meant? I answer, that may be discerned by taking notice of what kind of persons, and for what kind of sin this curse of God doth fall upon any, The persons, the Text describes them thus, namely, he that is put to death as a Malefactor, by the Magistrate. The kind of sins that are said to deserve this curse of hanging upon a tree, are described by this general term, a sin worthy of death, namely of this death; hence it is evident, that not every sin that deserved death is here meant, but such as deserved a double death, namely, 1. Stoning to death. 2. Hanging up of their bodies upon a tree, after they were stoned to death.  
Answ. Though the person thus accursed was according to the Law a person worthy of death, yet not the guilt of the person, but the typifying of the moral curse was the reason of this ceremonial curse. For greater Malefactors (as was intimated before) then some that were hanged, if they were not hanged were not accursed. Though the manner of the Jews were to hang up those that were stoned to death, yet we read not in the Scripture of any that were both stoned and hanged, though we read of Achan that he was both stoned and burned, but not that he was hanged. Naboth was stoned but we do not read that he was hanged. The King of Ai was hanged, but we do not read that he was first stoned, Josh. 8.29. The like we may observe of saul's sons, 2 Sam. 29.4. The Gibeonites being Proselytes were bound to the same laws with the Jews, Exod. 12.49. Those five Kings that were hanged were first slain (but 'tis not said they were stoned, nor doth any reason in the text lead so to think) and afterwards hanged. Howsoever it is no consequence, they were great offenders upon whom the ceremonial curse was inflicted, Deut. 21.23. Therefore the curse inflicted upon Christ (whom we have already proved to be the greatest offender, as being imputatively guilty of all the sins of the elect both hanged upon the cross, and others) was not the moral curse.  
Dialogu M. Calvin in Deut. 21.23. saith, That the hanging of Christ upon a tree was not after the manner that is here spoken of; for such as were stoned to death among the Jews, were also hanged up upon a gibbet after they were dead.  
M. Goodwin and M. Ainsworth from the Hebrew Doctors reckon 18 particular capital sins, for which men were first stoned to death and after hanged, and M. Ainsworth doth also say, that the Hebrew Doctors do not understand this hanging of being put to death by hanging, but of hanging a man up after he was stoned to death, which was done for the greater detestation of such heinous malefactors.  
Answ. M. Ainsworth upon Exo. 12.21. telleth us that the Hebrew Doctors say, that all that were to be stoned death by the Law, were 18. but he doth not there say, that after they were stoned they were hanged; 
The curse indeed fastened upon the person hanged, shown the heinousness of sin charged upon the Antitype as our surety, but that the Jews would not see.  though the Hebrew Doctors say there were 18 sins for which men were stoned and hanged (not woman, see Ainsworth on Deut. 21.22.) yet Moses doth not say so. Who is ignorant that the Jewish and Roman manner of hanging was (as Calvin saith) divers? or who denieth the manner of the Jews for a long time to be according to their Doctor's writings? but we look at this discourse as impertinent. It doth not appear that hanging by divine institution above all other punishments pointed out the detestation of the fact. If it did, the person hanged was so much the fit to be infamed with that curse, which might render him a type of the truth in controversy, namely, that Christ who was hanged upon the tree, was the most heinous Malefactor imputatively.  
Dialogu. The rebellious son Deut. 21.21. is brought in as an instance of this double punishment, he was first stoned to death, and then hanged upon a tree.  
Answ. The Dialogue saith so, but not the Text, interpreters look at the Law concerning the disobedient son, and the Law concerning the person hanged, as distinct laws, whether so or not is not material to the point in hand.  
Dialogu. Thou shalt not let his carcase remain all night upon the Tree, but thou shalt surely bury him in the same day at the going down of the Sun, and the reason is added, because he is the cursed of God, namely, because such sinners are more eminently cursed of God, because they were punished with the heaviest kind of death that the judges of Israel did use to inflict upon any Malefactors.  
Answ. All that were hanged, and only those that were hanged in judea, after this Law given, were thus accursed, without reference to any other punishment suffered or not. Though hanging of itself concludeth the person accursed, yet not punished with the heaviest kind of death. Stoning and burning were by the Hebrew Doctors themselves both distinguished from and accounted heavier than strangling or hanging. See Ainsw. on Exod. 12.21. If they were dead before they were hanged, they felt not the pain of hanging. All that were slain before they were hanged were not stoned, Iosh. 10.26. If a man were both stoned and hanged, yet stoning and burning was as heavy, if not a heavier punishment, of which last execution we read expressly, Iosh. 7. but not so of the first. Even according to the Hebrew Doctors alleged by M. Goodwin and M. Ainsworth, you may observe some offences punished with stoning and burning, not so heinous as some offences punished by other deaths. Lying with his daughter in law, or a betrothed maid, was according to them punished with stoning to death and hanging: whereas lying with his daughter, and that whilst his wife lived, was punished with burning, and murder was punished with the sword. Ains. on Exo. 12.21. The reason why such sinners as were hanged were more eminently cursed of God, than other malefactors, was not because they were punished with the heaviest kind of death, but for the typical use of this death.  
Dialogu. I think I have sufficiently proved that God did not appoint the hanging upon a tree to be a type of the temporal curse.  
Answ. We think you have not, and indeed that in all you have said, you have said little to that purpose: whose thoughts are right, belongs to the Reader to judge.  
Dialogu. If hanging upon the tree had been appointed by God to be a type of the eternal curse, than every one that is hanged upon a tree should be eternally accursed, and then divers Martyrs that were crucified, as Christ was, are eternally accursed, and then the penitent thief was eternally accursed.  
Answ. Nothing so, 
Neque enim maledictos vocat, ac fi desperata esset corum salus, sed quia maledictionis nota est suspensio. Calv. in 5. lib. Mosis.  for the type as the type could not be the Antitype. Canaan was a type of heaven, but Canaan was not heaven. Adam in his first sin was a type of Christ obeying, Rom. 5.14. yet Adam was not Christ, nor disobedience obedience. Calvin often alleged by the Dialogue telleth you that the salvation of him that was hanged upon a tree was not desperate. A person might be ceremonially accursed, yet everlastingly blessed.  
As if it were requisite to the being of a type, or thing signifying, that it put on the nature of the Antitype, or thing signified, whereas the type as the type, can no more put on the nature of the Anti-type than the adjunct can put on the nature of the subject.  
Adam as a public person disobeying and communicating guilt and punishment to his seed, was a type, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Rom. 5.14. of Christ obeying and communicating righteousness and life unto his seed. Did then the first Adam put on the nature of the second, and so become a mediator? or did obedience put on the nature of disobedience? Moses the Minister of the Law dying before he came into Canaan (as M. Ainsworth observeth on Numb. 20.12.) signified the impotency of the Law to save; was therefore Moses no instrument of salvation unto any? Cyrus was a type of Christ, must therefore Cyrus not only be saved, but also put on the nature of a Mediator, who neither then Isa. 45.4.5. nor afterwards for aught that appeared, believed? Who ever reasoned thus before, that in any measure understood the nature of a type?  
Dialogu. But if the circumstances of the Text be well marked, they will tell you plainly, that this hanging upon a tree cannot be a type of the eternal curse; for 1. This Law of Moses must not be understood of putting any man to death by hanging, but of hanging of a dead body upon a tree after it was first put to death by stoning: but Christ was crucified whilst he was alive. 2. This hanging in Moses time was done by the judicial Law and civil Magistrates, and not by the ceremonial Law nor the Priests. 3. This hanging in Moses was commanded to be practised by the Magistrates of the jews Commonwealth, but the death which Christ suffered was a Roman kind of death.  
Answ. Yet Paul who well marked and understood also the Circumstances of the Text, telleth us plainly, Gal. 3.13. that Christ hanging upon the Cross, though by the Roman power, and also after a Roman manner, was intended in, and proved out of Deut. 21.23. The ceremonial curse therefore was laid upon every one that was judicially hanged upon a tree in Judea, from the time of the giving of this Law until the time of the passion of Christ, by what lawful authority soever, or after what manner soever.  
The principal scope of this Text is not to command putting to death by hanging upon a tree (the ground whereof is had elsewhere) but to give a Law concerning him that is hanged, namely, that he should in any wise be buried that day, with the reasons thereof annexed.  
Dialogu. When the Romans did put Christ to that kind of death which they used to inflict upon their base fugitive slaves, they made him cursed in his death in the highest degree they could, and yet at the selfsame time Christ did redeem us from the curse of the Law, even from the eternal curse, because Christ died not only as a Malefactor by the power of Roman soldiers, but he died also as a Mediator by his own mediatorial obedience.  
Answ. If he that only granteth Christ died as a Malefactor in the Romans and Jews account, but denieth that he died a Malefactor in God's account, should not put in that yet Christ died as a Mediator, he could expect no other but utmost abhorrence from every Christian man, for such a tenet as did not secretly steal away by subtle sophisms, but openly and before the Sun, spoil them of their Mediator.  
The curse laid upon Christ hanging upon a tree, was not the curse of the Romans, or a humane but a divine curse, Gal. 3.13. Deut. 21.23. for he that is hanged is accursed of God. Christ's death as a Malefactor in the Jews and Romans account unjustly, was a part, though but a small part of the just punishment of God inflicted upon him, as the great Malefactor imputatively in God's account: Christ died both as a Mediator and as a Malefactor in God's account. Of his dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor in the sense of the Dialogue, See before, Ch. 10.  
Dialogu. This act of Christ was an everlasting act of mediatorial obedience, it was no legal obedience, nor was it any humane act of obedience, as all legal obedience must be, but it was a supernatural act of obedience, it was no less than a mediatorial oblation, and therefore it was the meritorious procuring cause of our Redemption from the curse of the Law even at that very same time when Christ was made a curse for us, by hanging as a Malefactor upon a tree.  
Answ. Christ acted in his death, not as his own Executioner, but as our Priest and faithful Surety yielding up his life according to his voluntary pre-consent. This act of Christ in laying down his life was an act of legal obedience, because it was done in obedience to the Law, This commandment have I received from my Father. Joh. 10.18. He was obedient to the death, he humbled himself, and became obedient to the death, even the death of the Cross, Phil. 2.8. He was made under that is, subject to the Law, Gal. 4.4. and fulfiled the Law, Mat. 5.17. this act of laying down his life was supernatural, but not only supernatural, it was both divine and humane, according to both natures, for it was the act and obedience of him who was God-man, as God-man-Mediator, otherwise it could not have been effectual. This reasoning is as full of peril, as empty of sound reason.  
Dialogu Therefore the Tree on which Christ was crucified as a Malefactor cannot be the Altar, neither were the Roman Soldiers the Priests by whom this mediatorial sacrifice was offered up to God, but it was his own Godhead that was the Priest, and his own Godhead was the Altar, by which he offered up his soul to God, a mediatorial sacrifice for the procuring of our redemption from the curse of the Law.  
Answ. Who saith the Tree was the Altar, or that the Soldiers were the Priests? when the cross is sometimes in Writers resembled unto the Altar, it is an illustration by way of allusion unto the type, that is, the Altar whereon the beast was laid, but not unto the Antitype; Christ was both Priest, Sacrifice, and Altar, which yet is not to be understood as excluding either of his natures in any of these considerations: He was a Sacrifice in respect of his humane nature, yet he who was the Sacrifice was both God and Man: He was the Altar in respect of his divine nature, yet he that was the Altar was both God and Man. He was Priest as God-man.   

CHAP. XII. Christ redeemed us not from the curse of the Law, by his soul-sufferings only. And of the meaning of Haides.  
Dialogu GOod Divines do affirm that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, not by his bodily but by his soul-sufferings only, which God inflicted upon his soul when his body was crucified upon the Tree.  
Answ. I do not find that any Orthodox Divine so affirmeth: 
Willet cen. 5. err. 3. par. 3. q. 3. Cyril. de rectâ fide ad Theod. Calv. insti. l. 2. c. 16. sect. 10, 11, 12.  We (saith Dr Willet in the name of the Orthodox) say then, that though in the use and application of Christ's sacrifice, we speak distinctly that Christ's soul was given for our souls, his flesh for our flesh, as Cyril saith, thereby to set forth the proportion of God's justice, which must be satisfied with the price both of body and soul for the redemption of our body and soul, yet we do not sever nor divide the power and virtue of Christ's sacrifice, but ascribe the Redemption of our body and soul jointly and equally to the sacrifice of his body and soul.  
Dialogu. This kind of reasoning is very absurd, for as Mr. Broughton well observeth, if Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only, to redeem our souls, and not in his body to redeem our bodies, than our bodies are not redeemed.  
Answ. The Dialogues kind of reasoning is worse than very absurd, that first puts untruly upon Divines the affirmation of an error, and then censureth them as if that error were theirs: making them first guilty by an untruth, and then censuring them as truly guilty.  
Dialogu If Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul to redeem our souls from the eternal curse, he must also suffer the wrath of God in his body to redeem our bodies from the eternal curse, or else our bodies must still continue under the eternal curse, though our souls be redeemed by his soul-sufferings: Is not this to make Christ an imperfect Redeemer, and to leave a doubting conscience in a Labyrinth of doubts and quergs?  
Answ. Whilst you say, If Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul, what is this but to deceive your less attentive Reader into a better opinion of your error by a scoffing inference (for you believe not that Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul) added to an untruth immediately foregoing. 
Perkins on the Creed.  Such weapons discovered will turn upon the Author. We believe and have already affirmed, that Christ suffered the full wrath of God, even the pangs of hell, both in soul and body; it concerns therefore the Reader to beware of that Dialogue, and the Author thereof to look to himself, that whilst it saith, To make Christ to suffer the wrath of God only in his soul and not in his body, is to make him an imperfect Redeemer, and to leave a doubting conscience in a labyrinth of doubts and quere's, doth itself deny Christ to have suffered the wrath of God either in soul or body. Is not this to make Christ no redeemer, and to leave a doubting conscience in a labyrinth not of doubts and quere's, but of despair itself?  
Dialogu The truth is, I find much uncertainty amongst Divines what to affirm in this point, for first, some affirm that Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only. Secondly, Others affirm that he suffered the wrath of God as well in his body as in his soul, to redeem our bodies from God's wrath as well as our souls.  
Answ. That the latter is affirmed by Divines we have already seen; we expect to hear from you who are those Divines which affirm that Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only.  
Dialogu. Vrsinus doth plainly deny that Christ suffered the pains of the damned in his body, in Catech. pa. 487. Printed 1611. These pains (saith he) he suffered not in his body, for the sufferings of his body were only external, therefore (saith he) he suffered those pains in his soul; And yet in the same Catechism, pag. 487. he affirmeth, That Christ suffered thè wrath of God both in his body and in his soul, to deliver our souls and bodies from eternal damnation.  
Answ. There is much difference between a contradiction and a denial. If he denieth that Christ suffered the pains of the damned either in body or soul, 
Christus corpore & animâ sentit totalem Dei iram, explicat. Catechis. part. 2. qu. 37. q. 1. pag. 256. Idem ibid. qu. 44. pag. 277.  as you affirm, in so saying, he saith the truth, with divers others, who distinguish between the pains of those who deserved to be damned, namely, the Elect, and the pains of the damned, and judiciously resolve that it is better to say Christ suffered the pains of those who were to be damned according to their deserts, that is, the essential punishment due unto the Elect for their sins, then that he suffered the punishment of the damned, part whereof, though not the substantial but circumstantial, is their total and final separation from God, sin, despair, duration of the torments for ever, etc. none of which Christ suffered.  
Those Divines that thus interpret the Articles of Christ's descent into hell, concerning soul-sufferings of God's wrath, distinguish the sufferings of Christ into outward, intended by them in those words [he was crucified, dead and buried] and inward, 
Nempe omnes poevae damnatorum his duobus continentur geveribus, ut aliae pertincant ad corpus, alia ad animam.  intended in those words [he descended into hell] which is a distribution in respect of the subject, and not of the adjunct, as you mistake, and is as if they should say, The paenall wrath of God or hell-pains which Christ suffered were either outward, viz. such as he suffered in body, or inward, viz. such as he suffered in soul, and this article of his descent into hell signifieth his inward pains, namely, those which he suffered in soul and not in his body. Vrsin thus intends, and is, and aught to be so understood, and so agreeth both with the truth and with himself.  
Dialogu The like contradiction may be showed in sundry other Authors; Polanus divides the sufferings of Christ into outward and inward, and he applieth his sufferings of hell-torments to his inward soul sufferings only; See his Substance of Religion, pag. 141.144.  
Answ. As you mistook Vrsin, so you mistake Polanus, the same answer is to be repeated in the same case. Polanus in opposition to Bellarmine, and some other late Popish Writers, who teach, that Christ suffered not the wrath of God in his soul, propounds this question, v. Whether the alone passion and death of the body of Christ was sufficient punishment for us, and the satisfaction of an infinite price? and resolveth it negatively, proving the satisfactory passion of Christ to be both outward and inward of both body and soul, as is plain to the Reader, though (the nature of the dispute so requiring) he applieth himself principally to prove the soul-sufferings of Christ. You have not yet produced an Orthodox Author that saith Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only.  
Dialogu. We see but in part and know but in part; God hath some truth to bring to light in every age; the common doctrine of imputation hath much obscured the meritorious price of our redemption and justification.  
Answ. We doubt not but God doth clear his truth more and more in every age, neither do we doubt of fundamental truth continuing the same to his in all ages. As at the coming of Christ, Satan opposed the true Christ with raising up false Christ's, so at the breaking forth of the light, he opposeth the true light by false lights. If the doctrine of the Dialogue brought to the fiery trial be found to be darkness, and ours to be light; it deeply concerneth the Author timously to remember that of the Prophet; Woe be to them that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, Isa. 5.20.  
Dialogu. Others allege the Article of Christ's Descent, to prove, that Christ suffered the torments of hell in his soul for our Redemption; but the truth is, the Article speaks only of his souls passage from his body to Haides, which hath a double lot (when it is applied to the souls departed) a place of joy and a place of torment, so that all souls both good and bad go to Haides as soon as they are separated from the body: the bad do go to the place of torment in Haides, and the good go to the place of pleasure in Haides; therefore seeing Christ was a good man, even the Holy One of God, he must needs go to the place of pleasure in Haides, even to the Paradise, Luk. 23.43. and that Haides doth comprehend in it a double lot (as Britain doth comprehend England and Scotland) is evident by the use of the Greek word in sundry Greek Authors, and according to this sense M. Robert Wilmot hath expounded this Article, wherein he doth also approve of the judgement of M. Broughton in his Exposition of this Article.  
Answ. This Article of the Creed is not found in the Scripture in terms, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sym. Apos. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sym. Atha. Nempe quia essentia illorum est per se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & status 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & locus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jun. cont. 2. l. 4. c. 14.  though the Orthodox sense of it is taught therein clearly and plentifully. The Learned observe above threescore Creeds of the most ancient Counsels and Fathers, that want this clause, and amongst them the Nicene Creed. The Article of the Creed saith not that Christ descended into Haides but into Hades. It is true, that Haides in respect of its Etymology is used in a large signification by both divine and secular Authors, for an invisible place and condition, and in this sense it is applicable to all souls departed whether good or bad, because the Being, State, and Place of both are invisible to us.  
The Author of the Dialogue perceiving the large use of the word, very unwarrantably ventures to say the Article of the Creed speaks only of his souls passage from his body to Haides: 
Sciendum sanè est, quod in Ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non habetur additum, de scendit ad inferos, sed neque in orientis Ecclesiis habetur hic sermo, vis tamen verbi eadem videtur esse in eo quod sepultus dicitur.  For  
1. The word in the Creed is doubtless to be interpreted according to some sense wherein it is used in the Scripture, where it is taken for the grave, Act. 2.27. for hell Rev. 20.13, 14. but never in this sense used by the Dialogue,  
2. From the incongruity of the words so understood; It were not proper to say he descended, but he ascended into the place of joy, viz. the celestial Paradise.  
Lastly, the Ancients though they knew the large use of the word Hades, yet did not take it in the Creed according to the exposition of the Dialogue. Ruffinus saith, directly that these words, He descended into hell, are not found in the Creed of the Roman Church, nor used in the Churches of the East, and if they be, that then they signify the burial of Christ.   

CHAP. XIII. Of the Dialogues arguments taken from the description of the torments of hell; and from the place of suffering the torments of the damned.  
Dialogu. BY describing the torments of hell you shall be the better able to judge whether Christ did suffer the torment of hell for our Redemption, or not. The torments of hell are usually divided into two paerts. 1. Into the pain of less. 2. Into the pain of sense. The pain of loss is the privation of God's favour, by a everlasting separation.  
Answ. The rule which Logicians give concerning definitions is to be attended to concerning descriptions (which are imperfect definitions) A little error in the beginning, in a short time becometh a great one, 
Error definiendi exiguus, brevi fit ingens.  and increaseth as the Dispute increaseth.  
Pain of loss and Pain of sense make up the torments of hell. Pain of loss then being but a part of the curse or punishment, the part is to be distinguished according to the whole, as the punishment is taken either essentially for such executions of justice as flow from the curse, as such, viz. the not enjoying of aught of the good of the promises, and the suffering of all the substantial positive evil of the curse, without any respect unto the condition of the Patient, or accidentally for such executions of justice as are inseparable concomitants of the state of the damned, yet flow not from the simple nature of the curse, but in respect of the condition of the patiented, viz. total and final separation from God, etc. of which oft above.  
The Favour of God is taken largely for the effects of his common bounty; so the wicked are for their sin separated from the favour of God; or it is taken properly for the special love of God, namely Election: so the wicked cannot be said to be separated from him: the Legal discovenanting of the Reprobate for their sin which they have committed, is the effect of justice; that being discovenanted they fall into the bottomless pit, is also an effect of justice; but totality and finality of their disunion with God without recovery by the covenant of grace, is a consequent of Reprobation.  
This premised, the error of the description is manifest, which holds only concerning the pain of loss, as it is an accidental part of punishment, and belongs to the Reprobate, but not as it is of the essence of punishment, in which sense it is only true of Christ.  
The description of the pain of loss, viz. that it is the privation of God's favour by an eternal Separation, is untrue, imperfect, and impertinent.  
First, It is untrue, because  
1. It affirmeth a privation of God's favour, where God's favour never was, which is as if we should in Logic suppose a privation where never was an habit.  
2. Because it supposeth Gods not loving i e. his hatred of Reprobation to be an effect of justice (for pain of loss is an effect of justice) whereas Reprobation is an act of Lordship not of Justice.  
Secondly, It is imperfect, leaving out the privation of the good of the promises, wherein consists the pain of loss essentially and principally.  
Thirdly, It is impertinent holding only (as we saw before) concerning the pain of loss accidentally but not essentially; though this last be the only and very question between us.  
This description of the Dialogue laid as a foundation of the following Discourse, being overthrown, what we shall find built thereupon must needs fall with it; which before we proceed unto, it may be seasonable here to present the Reader with a true description of the pain of loss in stead of this erroneous description of the Author.  
The pain of loss taken essentially, is an universal privation of the fruition of the good of the promise.  
The pain of loss taken essentially and circumstantially is the universal privation of the fruition of the good of the promise, together with the total and final absence of those good things which flow not from the curse as such, but are effects of justice upon the damned, in respect of the condition of the Patient, viz. dis-union with God, privation of his image in the soul, and desperation.  
Dialogu For as the favour of God through Christ is the fountain of life, because it is the beginning of eternal life, Psa 36.9. so on the contrary to be totally separated from God's favour by an eternal separation, must needs be the beginning of hell-torments or of death eternal.  
Answ. If the Dialogue intends the favour of God to be the beginning of eternal life only causally, than this comparison is instituted between the formal beginning of eternal death, and the causal beginning of eternal life; so it is vain as to the purpose intended; if it intends the favour of God in Christ, taken properly, to be the beginning of eternal life formally, than it is false, for the favour of God in Christ which is the fountain of life, is increated; and without beginning, and is nothing else but Election, the first cause of our good. Eternal life whose beginning and continuance is of the same nature, is created and hath a beginning though it be without an end, and is the effect of this first cause: the Dialogue therefore confounding the favour of God with the beginning of eternal life formally, doth as much as say the cause is the effect, and that which is increated is created. If the comparison were in itself good, yet it is impertinent, concluding only concerning the pain of loss taken accidentally, not as taken essentially: which last must always be remembered to be the sense of the Question.  
Dialogu. God doth not forsake the Reprobates so long as they live in this life, with such a total forsaking, as he doth after this life: yea, the very Devils, themselves as long as they live in this world (being Spirits) in the air, are not so forsaken of God as they shall be at the day of judgement; for as yet they are not in hell, but in this air, and therefore they have not their full torments as yet.  
Answ. Then the pain of loss consists not in the mere want of the favour or love of God; for the Reprobates whether men or devils in this life, or in the air, are always hated of God. God's love and hatred are eternal and immutable.  

Vide Pisc. in 2 Pet. 2.4.  The devils being deprived of the image of God after which they were created, and being under a degree of eternal death, in respect of their malice, final despair, and present sufferings in part, their condition doubtless is rather a condition of death then of life.  
The Dialogue needlessly here ventureth to tell us that the devils are not in hell, though Peter saith, God cast them down to hell, and John telleth us, Rev. 20.3. that the devil was bound a thousand years, and cast into the bottomless pit, the same word with that which is used by the Legion of devils concerning the place they feared, when they besought Christ, that he would not command them thither, Luke 8.31.  
Dialogu. And yet this pain of loss may a little further be explained by opening the term Second death, which may be in part described by comparing it with the first death, which I have at large described to be our spiritual death, or a loss of the life of our first pure nature, I may call it a death in corrupt and sinful qualities, as I have opened, Gen. 2.17. yea, all other miseries which fall upon us in this life till our bodies be rotten in the grave, I call them altogether the first death, because they do all befall us in this world; therefore on the contrary the second death must needs imply a deeper degree of sinful qualities than did befall us under the first death.  
Answ. Whether eternal death be called the second death to contra-distinguish it from the death of the body, or death in sin, or both, as the first death; As it is not material to the point in hand, so neither need we labour about it, though the Text Mat. 10.28. seemeth rather to oppose it to the death of the body by its separation from the soul, as also the coherence, Rev. 2.13. & 20.6, 14. And if the first death is taken for death in sin; and the full measure of sin, as the Dialogue speaketh, be included in the second death, the opposition lieth rather between a bodily death and eternal death, then between the first and second death, for so far the first and second death are as two degrees of the same death, not two kinds of death; whereas bodily death and eternal death are two kinds of death. Yea forasmuch as eternal death followeth bodily death, and bodily death followeth death in sin, there would then be three deaths, viz. death in sin, death of the body, and death of the body and soul in hell, and so it should be called the third, not the second death.  
Dialogu. And thus this very term Second death doth plainly tell us that it is such a degree of death as surpasseth all the degrees of death in this life, and that the full measure of it cannot be inflicted upon any man till this life is ended, and then their end shall be without mercy, Jam. 2.13.  
Answ. The term [Second] being a word of order, teacheth that eternal death, in that it is called the second death is in God's ordinary dispensation inflicted after the first death, but it shows not the nature of eternal death. The reason why eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body, is partly because of the inability of the nature of man in this present state of mortality to endure the wrath of God without separation of the soul from the body, but chief because this bodily death puts a period to our capacity of having any part in the first resurrection, i.e. of regeneration, whereby the second death is only prevented.  
Though for these and other reasons the paenall wrath of God, viz. eternal death be inflicted after bodily death, yet it thence followeth not that the paenall wrath of God cannot be inflicted but according to this order (which is the scope of the Dialogue in this discourse) for order of succession is not of the essence of punishment. Again, the reasons that require this order in the Reprobates in inflicting paenall wrath upon the damned, have no place concerning Christ. Add hereunto, that according to extraordinary dispensation, some of the Reprobates, namely, those that shall be found alive immediately before the Judgement, 1 Cor. 15.51. shall suffer eternal death without any separation of the soul from the body, so as eternal death which is a final separation of the soul and body from God, being opposed to natural death which is a separation of the soul from the body, is not necessarily a second death, no, not in the Reprobates.  
Dialogu. The second part of the tormentt of hell is the pain of sense, or the sense of all torturing torments.  
Answ. As we did formerly in the pain of loss, so now in the pain of sense, we are to distinguish between what is essential and what is accidental thereunto, 
Fallacia compositionis & div sionis.  otherwise the Question intending that which is essential only, but the description including both that which is essential and accidental, is apt to deceive the Reader by a fallacy, for the better preventing whereof, as before the Reader had a description of the pain of loss, so let him here if he please take along with him this description of the pain of sense.  
The pain of sense taken essentially is the infl●cting of all the substantial positive evil of the curse flowing from it as such without any respect to the condition of the patiented.  
The pain of sense taken essentially and accidentally superaddeth unto the essential punishment , the suffering of such positive punishments as were concomitant effects of justice in respect of the disposition of the patiented, viz. the evil of sin, desperation, duration of the pains for ever, etc.  
Dialogu. As God's rejection is the principal efficient cause of their damnation, so Jesus Christ the Mediator is the principal instrumental cause thereof, because they believed not in him that was promised to be the seed of the woman.  
Answ. God's rejection that is Reprobation as it is the Antecedent not the cause of sin, so it is also the Antecedent not the cause of condemnation. Reprobation is an act of absolute Lordship and Sovereignty, not of Justice; Condemnation that is the judicial sentencing unto punishment for sin, is an act of Justice not of Lordship: no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger because a Reprobate, but because a sinner.  
Dialogu. Now come we to examine the particulars, and whether Christ did suffer these torments of hell for our Redemption. 1. Did Christ suffer these torments of hell for our Redemption? Did Christ suffer the second death? Was he spiritually dead in corrupt and sinful qualities without any restraining grace? and did God leave him to the liberty of these corrupt and sinful qualities, to hate and blaspheme God, for his justice and holiness, as inseparable companions of Gods total separation? for these sinful qualities are inseparably joined to them that suffer hell-torments, as the effect is to the cause. Did Christ suffer this pain of loss when he said, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?  
Answ. Except the Dialogue had laid a better foundation for the disproving of Christ's suffering the penal wrath of God flowing from the curse as such, without any consideration of the condition of the Patient, that is the essential punishment, than such a description as disproveth only his suffering of the circumstantial part of the punishment, these vain and reasonless interrogatories, as so many triumphs before the victory might well have been spared.  
There are that deny that the damned sin, whom though I see not why to consent unto therein, yet it concerned such a Questionist (though that being done, his work had still been to do) to have satisfied their objections by the way. The sinful qualities of the damned proceed not from hell-torments as an effect from the cause; 
Parker de descensu. lib 3.  the torments of hell are an effect and execution of justice, whereof God is the Author; sinful qualities are a defect not an effect; therefore have a deficient not an efficient cause, therefore of them God cannot be the Author: to to say the contrary, were to say, God is the Author of sin, which is high blasphemy: Sinful qualities are of the circumstantial not of the substantial part of punishment, which is manifest. 1. Because God is the Author of punishment essentially, but he is not the author of sin. 2. Christ suffered the essential punishment, but was without sin. 3. The Elect sin, yet suffer not the punishment due to sin, otherwise they should be both elected and not elected, and in the conclusion both saved and damned.  
In that Proposition, God punisheth sin with sin, the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin itself, the infallible and paenall futurition of sin is an effect of justice. Sin as sin is not an effect of justice but a defect in man.  
Though the separation of the damned from God is total and final, yet the separation or rather desertion of Christ was partial and temporal, in respect of the sense of the favour of God, and only for a time.  

Separatio quoad substantiam, & quoad sensum. Wilict cen. 5. err. 3. par. 9 q. 3. 1141.  There are two kinds of paenall desertion or forsaking; one is only in part and for a time, so Christ was forsaken; the other is total and final, so the Reprobates in hell are forsaken. Totall separation from God is not of the essence of the curse, Gen. 2.17. Otherwise the Elect whilst elect could not be ministerially obnoxious to the Curse.  
In a word, we must carefully keep in mind the distinction between the essential part, and the circumstantial part of the punishment of sin, Christ suffered the former, not the latter. Defects saith Damasoone are either simply miserable, or detestable and vicious, Christ suffered the former not the latter. When our Lord Jesus Christ that man of sorrows cried out upon the Cross, My God, My God, 
Austin. Damascen. Jun. cont. 2. l. 4. c. 5.  why hast thou forsaken me? he suffered the pain of loss, understanding always thereby the substantial not the circumstantial pain of loss.  
Dialogu. Did Christ at any time feel the gnawing worm of an accusing conscience? Was he at any time under the torment of desperation? truly if he had at any time suffered the tormets' of hell, he must of necessity have suffered these things: 
Tho. par. 3. q. 46. art. 6. Perk. de desc. l. 3. n. 53. Willet cen. 5. err. 3. par. 6. q. 3. 1129. Neque enim in eo, questionis hujus cardo vertitur an inhaesiuè, verum an imputatiuè tantum peccatis nostris pollu us Christus dicendus sit Dialogu.  for they are as nearly joined to those that suffer the torment of hell as the effect is to the cause.  
Answ. Gild is either taken for the personal commission of sin, or for a personal obligation unto punishment (upon our voluntary taking thereof) for the sin committed by another; in the last sense only Christ was guilty of sin, that is, he was guilty imputatively, not inherently: as Christ was guilty of sin, so also he was sensible of an accusing Conscience. If Christ (saith D Willet) truly bore our sins, he sustained also the grief of conscience for them, which is the inseparable companion of our sin. The question is not, Whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently, but only whether he may be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively. Desperation is not of the essence, but accidental, in penal wrath, The rest is but a repetition of what was said, and also answered a little before.  
Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in the proper place of hell? seeing none can suffer the torments of hell as long as they live in this world, none can suffer the second death till after this life is ended.  
Answ. The place of punishment is not of the essence of punishment, as the place of the third heaven is not of the essence of blessedness, so neither is the place of the damned of the essence of misery.  
As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joys of heaven out of the place of heaven (if not at other times, as Luk 9.28. yet) after the Resurrection; so might it suffer the pains of hell out of the place of hell. The prison is no part of the essential debt. The most Popish enemies of Christ's soul-sufferings of the wrath of God (whilst, though in their erroneous asserting the local descent, they affirm an actuality concerning Christ's being in the place of hell without the pains of hell,) cannot with any reason deny a possibility of being in the pains of hell without the place of hell.  

Vide Rivet ●athol. orth. ●o. 1. tract. ●. q. 60.  Christ was in a paenall hell, not in a local hell; the distinction between a paenall hell and a local hell is nor only acknowledged unto this day by the Orthodox, but was long ago taught by sundry of the Learned and sounder Schoolmen.  
The dispensation of God is either extraordinary or ordinary: according to the ordinary dispensation of God, the full pains of hell are not suffered in this life; but according to the extraordinary dispensation of God, Christ not only could but did suffer the pains of hell in this life. Many Reprobate suffer the pains of hell here in a degree. The Reprobate, as was said before, that shall be found alive, 1 Cor. 15.51. shall pass into the pains of hell without any separation of the soul from the body.  
Dialogu Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his body as well as in his soul, to redeem our bodies as well as our souls from the torments of hell?  
Answ. We have already seen that Christ suffered the torments of hell in his body as well as in his soul; as it is evident that Christ suffered the torments of hell, for kind in his soul, so who can deny but he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of hell, though not inflicted after the same manner.  

August. de Civit. Dei. l. 21. c. 10.  All the flames of hell are not corporeal and material, witness that fire wherein the rich man was tormented, such as his eyes and tongue were, such was the flame, Luk. 16.23, 24. 
Willet. sin. 20. gen. count. qu. 3. par. 4.  Those flames of hell which torment the bodies of the damned (though justly acknowledged to be material) are material after a spiritual manner. They therefore are not to be heard who object against Christ's suffering hell-pains in his body, because there was no visible instrument of such bodily pain.  
If any say his bodily pains were not equal to the bodily pains of them that are in hell, that being granted to them therein which they are unable to prove, it is sufficient to integrate and make up the execution of the full measure of wrath upon Christ, that if his bodily torments were not equal to the bodily torments of the damned, yet what was not executed upon his body, was executed upon his soul. The measure of hell-pains is made up without bodily pains in the Angels that fell, and if haply some minds labour concerning the capacity of the soul of a mere man, to hold such a measure of torment, they may remember that the soul of Christ who is both God and Man is above that objection, exceeding the capacity of all Men and Angels by reason of his personal union.  
Dialogu. How long did he suffer the torments of hell? was it for ever? or how long did he suffer them? and when did the torments of hell first seize on him? and when was be found freed from them? or did he suffer the torments of hell at several times or in several places, or but at one time or place only?  
Answ. His sufferings though temporal in respect of duration were eternal in efficacy in respect of the eminency of the Person, it was more for an infinite person to suffer for a time, then for all finite persons to suffer for ever. Christ suffered the torments of hell upon the Cross, where he bore the moral curse, Gal. 3.13. and in the garden, Mat. 26. though his sufferings in the garden and upon the Cross, are the principal, and therefore called the Passion emphatically, yet the rest of his sufferings from his conception unto his passion are integral parts thereof, that is, such without which his passive obedience is not completed,  
He was freed from them at his death, Job. 19.30. he was freed from the sensible part of his sufferings at his death, from sufferings simply at his Resurrection.  
That Christ suffered the torments of hell is revealed, which is the question, though many circumstances of time and place are not revealed. These are impertinent and captious queres.  
Dialogu Was he tormented without any forgiveness, or did Abraham deny him the least drop of water to cool his tongue?  
Answ. Christ was tormented without any forgiveness, God spared him nothing of the due debt, Rom. 8.32. Mat. 26.39. but God gave him a discharge when the debt was paid, Isa. 53.10. Col. 2.14. He had not then so much as the least drop of water to ease him of the least particle of suffering due unto him according to justice, but was wholly forsaken in respect of any participation of the sense of the good of the promise for the time, Mat. 27.46.  
Dialogu Did Christ inflict the torments of hell upon his own humane nature? was his Divine nature angry with his humane nature? or did his Divine nature forsake his humane nature in anger? as it must have done if it had suffered the torments of hell; if so, than he destroyed the personal union of his two natures, and then he made himself no Mediator but a cursed damned sinner.  
Answ. The second Person of the Trinity is to be considered according to his subsistence in the Divine nature only, or as he subsists in personal union with the manhood: In the first consideration, He together with the Father and the holy Ghost did inflict the torments of hell upon the humane nature. All the works of the Trinity upon the creature, whereof this is one, Isa. 53.10. Mat. 26.31. are undivided, that is, they are wrought by all the persons jointly. In this consideration also the divine nature was angry not only with the humane nature, but with the person of the Mediator, because of sin imputed to him, and forsook him with a temporal and partial desertion. But hence in no ways followeth the dissolution of the personal union; as the body and soul of Christ separated one from the other continued in personal union, so the soul and body separated from all participation of the good of the promise for the while, were without dissolution of the Personal Union.  
The execution of the evil of the curse denieth communion but not union with God. The evil of the commination denounced and incurred, as touching our legal obnoxiousness thereunto, dissolveth not the union of the Elect with God in the everlasting covenant of grace, nor doth the denouncing, incurring the danger, and undergoing of the punishment dissolve the union of the election of Christ, Isa. 42.1. much less doth it dissolve the personal union.  
The Second Person considered as subsisting in personal union with the manhood, 
Mediatio propriè & analogicè. Wolleb.  and as Mediator is properly Christ, and so though the manhood only suffered, yet the Person that suffered being God-man the person of the Mediator, and consequently the Divine nature by way of voluntary dispensation was subject to the Divine nature considered absolutely and in itself.  
Dialogu These and such like gross absurdities the common doctrine of imputation will often fall into.  
Answ. That the received and common doctrine of imputation standeth firm and upright upon the Scriptures of truth, without falling or leaning to, into, or unto any absurdities or inconveniences hath (we hope) been sufficiently cleared, That such and the like unworthy aspersions wherewith the great doctrine of imputation, through the grace of Christ generally received amongst all that are worthy to be called Christians, and therefore truly (though not without appearance of too much irreverence) by this discorse called [Common] is frequently and ignorantly blasphemed in the Dialogue, may be shaken off, as Paul shook off the viper. so as the [Common] doctrine of imputation may hereby shine more gloriously, as a part of the [Common faith] Tit. 1.4. is the further blessing of God,  
That the Author of this Treatise may arise not only out of those absurdities, but also out of those heresies into which the Dialogue showeth him to be fallen, is and shall be our prayers, and the rather are we encouraged that God will have mercy upon him herein, because we hope he did it ignorantly and through an erring conscience.  
Dialogu Christ could not suffer any part of the Torments of hell as long as he lived in this world, because the very devils as long as they live in this air do not suffer the torments of hell, as it is evident by the fearful crying out to Christ, Mat. 8.29.  
Answ. The full torments of hell are not inflicted upon the devils before the day of Judgement, Mat. 8.29. yet how can he that reads Jam. 2.19. 2 Pet, 3.4. Judas 6. deny the torments of hell to be inflicted in part upon them before the day of judgement: the cause why the devils suffer not the torments of hell fully or in part, is not because they are in the air, but from the wise dispensation of God. But why the Author of the Dialogue who thinks the place of hell to be on high before the Throne of the Lamb, yea, so near to the place of the blessed, as that the blessed and damned may talk together, should look at the air as a privileged place from torment, or as uncapable to become a place of torment, I see no colour of reason; The rest is but a repetition of what hath been said before and answered before.  
Dialogu. M, Broughton in a Manuscript saith thus: No words in all the Bible do express any thing, that Christ suffered the wrath of God for our sins, therefore it is no small impiety for men from general metaphorical terms to gather such a strange particular: none that ever spoke Greek (Spirit or man) gathered hell torments for the just from Haides, or from any other Greek or Hebrew Text. Again, the same Author affirmeth in Rev. 11.7, that hellplace and torments are not in this life.  
Answ. That Christ's suffering of the wrath of God is by just and manifest consequence plentifully held forth in the Scriptures is to us undoubted (and I hope fully and clearly evinced) the denial whereof is not only no small but a great impiety.  
Though the place of the damned who suffer the wrath of God be included in Haides, taken in its largest signification both by divine and secular authors, as any that know not already may soon if they please inform themselves: yet that ever any Orthodox indifferently-learned writer, thence gathered hell torments for the just, I do not believe is any where extant, except in that Manuscript or the Dialogue.  
We acknowledge readily the gifts of God in M. Broughton, and that he was an excellent Linguist, yet we do not believe that Greek and Hebrew dwelled with him. Isaiah speaking Hebrew by the Spirit of God telleth us that Christ suffered the wrath of God, Chap. 53. the like doth Paul speaking Greek from the same spirit, 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.13. Doubtless Isaiah could speak Hebrew, and Paul (who spoke with tongues more than they all) could speak Greek as well, and the Spirit of God by which they both spoke, could speak both Hebrew and Greek better then M. Broughton. Sure, the Author is not of his mind whom Erasmus observeth to have said openly, that Paul was ignorant of the Greek Grammar.  
Dialogu And truly it seems to me that the holy Scriptures do confine hell-torments to the proper place of hell itself, which is seated on high before the Throne of the Lamb, Rev. 14.10. and Solomon doth tell us, that all men's souls both good and bad do ascend, Eccl. 3.21. and the Hebrew Doctors hold generally that hell is above as well as heaven: and Learned M. Richardson doth probably conjecture in his Philosophical Annotations on Gen. 1. that hellplace is seated in the Element of fire, and why may it not be so, seeing its place is next before the Throne of the Lamb where John doth place it, Rev. 14.10. And it is certain by Luke's Parable that hell is seated near unto heaven, or else the comparisons that Luke useth to describe their nearness, were absurd.  
1. He describes their nearness by two persons talking together, the one in heavenplace, and the other in hellplace.  
2. He describes their nearness by seeing each others case, Luke 16. and so doth Isaiah in cha. 66.24.  
3. Hence we may see the reason why Haides is put as a common name to both places; both places are usually called Haides in sundry Greek Writers, as if they were but two Regions in the same world of souls: one Region for the godly, and the other for the wicked, where the godly and the wicked may see each others condition, and talk together in their next adjacent parts, Luk. 16.23.  
Answ. Wheresoever the place of hell is, is not material unto the Question in hand, the Reader therefore might have been spared this longer discourse; it is enough that Christ suffered the punishment though not in the ordinary place of punishment: It hath now been oft and again said, the place of punishment is not of the essence of punishment; Joab suffered death though he suffered not in the common place of execution.  
You may read in Pemble that in Eccl. 3.21. 
Pemble on the place.  to be the speech of an Atheist against the assertion of the immortality of the soul, and principally both of the felicity and immortality of the souls of good men; For whereas (saith the Atheist) men talk of an immortal soul of man, which severed from the body ascends up to heaven, and that the soul of a bruit beast descends downward, that it falleth and perisheth together with the body; they do but speak by guess, who knows it? who ever saw it? what Anatomist can find it out? The opposition then herein intended by the Atheist, lieth not between the spirit of a beast, and the soul of man in general, but between the soul of a beast, and the soul of such men, which severed from their bodies ascend up to heaven, that is, godly men, whose spirits return to God that gave them, Eccles. 12.7. 
Vide Pisc. in utrumque locum.  If the ascending of the spirit be extended unto the souls of the wicked, which upon their departure are (by some) thought immediately to ascend unto the place wherein God passeth judgement upon them, which done, they are delivered unto the hands of evil Angels to be carried forthwith into hell, which they judge to be below. This helpeth not you.  
The place appointed for the sufferings of the damned is in the Scripture called hell, Mat. 5.22. a Furnace of fire, Mat. 13.42. The place of torment, Luke 16.38. A prison. 1 Pet. 3.19. A bottomless pit, Rev. 9.1. A Lake of fire, Rev. 20.15. A Lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, Rev. 21.8. some of which appellations argue that it is below, not on high, but the very place is not revealed.  
I spare to recite the variety of the opinionss of the Learned concerning the place of hell, with such reasons as are most probable, not looking at it as pertinent to the controversy. To search out the place of hell, it not being revealed in the word, is curiosity; to labour according to what is written that we may not come in that place of torment, is our duty.  
If hell were in Aristotle's Element of fire (the very being of which sounder Philosophy denieth) yet if you harkened either to the learned Philosophers or Mathematicians who distinguish the heaven of the blessed, and this inferior Universe into the visible and invisible world, and teach us, that there is a most vast (and unto the unlearned incredible) distance between the supposed Element of fire, and the first mover (what then is the distance beeween it and the heaven of heavens) you would not think that the blessed and damned could see and talk with one another.  

Similitudo seu Parabola adaequetur principali scopo & intentioni declarantis, atque extra hanc non extendatur. Keck. log. l. 1. sect. post. c. 4. Calv. in Lu. 16.23  Your arguing the nearness of heaven and hell from the conference of Abraham and Dives in the Parable, argueth that the rule of interpreting Parables was not attended by you herein, namely, that a similitude or Parable is to be understood according to the principal scope and intention of the Author, and not to be extended beyond it.  
The comparisons of the Scripture abused, vexed, and strained beyond the scope intended, have been the beginning and strengthening of many errors and too many heresies.  
Calvin telleth you, That Christ by sensible figures doth here describe spiritual things, Souls (saith he) have not fingers, eye, nor do they feel thirst (I may add) neither have they tongues to be tormented with flames, but the sum is, Rest is prepared for the souls of the faithful departed, and torment for the souls of the Reprobate.  
It cannot seem much, that he who forbeareth not to charge the Evangelists comparison to be absurd, except it bear his absurd Expositions, doth so frequently burden the doctrine of the generation of the godly both learned and unlearned, concerning the imputation of sin unto Christ (being contrary to him) with absurd consequences.  
I omit that the sentence of condemnation is passed in the sight of Christ, Angels, and the Saints. The sight of Angels and Spirits is intellectual, seeing their objects by intelligible species, not sensible seeing their objects by sensible species, as our bodily eyes see sensible objects. The damned see Abraham, Isaac, and jacob in the Kingdom of heaven, Luk 13.28 not sensibly but mentally.  
Christ in respect of his Divinity is present every where, and the humane by virtue of its Personal union, not only excelleth the understanding of Angels, but is also capable of seeing in the Divine nature whatever is thereby presented unto it in a more excellent manner, then if it saw it in its proper object.  
The word [Throne] is not in the Text, Rev. 14.10. but it is your addition haply to make your notion the more plausible.  
Of Haides we have spoken sufficiently before.  
Dialogu. It is evident that Christ did not suffer the torments of hell in this world, because there was no necessary use or end of such sufferings, for such sufferings are no way satisfactory to the justice of God for our sins: for the rule of God's justice doth require that soul only to die which sins, the soul that sins shall die; one man shall not die for another man's sin, Ezek, 18. By this rule of justice God cannot inflict the torments of hell upon an innocent to redeem a guilty person.  
Answ. The necessary use of his sufferings was the Redemption of souls in a way of satisfaction unto justice. Hence the obedience of Christ is called righteousness, Rom. 5.18. noting an obedience satisfactory, according to order of justice. And we read that he gave his life a ransom for many, Mat. 20.28. a ransom for all, 1 Tim. 2.6. that is, a sufficient price for our deliverance from the curse. He did not only suffer for our good, but in our place and stead; to this purpose we read that he redeemed his people, and that we have redemption through his blood, Luk. 1.68. and 2.38. Heb. 9.12. Col. 1.14. Heb. 9.15. which words note a just and satisfactoty price laid down for our sins, therefore necessary, that remission of sins might be without any prejudice to the truth and justice of God.  
Paul telleth us that God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation, Rom. 3.25. The word is observed to signify a just and propitiatory expiation of sin.  
Ezek. 18.20. argueth for, not against the justice of the death of Christ, The soul that sinneth shall die, Good: Man sinned, ergò man died. Christ was a sinner imputatively, though not inherently, and the soul that sinneth whether inherently or imputatively shall die.  

Mors animae absoluta vel bypothetica.  The death of the soul is either absolute, so none die but such as are inherently guilty; or Hypothetical, viz. Cautionary, in way of a Surety, that undertakes for the satisfaction of justice: so Christ suffered death. 
Mors non conditionis sed criminis. Park. l. 3. n. 87. Willet. count. 5. Err. 3. part. 3. quaest. 3.  Austin calleth it a death not of condition but of crime: It is clear according to this Text, that every one shall bear his own iniquity. Who seethe not (saith Dr Willet) that the Prophet maketh exception of the person of the Mediator, for the Scripture testifieth of him, that he bore our iniquities, Isa. 53.11. Therefore as he bore our sins in himself, so also in God's justice he was to bear the punishment for the same.  
Yet neither according to this Rule nor any other Rule of justice can either the torments of hell or any other, no, not the least punishment be inflicted upon a person simply innocent. Christ though he was innocent in himself, yet he was not innocent as our Surety until the guilt imputed to him was satisfied for.  
It is no way repugnant to the justice of God, saith Vrsinus, and after him Paraeus, that a person innocent in himself should die for the sin of another, upon such conditions as were mentioned Chap. 3.  
Dialogu And as God doth tie himself to this Rule of justice touching the everlasting state of men's souls, so he doth appoint civil Magistrates to observe this Rule of justice touching the bodiet of sinful Malefactors, they may not punish an innocent for a guilty person, but that man only that sins must die, as 2 Kin. 14. doth expound the meaning of the judicial Law. in Deut. 24.16. I hold it a point of gross injustice for any Court of Magistrates to torture an innocent person for the redemption of a gross Malefactor.  
Answ. It is manifest that as God according to his own free constitution doth not, so man according to God's Law may not punish a person that is simply innocent, concerning such an one that Law holds. Deut. 24.16. The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. But we must here distinguish between an inherent judicial guilt, and an  judicial guilt: if Thomas be judicially guilty of a capital crime inherently, though Peter be guiltless thereof inherently, yet if he be guilty thereof extrinsecally, it seemeth to be no injustice for the Magistrate in case to put Peter to death for Thomas his crime.  
In some cases, saith D. Willet, 
Willet cen. 5. gen. count 20. part. 7. qu. 3.  by the Law of God the surety gave life for life, as the Prophet showeth unto Ahab by this Parable, A man was taken in battle and committed to another to keep, under this condition, If he be lost, thy life shall go for his life, or else thou shalt pay a Talon of silver: A price of equal value to his life that went away. But in the application of this Parable, the Prophet leaveth out the Talon because God cannot be waged with money, and saith unto Ahab precisely, thy life shall go for his life, 1 Kin. ●0. 39.42. The justice whereof Ahab himself (not yet considering it to be his own case) readily acknowledgeth and pronounceth sentence accordingly, ver, 40.  
Hostages or pledges, whose lives with their consenr are legally engaged for the security of the faith of that state whereof they are members, may lawfully be put to death, in case the state, whose fidelity they are to secure, break their faith; for the consequence or inconsequence of securing or not securing the fidelity of States, is a greater good or evil than the life or death of a pledge.  
Besides that, the part oweth itself unto the preservation of the whole. That this position is subscribed unto by the common consent of Nations, may be gathered from their carriages concerning and executions of Hostages, divers of which though they may be disputable or , yet they all serve to be founded on this general truth, namely, that there are cases wherein a pledge though innocent in himself, yet guilty by the legal contract of the violation of the state upon himself, may be justly put to death. The people of Spain howsoever inclined to join with with the Romans against the Carthaginians, 
Tit. Livij hist. lib. 22. & lib. 24.  yet durst not for fear they should lament the guilt of their defection in the blood of their sons then pledges in Hannibal's custody,  
The Romans put to death the pledge of Tarentum for making an unlawful escape out of custody.  
Keepers of prisons engaged to the Commonwealth that the prisoners shall be forthcoming to satisfy justice in case of the escape of the prisoners through their default, though the fault be in itself inconsiderable, yet by reason of the circumstances may justly be put to suffer the punishment due to such an offender escaped, and that the Romans thought so may well be collected from Act. 12.19. though Herod's command in that place is unjust.  
He that is legally guilty of a capital crime, the Civil Magistrate may justly put to death; but a person though inherently guiltless, yet extrinsecally and judicially guilty of a capital crime, is legally guilty of a capital crime. Therefore a person inherently guiltless and innocent, but extrinsecally and judicially guilty may be put to death.  
Neither do Histories afford instances only in public, but also in personal cases wherein the surety hath suffered the punishment of another, and by so suffering delivered the person suffered for, and that not only in inferior grievances, 
Quint. Declam. 5. & 9 Idem, Declam. 6.  but even in the matter of life itself. Quintilian makes mention of one friend that redeemed another by vice-labour, i. e. by doing that servile work in his friend's stead, which he was to have done l and in another place, of a son that redeemed his father by vice-handywork, that is, by doing with his own hands that work which his father was to have done. 
Cham. de desecnsu. l. 5. c. 21. Greg. lib. Dial. c. 37. referente Estio. 1 Jo. 3.16.  And Chamier reports out of others of one Paulicus Nolanus, who enslaved himself unto the King of the Vandals for the redemption of a certain widows son, Gregory telleth us of one Sanctulus a Presbyter that offered himself to be beheaded for a certain Deacon that was to be put to death by the Longobards.  
I dare almost say (saith Grotius, 
Caterùm ubi consensus, etc. Grotius de satisfacti-Christ. c. 6.  a man excelling in this kind of learning) that where there is consent there is not any of all those whom we call Pagans who would esteem it unjust that one should be punished for the delinquency of another.  
Dialogu. And this distinction of the souls case from the body's case may sufficiently serve as an answer to M. Reynolds who doth labour to justify the imputation of our sins unto our innocent Saviour in Psa. 110. p. 444. 445.  
Answ. This distinction of the case of the body in this life liable, and the case of the soul not liable unto punishment is grounded upon presumption of that which is not, namely, such an act wherein the body is guilty, and the soul both guiltless and uncapable of guilt either inherently or imputatively.  
M, Reynolds distinguisheth between inherent and imputative guilt, and concludes Christ was guilty imputatively, that is, obnoxious unto the punishment that others had deserved.  

Ursin. expos. Catech. p. 1. qu. 13. Paraeus in Rom. cap. 5. Dub. 5. Mr Reynolds on Psa. 110. pag. 446.  The arguments whereby he proveth that Christ (though inherently innocent) might be guilty imputatively, and suffer the punishment that others had deserved, they that please to examine shall find solid and in effect much the same with what Vrsin and Paraeus had taught before.  
Were there place for this distinction concerning any other subject, yet it holds not concerning Christ who was guilty imputatively (though not inherently and in himself) which hath been proved in its proper place before.    

PART II.  

SECTION I.  
Wherein the Dialogue pretendeth to prove 

I. That Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law (not by suffering the said curse for us, but) by a satisfactory price of Atonement, namely, by paying or performing unto his Father that invaluable precious thing of his Mediatorial obedience whereof his Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement was the masterpiece.  
II. A sinners Righteousness or Justification is explained and cleared from some Common Errors.    

CHAP. I. Of the nature of Mediatorly obedience, both according to the Dialogue and the Orthodox.  
Dialogu. THat which Christ did to redeem us from the curse of the Law, was not by bearing of the said curse really in our stead (as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach) but by procuring his Father's atonement by the invaluable price or performance of his own mediatorial obedience whereof his mediatorial sacrifice of atonement was the finishing masterpiece, this kind of obedience was that rich thing of price which the Father required and accepted as satisfactory for the procuring of his atonement for our full Redemption, Justification and Adoption.  
Answ. The Dialogue having hitherto denied and contended against Christ's suffering of the wrath of God due unto the Elect for their sins in way of satisfaction to divine justice, as also against the imputation of the sins of the elect unto Christ (the latter whereof, the order of cause and effect would have placed first, the imputation of the sins of the Elect unto Christ being the cause of his suffering the wrath of God due to them) which passive obedience the Orthodox believe and teach to be essential unto the Mediatorly obedience of Christ, a truth of no less moment than the Redemption and salvation of souls: The Dialogue I say thus engaged feeleth a necessity lying upon it to present the Reader with some Mediatorly obedience, because without it at least in appearance no Christian who is in earnest concerning his Redemption, will be satisfied. It concerneth us then (the received Mediatorly obedience being denied) diligently to attend what this new Mediatorial obedience is.  
Dialogu And according to this tenor the Apostle Paul doth explain the matter, he doth teach us to place the obedience of the Mediator in a direct opposition to the first disobedience of Adam Rom. 5.19. he makes the merit of Christ's mediatorial obedience to countervail the demerit of Adam's disobedience: for the disobedience of Adam was but the disobedience of a mere man, but the obedience of Christ was the obedience of God-man, and in that respect God the Father was more highly pleased with the obedience of the Mediator, than he was displeased with the disobedience of Adam.  
Answ. The disobedience of the first Adam and obedience of the second, are opposites, these opposites are compared in respect of some things wherein they are alike, viz. Both are public persons, both communicate what is theirs to their seed respectively; and some things wherein they are unlike, viz. 1. In respect of their efficacy, the obedience of Christ is more potent to communicate the good of his obedience unto his, than the disobedience of Adam is able to communicate the evil of his disobedience unto his. 2. In respect of the effect, the disobedience of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit makes his seed guilty only of that first act of disobedience, but the obedience of Christ dischargeth believers which are his seed, not only from the guilt of that one act of the disobedience of Adam's sin, but also from the guilt of all other disobedience both original and actual.  
The obedience of the second Adam did not only countervail but exceed all the disobedience of the first Adam, much more, Rom. 5.15, 16. Grace abounded, ver. 16. abundance of grace, vers. 17. where sin abounded grace did much more abound, ver. 20.  
It is a truth most precious that God was more highly pleased with the obedience of the Mediator, than he was displeased with the disobedience of Adam; but so unhappy is the Dialogue contending against the Mediatorly obedience of Christ, as that in the prosecuting of that opposition it cannot speak this truth without insinuating a fallacy of putting that for the cause which is not the cause, for the ground of the acceptation of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ proceeds not wholly though principally from the eminency of the Person, which the Dialogue acknowledgeth, but also from the kind of his obedience which the Dialogue denieth.  
But how doth this either prove the bearing of the curse really to be no part of the obedience of the Mediator, which the argumentation intends (though the obedience whereof the Text speaketh intends the contrary) or inform the Reader what the Dialogue means by its new Mediatorly obedience, which the order of disputation here called for.  
The Dialogue denying the received doctrine concerning the Passive obedience of Christ as Mediator, yet acknowledging a Mediatorly obedience, but not giving any tolerable description of it in any one place, whence the ordinary Reader may know what it, is only here and there mentions the name thereof, and occasionally adding to that name, such a something as indeed renders it a dark nothing, which manner of handling it, is rather a snare then a guide to the less attentive Reader, before we proceed to examine the arguments for this new Mediatorly obedience, what the rules of disputation required of the Author, namely, that he should first have given us some such definition or description thereof, whence we might have understood what it is that he so much contends for: (for to be willing to dispute (say the Logicians) before we undrstand certainly what is the Question, is to be willing to lose our time; and that serious and affectionate counsel of Keckerman is here seasonable; 
Kec. Log. Sact. Post. cap. 1.  Let us not (saith he) dispute of any thing in Divinity before the various signification of that whereof we dispute is diligently distinguished,) that I shall endeavour to supply, namely, to acquaint the Reader with what the Dialogue intends by its new Mediatorly obedience, according to what is to be collected out of itself, comparing one place with another, whereto I shall also subjoin a description of Mediatorly obedience according to the received doctrine of the Orthodox, that so the Reader conferring both together, may the better judge both of the question and disputation: Truth loves the light, and error lurks in ambiguities.  
The mind of the Dialogue concerning Mediatorly obedience is to be gathered, 1. By its dictinction. 2. By putting together what in several places it speaks concerning it.  
It is necessary (saith the Dialogue) to distinguish between Legal and mediatorial obedience; Legal or natural obedience is no more, but humane obedience performed by Christ as a godly Jew unto the Law of works, all the actions of Christ from his birth until he was thirty years of age, must be considered but as natural or but as legal acts of obedience: I cannot see (saith the Dialogue) how any of these actions (which yet it somewhat corrects, as we shall find in due place) can properly be called mediatorial obedience. Pag. 111. 112.  
The Mediatorial obedience of Christ, 
Mediatorial obedience of the Dialogue, what? Largely.  according to the Dialogue, consists of those acts of his obedience which he did actuate by the joint concurrence of both his natures, some whereof, viz. many mediatorial prayers of his intercession, though they were acted by him before 30 years of age, yet the far greater part of the acts thereof, and all the public actions were performed after he was thirty years of age, viz. after his public installing into the office of Mediatorship, Mat. 3. See pag. 112. 113. amongst the which mediatorial acts of his obedience is his giving up his Manhood by the power of his Divine nature to suffer a natural death, such and no other as the sons of Zebedee suffered, Mar. 10.39. Pag. 46. without suffering any degree of God's wrath at all, either in soul or body, pag. 2. yet so as the Divine nature separated his soul from his body, which was the masterpiece, and was accepted of God the Father as the price and meritorious procuring cause of our Redemption, pag. 86. for that was the most precious thing that either God the Father could require, or that the Mediator could perform for our atonement or redemption, pag. 87.  
The sum whereof take thus; 
Briefly.  Christ's Mediatorly obedience (according to the Dialogue) are certain actions performed by him (not in way of obedience to the moral Law, for all such actions he performed as a godly Jew and as man only, but) as God-man Mediator unto the Law of Mediatorship, especially after 30 years of age, the Masterpiece whereof was his yielding himself to suffer a bodily death.  

Mediatorly obedience according to the Orthodox, what?  Mediatorly obedience, according to the received doctrine of the Orthodox, is the inherent conformity and whole course of the active and passive obedience of Christ from his conception to his passion inclusively, performed by him as God-man Mediator, unto the Law, in way of Covenant, whereunto the whole good of Redemption was due unto the Elect for Christ's sake, according to order of justice, though conferred upon them in a way of mere grace.  
Touching the Dialogues Mediatorly obedience here are divers things which the Reader is desired to take distinct and seasonable notice of.  
1. Concerning the distinction; Mediatorly and Legal obedience are not two kinds of obedience in Christ, but one and the same obedience, called Mediatorly from the office of the person obeying, Legal from the Rule which was obeyed.  
2. Concerning the nature of Mediatorly obedience, we have First a new Law given, which is called the Law of the Mediator excluding from it wholly the Law of works; Secondly, we have a new Mediatorly obedience conformable to that new Law, and excluding expressly the essential obedience of the Mediator, which consists in obedience to the Law of works.  
That obedience which the Creditor according to the Law demands and the Debtor owes, that the Surety is to pay; but the obedience unto the Command, i.e. the Law of works, Leu. 18.5. Gal. 3.10. and suffering of the punishment due to sin, Gen. 2.17. is that which God according to Law demands, and the Debtor namely the sinner oweth; therefore obedience unto the Law of works is that which the Surety ought to pay.  
It is a fiction not only unwarrantable, and from beginning of time (as I believe) unheard from any Classical author, but above measure presumptuous, expressly to deny, about or near 30 years of the obedience of Christ to be Mediatorly obedience, and upon point to acknowledge only an uncertain little part of his life to be spent in that service; it is also an ignorant and snaring contradiction, to affirm that to be meritorious which is not done in a way of justice; Justice is of the form of merit: Merit is a debt according to order of justice; it is a just debt. Christ's mediatorly obedience was an act of a far higher nature than is the fictitious obedience of the Dialogue. It is an untruth of perilous consequence to corrupt the Faith of the Reader by asserting Gods high acceptance of such a Mediatorly obedience, which is not Mediatorly obedience nor will be so owned of God.  
That Christ in giving up his life in respect of the Divine nature, as considered in Personal union with the humane nature acted in way of consent, but not as his own executioner, hath been oft seen.   

CHAP. II. Of the divers ways of Redemption.  
Dialogu. IF so, then there is no need that our blessed Mediator should pay both the price of his mediatorial obedience, and also bear the Curse of the Law really for our Redemption.  
Answ. Even so it was (viz. that the obedience of the second countervailed, yea, far transcended the disobedience of the first Adam) because our blessed Mediator paid the price of his Mediatorly obedience by beating the curse of the Law really for our Redemption; the Meritorious obedience of Christ (not the fictitious obedience of the Dialogue) was the cause of God's actual acceptation thereof (not of his volition to accept) and not God's actual acceptation, the cause of his meritorious obedience.  
Dialogu I never heard that ever any Turkish Tyrant did require such a double satisfaction of any Redeemer for the Redemption of Galleyslaves, I never heard that ever any Tyrant did require any Redeemer to pay both the full price that they demanded for their redemption of their Galleyslaves, and to bear their punishment of their curse and slavery also in their stead; I think no cruel Tyrant did ever exact such a double satisfaction: Therefore I cannot choose but wonder at the common doctrine of imputation, because it makes God the Father more rigid in the price of our Redemption, than ever Turkish Tyrant was, and to be a harder Creditor in the point of satisfaction, than ever any rigid Creditor was among men.  
Answ. This passionate blasphemy, not to be heard without the rending of our hearts, proceeds from the ignorance of the nature of the Redemption of Christ, which according to the constitution of the only blessed, wise, and just God, is by way of suretyship, not by way of mere price; which last is a fundamental error of the Author of the Dialogue throughout this part of the Controversy.  
Dialogu The ways of Redemption are ranked into three sorts. 1. By exchange of one captive for another; but we are not thus redeemed, for God did not give his Son into the hands of Satan to redeem us from under the power of Satan. 2. There is a Redemption by force and strength, but this may be called a deliverance rather than a Redemption, but however Christ did not thus redeem us from God's wrath; for then Christ must be stronger than his Father, Joh. 14.28. 3. Therefore Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, and so consequently from his Father's wrath, by no other way or means, but by that rich and invaluable price or merit of his Mediatorial obedience.  
Answ. Redemption may be better distributed thus; namely, it is either by way of power, so Abraham delivered Lot out of the hand of Chedor-lahomer, Gen. 14.16. This is rather a deliverance or a rescue then a Redemption; or by way of price, and that either fully, when that which is given in way of Redemption is of equal value with that which is redeemed, thus one Kinsman redeemed another out of service, Leu. 20.50, 51, 52. Or partially and imperfect, when that which is given in way of Redemption is accepted thereunto, though it be not of equal value with the thing that is redeemed thereby, the firstborn of some unclean creature was more worth than a Lamb, Exod. 13.13. the worth of a man far exceeded five shekels, Num. 18.15. the steward accepteth 50 lb for a 100 lb Luk. 16.6. this way of Redemption is by some, and haply in reference unto the Law-term, is called Acceptilation. Or lastly, 
Acceptilatio non est vera & naturalis, sed civilis, i. e. fictitia & (ut ait Justinianus) imaginaria solutio. Pet. Fab. Seem. l. 2. c. 22. Redemptio potestativa, & per modum vadimonij. Cha To. 2. lib. 5. de descens. cap. 20.  by way of suretyship when the Redeemer delivereth the redeemed by putting himself in the place and stead of those whom he doth redeem, thus Christ redeemed the Elect.  
Christ is such a Redeemer as is also a surety, Heb. 7.22. that is, such a Redeemer as sets himself in the stead of the Redeemed; so Isaac was saved by the Ram, Gen. 22.12, 13. the firstling of the Ass with a Lamb, Exo. 13.13. (although out of the indulgence of God it was at the pleasure of the owner to redeem the firstlings of unclean creatures, either with a lamb or money, yet no price can dispense in the case of the Antitype, 1 Pet. 1.18, 19) A slain bullock was a typical sacrifice in stead of the owner.  
Christ died for us as a Vice-sufferer, not for our good only, as Socinus would have it, but also in our place and stead: 
Mortuus est non tantum nostro bono sed etiam nostro loco & nostra vice. Paraeus in Rom. cap. 3 dub. 10. instantia. 10. Et cap. 5. dub. 5. Grotius de satisfact. cap. 1. Wolleb. compend. l. 1. c. 38.  thus the particle [For] is often taken in the Scripture, whatsoever he rashly affirmeth to the contrary. See Joh. 10.11. Rom. 5.7. & 8.26. & 9.1. Joh. 12.50, 51, 52. 2 Sam. 18.33.  
Christ died for us as an expiatory sacrifice for our sin, that is, he so died for us as that he suffered what was due to us for our sins, Heb. 10.12, 14. He died for us as a Priest, therefore according to the type he offered his oblation not only for us but also in our stead. (His oblation was himself, Heb. 7.27. & 9.11.12.) and that as our surety that satisfied vindicative justice in our place, which else we must have suffered.  
Those words, God did not give his Son into the hands of Satan to redeem us from under the power of Satan, as they are alleged, viz. to prejudice Redemption by way of Suretyship or Exchange, are a vain cavil, 
Willet. sin. cent. 5. gen. cont. 20. par. 7. qu. 3.  and already answered by D. Willet. The price (saith he) was paid unto God to satisfy God's justice, it was not given unto Satan; for God is the judge, Satan is the Jailor, to whom the Judge delivers sinners because of their sins, Luk. 12.38. Christ came and paid the debt unto God, not unto the devil; the debt paid, the Jailor hath no longer charge or power to keep us in prison.  
The heresy couched under those specious expressions of that rich and invaluable price, or merit of his Mediatorial obedience, being understood according to the sense of the Dialogue, we have seen before, and the Reader is always desired occasionally to remember.  
Dialogu. And this way of Redemption is often taught and confirmed by the holy Scriptures, as in 1 Cor. 6.20. 1 Pet. 1.19. and in this sense only we have atonement, Rom. 5.11. and redemption through his blood, Eph. 1.7. and in this sense he gave his life a Ransom for many, Mat. 20.28. and in this sense he gave himself to redeem us from all iniquity, and to cleanse us to himself, Ti. 2.14.  
Answ. Namely, in the sense of the Dialogue, which is Redemption by price only, not by way of Suretyship and satisfaction of divine justice.  
The Apostle comparing of Christ's obedience to a price, which is the just value of a thing that is bought, pointeth us unto the preciousness of the blood, that is, of the obedience of Christ (a principal part thereof synechdochically put for the whole) which proceeds from the dignity of the person obeying, the kind of obedience, and the acceptation thereof jointly, not from any of them alone.  
The blood of Christ of which Rom. 5.11. 1 John 1.17. was shed in a way of divine justice, Rom. 3.24, 25. the Greek words used Eph. 1.7. and Mat. 20.28. and Tit. 2.14. signify not only a price but a satisfactory price, such as was necessarily given for sin, that remission might proceed without any violation of justice. The person who suffered, being God, is so far from opposing his sufferings to have been in a way of satisfaction unto justice, as that it was absolutely requisite thereunto.  
Let not the Reader be moved with the multitude of Scriptures misalledged, but know the private and erring interpretation of them all to be but a very fallacy, of putting that which is not a Cause for a Cause, namely, that which is not a Divine Testimony for a Divine Testimony: the letter of the Scripture alleged not according to its sense, is not the Scripture: That saying of Christ, The Father is greater than I, 
Nulli haeretici aut heterodoxi unquam citarunt aut citant verbum Dei. Keck. theo. lib. 1. c. 9  in Joh. 14.28. cited according to the sense of an Arian is not Scripture. These words This is my body, Mat. 26. cited according to the sense of the Papist, is not the word of God; neither is that Text 1 Cor. 6.20. nor any of the rest cited for the confirmation of Mediatorly obedience in the sense of the Dialogue, the word of God. So true is that Proposition, No heretics or heterodox as such, ever cited the Word of God.  
Dialogu. It is evident by another typical ceremony of Redemption, that Christ hath redeemed us by a price only, and not by bearing the Curse of the Law for us. Leu. 25.25, 39  
Answ. A Type is a person or thing having or not having some Physical aptness thereunto instituted of God to signify a spiritual truth.  
Of types some do signify but not exemplify, as Hosea's three children whose name signified but did not exemplify the truth to be fulfiled in the Antitype; of such as both signify and exemplify, some exemplify without any sense or feeling of the thing exemplified, 
Figura non habet quodcunque habet veritas, ut nec imago regia, quae Rex. Vid. Park. lib. 3. de Descent.  as Jeremy's Girdle, Chap. 13. some exemplify with suffering, yet so as holding less proportion with the truth signified, so the wounding of the Prophet prefigured the death of Ahab, 1 King. 20.37, some hold more proportion, as the present Lamb slain and roasted, typified Christ's sufferings of the wrath of God, yet still so as the Antitype hath more than the type.  
The Paschall Lamb typically sacrificed, not only for the good, but also in stead of the several families, and the Lamb of the daily offering, typically sacrificed not only for the good, but also in stead of the people, the killed Goat upon which sin was laid typically, slain not only for the good, but in the stead of the sinful owner, Leu. 16. The ram slain in stead of Isaac, the Lamb in stead of, and for the Redemption of the firstling of the Ass, or for the firstling of any other beasts synechdochically, all these signified our Redemption by Christ, not to be a redemption by laying down a price only or acceptilation, but by way of suretyship, where that which doth Redeem is put in the place of the Redeemed.  
Though in many typical redemptions (for it was not so in all no price could exempt the Paschall Lamb, or the Lamb for the daily sacrifice, or the killed goat) God acepted of a price, and spared life, yet not so in the Antitype. Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold from your vain conversation, received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot, 1 Pet. 1.18, 19 If this Argument be of force as it is here propounded without any limitation, than Christ need not have redeemed us by his death, but by money or moneyworth, and so it holds against the Dialogue itself, and not only against us.  
Though all types of Christ put together hold forth all the essentials of Mediatorly obedience, yet such an universal significancy is not requisite to the nature of a single type: single types signify the truth or truths intended thereby concerning the Antitype, some one or more, some another, according to the intention of the Author.  
Dialogu. It is a dangerous error in the tenet of the Lutherans to say, that one drop of the blood of Christ is sufficient to redeem the whole world.  
Answ. As some Papists and Calvinists, so it is no wonder if there be found some Lutherans who speak unsoundly concerning concerning the satisfaction of Christ; they that see cause to peruse Chemnitius, Gerhard, Cramerus, and the generality of the Lutherans, shall find their judgement contrary to what here is imputed to them.   

CHAP. III. Of that wherein the true meritorious efficacy of the blood of Christ lieth.  
Dialogu THe true meritorious efficacy of the blood of Christ lies not in this, that it was a part of the corporeal substance of the Lamb of God without spot; nor in this, that he suffered his blood to be shed by the Roman soldiers in a passive manner of obedience, but it lieth in this, that it was shed by his own active priestly power, by which means only it became a Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement.  
Answ. What the Dialogue in the beginning of the second part called Mediatorly obedience; annexing this note withal upon the Margin [the thing of price which Christ paid for our Redemption was his Mediatorly obedience] is here expressed by the meritorious efficacy of the blood of Christ, The Reader therefore is here to be desired to keep in mind that the matter intended by these terms is the obedience of the Mediator; that so the alteration of the words may not insensibly steal away his attention to the question, nor abuse him into a better opinion than there is cause of this part of the discourse which vilifieth the sufferings of Christ under a specious pretence to magnify the blood of Christ: nor occasion him to drink in the mind of the Dialogue concerning our Redemption by the death of Christ only, according to its interpretation, it being more aptly if not subtly insinuated under these words [the meritorious efficacy of the blood of Christ] then under the phrase of [Mediatorly obedience] whereof the shedding of his blood only was a small part.  
They that desire to speak properly, distinguish thus between Value, Equality, Merit, and Efficacy in the point of Mediatorly obedience: Value respects the sufficient worth of it; Equality respects the full and adequate satisfaction thereof unto Divine justice; Merit is that whereby the good of Redemption is due, for the sake thereof unto the Elect, according to the order of justice; Efficacy intends the actual application of the benefit thereof unto the Elect. But understanding in this place with the Dialogue, the Value and Worth of the Obedience of the Mediator, by the meritorious efficacy of his blood, the fallacy of this assertion lieth in putting that which is not the Cause, namely, 
Causae partiales in toto concursu stant pro unâ.  a partial and insufficient cause to produce the effect, of itself alone; for the whole and complete cause. The valour and preciousness of the obedience of Christ, though it depends principally, yet it depends not wholly upon the eminency of his person, but also upon the quality of his obedience, and Gods gracious acceptation thereof, the absence of any of these would render Christ an insufficient Redeemer. Had not he been such a person, his obedience could not have been satisfactory, and though there were such a person, yet without such obedience unto the Law, there can be no satisfaction.  
The immutable truth of God, Gen. 2 17. and his inviolable justice, Rom. 1.32. require obedience in the Mediator; the Law requireth obedience, both active Leu. 18.5. and passive, Gal. 3.10. else there can be no life; The Dialogues frequent reiteration of the same objections, forceth the reiteration of the same answers.  
The firstling of the Ass must either be redeemed or destroyed, Exod. 34 20. Christ was appointed of God to be a common and more effectual principle of Redemption than Adam was of destruction, Rom. 5.14, 16, 17, 18, 19 1 Cor. 15.22.  
Dialogu Christ at one and the same time died both as a Mediator actively, and as a Malefactor passively, as I have explained the matter, Gal. 3.13. and in other places also.  
Answ. Christ both was and died such a Mediator, as was also a Malefactor imputatively, in his death he was both active and passive, how, we shall soon see in due place. The error of this distinction in the sense of the Dialogu hath been already shown in the place mentioned.  
Dialogu. But for your better understanding of the meritorious efficacy of the blood of Christ, consider 2. things. 1. Consider what was the Priestly nature of Christ, and 2. Consider what was his Priestly action. 1. His Priestly nature was his Divine nature, for he is said to be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth, or that he ever liveth, Heb. 7.8.  
Answ. None that believeth the Scriptures doubts of Christ's being in respect of his Divine nature, a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck, but that Christ's Priestly nature was his Divine nature only, that is, that Christ was only a Priest according to his Divine nature, which the language of the Dialogue seemeth to hold forth, is a great error; the common principles of Religion tell us that the Priesthood is a part of the Mediatorly office. Christ as Mediator is God man, therefore as Priest he is God-man. Parts are of the same nature with the whole. Necessary it is, say the Catechisms, that the Mediator should be both God and Man: he must be man, else he could not be a meet sacrifice; he must be God or else his sacrifice could not have been effectual.  
Christ was both Priest, Sacrifice, and Altar. The humane nature only suffered (therefore most properly was the sacrifice) yet so, as in Personal union with the Godhead, the Divine nature was that which upheld the humane: The person consisting of both natures was the Priest.  
Christ offered up himself before his humane nature was dissolved by death, which consideration might have prevented that objection in this place: though the union of the body with the soul was dissolved by death, 
Dawascen. de fide orthodox. l. 3. cap. 7.  yet the union both of soul and body with the second Person continued undissolved, the separation of the soul from the body loosed not the union of both with the Divine nature, 
Tho. par. 3. qu. 5. ar. 4. Gerh. suppl. 104.  they were locally separated the one from the other, but both united hypostatically, i. e. personally with the Deity. Neither the soul nor the body of Christ, ever had any subsistence but in the Word.  
The word [He] in the Scriptures alleged, signifieth not either Nature apart, but the person consisting of both Natures; as the Mediator was not (nor is not) God alone, nor man alone, but God-man; so he merited not as God alone or man alone, but as God-man: and as Christ merited the application of the good of Redemption, so God applieth it not for the sake of the Divine nature alone, nor the humane nature alone, but for the sake of God-man Mediator.  
The Scripture so attributes the infinite value and efficacy of the works of the Mediator unto the Divine nature, denoted by the word [Spirit] as it also ascribes those works unto the Person (i. e. whole Christ consisting of both natures) signified by the word [Who] How much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, 
Synops. pur. Theol. disp. 26. Thes. 18, 19  purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God? Heb. 9.14. Because the actions of the Mediator were the actions of Christ who is God-man, in them the Divine nature was the principal, the humane nature the less principal and instrumental cause.  
If upon a supposition this untruth were a truth, yet 'tis impertinent to the question, being neither beneficial to the tenet of the Author, nor prejudicial to the tenet of the Orthodox.  
Dialogu But yet withal take notice that the term He Gen. 3.15. doth comprehend under it his humane nature as well as his divine, yea, it doth also comprehend under it the Personal union of both his Natures.  
Answ. Then the term He Gen. 3.15. notes the Person consisting of both natures; therefore not the Divine nature only: but the person consisting of both natures was the Priest. The Term He in the other Scriptures being by your own acknowledgement of the same sense with the term He Gen. 3.15. you hereby unsay what you just now said, or otherwise what was said, was nothing to the purpose.  
Dialogu. Consider what was his Priestly action, and that was the sprinkling of his own blood by his own Priestly nature, that is to say, by his divine nature. Isa. 53.12. namely, by the active power of his own divine Priestly nature, Heb. 9.14. that is to say, he separated his soul from his body by the power of his Godhead when he made his soul a trespasse-offering for our sin, Isa. 53.10. and the manner of sprinkling of blood by the Priests upon the Altar, must be done with a large and liberal quantity, and therefore it is called pouring out, and this sprinkling with pouring out did typify the death of the Mediator; a large quantity of bloodshed must needs be a true evidence of death.  
Answ. Christ considered as a Priest was obliged in the state of his humiliation to fulfil the Law in our stead, and consequently the sacrifice that he offered as our Priest, was the whole work of his active and passive obedience; the Priests who were a type of Christ stood severally charged with the custody of the Ark, wherein the Decalogue distinguished into two Tables was laid up. Duties of active as well as passive obedience are ordinarily called Sacrifices, Heb. 13.16.  
The Priest that offered this Sacrifice was not the Divine nature alone, but the Person of Christ consisting of both natures with the needless repetition of which, it is full time to cease troubling the Reader any further.  
So to attribute the Mediatorly obedience of his death unto the divine nature, as to exclude the humane nature from its influence thereunto, is not only to derogate from the humane nature, but indeed not to attribute such mediatorly obedience unto Christ, for Christ is a person consisting of both Natures.  
Christ's shedding of his blood in such a large manner as we read in the Scripture, is a truth worthy of all attention and acknowledgement, but understood in the sense of the Dialogue for the shedding of his material blood only, it is comparatively but a small part of his obedience: for Christ suffered not only a natural death, Job. 19.30. but also a spiritual death, Mat. 26.46. Heb. 2.9. not only a bodily but also a spiritual death, he shed his blood together with the sense of the wrath of God, here his death is not called a death simply, but a suffering, wherein the iniquities of us all gathered together as in an heap were laid upon him, Isa. 53.6. and a curse; but this is already largely spoken to.  
The death or shedding of the blood of Christ in Scripture is often put for the whole satisfactory obedience which he performed in the state of his humiliation, Rom. 3.25. Eph. 1.7. Col. 1.20. because it was the completing and consummation of all; or synechdochically taking a part for the whole, namely, the visible part of his sufferings for both visible and invisible, 
Med. lib. 1. c. 22. th'. 5. Polan. Pis. 2 Pet. 2.4.  like as in the relating the moral acts of his obedience, the external part is oftentimes only mentioned, the internal understood; and in setting down the works of the Creation, the visible creatures are named, the invisible included.  
Dialogu. And secondly, In this respect the blood of Christ is called the blood of God, Act. 20 28. not only because his humane nature was united to his Divine nature, for by the communication of properties that may be attributed to the Person which is proper to one nature only: but secondly, 'tis called the blood of God in another respect, namely, because he shed his blood by his own Priestly nature, that is to say, by the actual power of his divine nature, for he offered himself by his eternal Spirit, Heb. 9.14.  
Answ. As it was the blood of him that was God-man, so it was shed by him that was God-man.  
Christ's offering up of himself unto God was a free and a willing act, otherwise his offering had not been effectual; it could not have been obedience if it had not been done freely.  
In respect of God, He had done none any wrong if the second Person had continued only in that subsistence wherein he was equal unto God, without admitting any subsistence in personal union with the Manhood, in which respect he is inferior unto God by voluntary dispensation. He laid down his life of his own accord, otherwise there was no one could have taken it away, joh. 10.18. Christ had power of right, authority, and Majesty, and might dispose of his own life, yet having received commandment of the Father to lay down his life, he put not forth his Divine power to rescue the manhood from deadly sufferings, but cooperating with subordinate instruments, according to the concourse of the first cause with the second, gave way to the course of nature, and patiently suffered a violent death.  
That which the Dialogue is to prove, is, that the Mediatorly obedience of Christ whereby we are redeemed, is by way of price only, not by way of Suretyship and just satisfaction unto the Law: but that which it here saith, is, that the blood of Christ was shed with a large and liberal quantity, that his blood was shed for the atonement of men's souls, that the blood that was shed was the blood of him that was God, all which are true, but conclude not the question: he shed his blood, most true: but he did not only shed his blood, but so as the sense of the wrath of God was mixed with it, he suffered both a natural and a supernatural death.  
Separation of the soul from the body is either by the first and universal efficient, so the Divine nature, considered in itself, separated one from the other, or by an universal subordinate efficient acting by way of consent, so the Divine nature subsisting in Personal union acted together with the humane in the separation of his soul from his body; or else by the next formal cause, so the executioners separated his soul from his body.  
Dialogu In like sort he is called Jehovah our Righteousness, Jer. 20.3. because his Mediatorial obedience (whereof his oblation was the masterpiece) was actuated by jehovah, that is to say, by his divine nature as well as by his humane,  
Answ. He is called jehovah our righteousness because he merited our justification by obeying, and because he obedience imputed is the matter of our righteousness.  
You now plainly acknowledging that his Mediatorly obedience was actuated by jehovah, that is to say, by his divine nature as well as by his humane, acknowledge therewithal that it was performed by the joint concurrence of both natures, as elsewhere you say; And so show that your Reader is troubled in vain to find out the meaning of those novel propositions, viz. He poured out his soul to death by the active power of his own Divine Priestly nature. He separated his soul from his body by the power of his Godhead, without mentioning the humane nature.  
We must needs look at that as a piece of the mystery of darkness which hath no other strength but in imagination, and that only whilst it is not understood, but when understood becomes just nothing. The Father of Popery proveth a known Impostor, if men once speak in the mother tongue; Popery liveth no longer than it speaks Latin to plain people.  
Dialogu. So then I may well conclude that the death of Christ was a Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement, because it was the act of the Mediator in both his natures, in his humane nature he was the Lamb of God without spot, and in his Divine nature he was the Priest to offer up his humane nature to God as a Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement for the full Redemption of all the Elect.  
Answ. It is an inviolable rule in disputation, that the conclusion should run in the formal terms of the question. The question therefore being whether the natural death of Christ without his suffering the wrath of God was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement (other inferior acts done by him as God-man included) the Conclusion should have proceeded thus: The natural death of Christ without his suffering of the wrath of God, was a sufficient Mediatorly sacrifice of atonement. The weakness and fallaciousness of which conclusion deduced from the annexed reason, viz. because it was the act of the Mediator in both natures, immediately discovereth itself unto him who seethe herein the Dialogues usual fallacy of putting that which is not a cause for a cause, since not only the eminency of the Person, but also the kind of obedience and acceptation of God are required as essential to Mediatorly obedience.  
But the Dialogues conclusion expressing itself in ambiguous terms capable both of the sense of the Orthodox and Heterodox, doth by this unseasonable and irregular equivocation betray the weakness of its cause and arguments both at once.  
Dialogu It was the holiness of his Divine nature that gave the quickening power to the oblation of his humane nature, Joh. 6.63.  
Answ. 'Tis true, the sacrifice of the humane nature could not have profited any thing but by reason of the Person whereunto it was united: which notwithstanding the Person was not the sole cause of the efficacy of the oblation; had the eminency of the Person been sufficient alone, then one drop of his blood might have been as effectual as his lifeblood, and so your reasoning would be against yourself.  
Dialogu In this answer Joh. 6.63. our Saviour declareth two things.  
1. That the gross and carnal substance of his flesh and blood considered by itself alone had no meritorious efficacy, and therefore his legal obedience cannot profit us.  
2. Our Saviour in his answer declared wherein the true force and efficacy of his sacrifice did lie, namely, in these two things.  
1. In the Personal union of his humane nature with his divine nature.  
2. It lies in his Priestly offering up of his humane nature by his divine nature.  
Answ. Though neither the flesh nor the actions of his flesh considered alone can profit us, it doth not thereupon follow that his legal obedience cannot profit us: the consequent is as false as the antecedent is true: for the legal obedience of Christ is not only humane obedience, as the Dialogue speaks, but the obedience of God-man: of the error of this distinction of legal and mediatorial obedience, hath been spoken before.  
The efficacy of it lay in the eminency of the Person offering, that is the Person who offered up himself was such a man who was also God, Joh. 6.63. Act. 20.28. Heb. 9.14. but not in that only, this is but the same in more words which is usually expressed in fewer, viz. the value and efficacy of the Sacrifice depends (yet not wholly) upon the dignity of the Person Godman offered properly, Godman was offered but not without the limitation of communication of properties. The humane nature suffered properly but the divine nature suffered not: Whole Christ suffered, but not the whole of Christ, i.e. though the Godhead did not suffer, yet he that did suffer was God.   

CHAP. IU. Whether the jews and Romans put Christ to death.  
Dialogu. NEither did he die a passive death by the power of the Roman soldiers, as the jews thought, and as the Papists and other carnal Protestants do think: All the men and devils in the world could not put him to death by their power, I mean, they could not separate his soul from his body, till himself pleased to do it by his own Priestly power, Joh. 10.17, 18. his soul was not separated from his body by the sense of those pains which the Roman soldiers inflisted upon him, as the souls of the two thiefs were that were crucified with him, for Christ died not sooner nor later than the very punctual hour in which God had appointed him to make his oblation.  
Answ. The Dialogue unable to prove the mere natural death of Christ to be meritorious, that is, to be a sufficient price of our Redemption from the mere eminency of the person that died; what it cannot do by argument it attempts by amazement, beguiling the less attentive Reader into a credulity of the conclusion not by any reason alleged, but by asserting some wonders concerning his natural death, and first that his death was active only, i.e. he separated his soul from his body, shed his own blood, actuated his own death, but the Jews and Romans put him not to death.  
Suppose it were true that men did not instrumentally inflict upon Christ a natural death, and that they killed him not, which yet is against the express letter of the Scripture, Act. 2.23. it doth not therefore follow God did not inflict upon him a spiritual death.  
As they killed their own Prophets so they killed Christ, 1 Thes. 2.15. but they killed their own Prophets not only in appearance, but effectually: Neither Christ's being active, as concerning his death, sc. as voluntarily permitting or giving way and consenting unto it, neither the inability of man to take away his life till himself pleased; neither his not dying either sooner or later than the very punctual hour in which God had appointed, deny the sense of those pains which the Roman Soldiers inflicted upon him to have instrumentally, and as next external causes separated his soul from his body when he pleased, by suspending the assistance of the Divinity to give way unto the course of nature in the appointed hour. By the last reason no man dieth a violent death, because no man dieth sooner or later than his appointed time,  
Dialogu. The Centurion did plainly see a manifest difference between the manner of Christ's death, and the death of the two thiefs that were crucified with him, for as yet they did still continue alive in their torments till after the time that Joseph of Arimathea had begged our Saviour's dead body of Pilate, at the Sunset Evening: for Joseph did not go to Pilate to beg our Saviour's body until the Evening was come, Mat. 27.57. Mar. 15.52, 53. and that was at Sunset, it could not be when the first Evening was come; but Christ was dead long before this, for he gave up the ghost at the ninth hour, which was about three hours before the two thiefs were killed, and yet by the course of his nature he might have lived in his torments as long as the two thiefs did, for the Roman Soldiers did crucify all three alike.  
Answ. Put case joseph of Arimathea begged not the body of Christ until Sunset-Evening, and that he died three hours before the thiefs; this disproveth not the Jews as procurers, Pilate as a Commander, and the Roman soldiers as Executioners to have effectually put Christ to death; neither doth all being granted touch the question; man's not putting Christ to his natural death, no way disproving Gods putting of him to a supernatural death: so impertinent are these new assertions though true.  
'Tis true, the latter Evening began not until Sunset, but 'tis not true that joseph came not to beg the body of Christ until Sunset, for he came as the Evening was coming, as the Greek hath it, therefore before it was actually come. Besides, otherwise he could not have taken down the body, and buried it the same day (for it was before Sunset even, after the exposition of the Dialogue itself on Gal. 3.13.) according to the Law, Deut. 22.23. which john testifieth they were careful and mindful of, Ch. 19.31. There being therefore so much reason to conclude the thiefs were buried before Sunset, it is very inconsiderately affirmed that they were alive at Sunset. It is also very inconfiderately affirmed that the thiefs did continue alive in their torments, till after the time that joseph of Arimathea had begged our Saviour's dead body of Pilate, when john telleth us that the Jews besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away, and after that their legs were broken and Christ's side was pierced with a spear, joseph of Arimathea besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, joh. 19.31, 34, 38. but much more unadvised is it to say that the thiefs were alive at Sunset, there being so much reason to conclude they were buried before Sunset.  
The Margin note concerneth not us who acknowledge but two Evenings, nor oppose the Hebrews or Jews beginning the first with the sensible declining of the Sun, after its being in its altitude at midday; the latter at Sunset; between which two evenings that is in the space after the beginning of the first, and before the beginning of the second, the Lamb was slain, Exo. 12.6.  
Christ died after three of the clock, Mat. 27.45 50. the thiefs were taken down and buried out of the way before Sunset, and 'tis probable Christ and they were taken down together, whose body being wound up in linen clothes with the spices, and carried into josephs' own sepulchre in a garden upon the same mount must necessarily take up some time, neither is there reason to think they would put themselves upon any danget of entrenching upon the Sabbath. The case thus standing, and it being not set down what space there was between the death of Christ and of the thiefs, the Dialogue ventures too far, in saying Christ died not only long, but three hours before them. But be it what it was, let us see what the Dialogue infers from thence.  
Dialogu. What then was the true reason why Christ died three hours before the thiefs? had he less strength of nature to bear his torments than they? or did the Roman soldiers add more torment upon his body then upon the two thiefs? or did the Father's wrath kill him sooner than the two thiefs, as some think? surely none of all these things did hasten his death before the two thiefs, but the only true reason was because he did actuate his own death as a mediatorial sacrifice of atonement (at the just hour appointed by his Father) by the joint concurrence of both his natures.  
Answ. That Christ was dead a notable space before the thiefs, is manifest, and Pilate marvelled if he were already dead, Mar. 14. 4●. But that he died three hours before them cannot appear.  
Christ had less strength of nature left to bear his torments then the thiefs had, therefore they compelled a man of Cyrene Simon by name, to bear his Cross, that is, to help him bear it.  

Illusio & conspuitio Christi post latam in eum mortis sententiam a ministris a mediâ nocte usque ad horas matutinas fuit producta. Gerh. harm. 73.  He is a very negligent Reader of the History of the Passion, that observeth not many sufferings inflicted upon Christ by men more than were upon the thiefs. His restless vexation the night before by their carrying of him first before Annas, Joh. 18. then to Caiaphas, ver. 24. where they spit in his face, and buffeted him, others smote him with the palms of their hands, Mat. 27.67. Again, they cover his face and buffet, and say unto him, Prophecy, Mar. 14.65. and thence they carry him to Pilate early in the morning, Mat. 27.1, 2. thence to Herod, Luk. 23.7. and Herod with his men of war set him at naught, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate, where the soldiers of the Governor took Jesus into the Common Hall, and gathered unto him the whole Band of soldiers, and they stripped him, and put upon him a scarlet Robe, and when they had plaited a Crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand, and they bowed themselves before him, 
Thom. part. 3. qu. 46. vid. Gerh. harm. in loc.  saying, Hail, King of the Jews, and spit upon him, and took the reed and smote him on the head, Mat. 27.27, 28, 29, 30. add hereunto their casting lots upon his vesture, reviling of him, wagging their heads at him, and mocking of him as well by the better as by the meaner sort, whilst he was hanging upon the Cross, and all this besides what was extraordinary in his scourging; you forget his sorrow unto death, mortal of itself in time, his agony in the garden, besides the full sense of the wrath of God upon the Cross, no wonder if all these exhausted the spirits of the Manhood.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Behold the man! and if these things still seem less to the author of the Dialogue, yet know they seemed great both to David that spoke of them, and to Christ that felt them; Reproach hath broken my heart, Psa. 69.20. My heart is like wax, it is melted in the midst of my bowels, my strength is dried up like a potsherd, Psa. 22.14, 15.  
Dialogu. Surely none of all these things did hasten his death before the two thiefs, but the only true reason was, because he did actuate his own death as a mediatorial sacrifice of atonement (at the just hour appointed by his Father) by the joint concurrence of both his natures.  
Answ. Of Christ's fear hath been spoken particularly, and I hope sufficiently upon Heb. 5.7.  
In regard of the Personal union and unction of Christ, whereby he received all possible created fitness for the execution of his office, it is inconsisting with his perfection to suppose the least unreadiness either in respect of fear or whatsoever else, to perform any Mediatorly service in the time thereof.  
john telleth us the true reason why Christ died then and not before nor after: because then and not until then his work of Mediatorly obedience, both active and passive was finished, and whatsoever was written concerning him was fulfiled, When jesus therefore had received the Vinegar, he said, It is finished, and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost.   

CHAP. V Of the Dialogues distinction of Christ's dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor.  
Dialogu. I Have already showed you that Christ died a twofold death: for he died both as a Malefactor and as a Mediator at one and the same time; as a Malefactor he died a passive death, but as a Mediator he died an active death, and the Scripture doth often speak of both these deaths, sometimes jointly and sometimes severally: when the Scripture doth mention his passive death, than it saith that he was put to death, killed and slain. But secondly, the Scripture doth sometime speak jointly of his passive death, and of his Mediatorly death together in one sentence, as in Rom. 8.13. and in Gal. 3.13. (which Scriptures I have opened at large in the first part,) Luke 22.19. compared with 1 Cor. 11.24. Luke 22.20. so Isa. 12. with Rom. 4.25. The Scripture doth sometime speak of his Mediatorial death only as Isa. 53.10. he gave his soul to be a trespasse-offering for our sins, and he offered himself by his eternal spirit, Heb. 9.14. and he laid down his own life, Joh. 10.17, 18, and he sanctified himself, Joh. 17.19. therefore seeing the holy Scriptures do teach us to observe this distinction upon the death of Christ, it is necessary that all God's people should take notice of it, and engrave it in their minds and memories.  
Answ. In the examination of this distinction which the Author labours much in, and makes much use of, consider we.  

1. The sense of it,  
2. The Scriptures alleged for the ground of it.  
3. The scope of it.  
4. The deductions from it.   
By it the Dialogue means, that the natural death of Christ (for the spiritual death it denieth) is either Active, actuated by the Divine nature, yea, the joint concurrence of both natures, so he died as a Mediator, and this was real: or Passive, wherein the Jews and Romans inflicted upon him the sores of death, but did not put him to death though they thought they did, so he died as a Malefactor. This was not real, but only in the Jews account; Such is the mind of the distinction.  
Those Texts wherein Christ is said to be put to death, Luke 18.33. 1 Pet. 3.18. killed, Gal. 3.13. teach us, that Christ was passive in his death, but make no mention of the Dialogues twofold natural death, nor do they deny Christ to be active in that death wherein he was passive. They show plainly his blood was shed, and that by Jews, but not one of them affirmeth that Christ shed it himself.  
Isa, 53.10. Heb. 9.14. joh. 10.17, 18. and 17.19. teach expressly that Christ was active, and imply him to be be passive as concerning the same oblation of himself by his death.  
Luke 22.19, 20. 1 Cor. 11.24. show us that the body of Christ was given for us, primarily by the Father who gave his Son, and subordinately by Christ, who by voluntary consent gave himself according to his Father's will for us, as also that the breaking of the bread in the administration of the Sacrament is to be used as significative of his sufferings. What is this to the distinction?  
Rom. 4.25. clearly intimates Christ to be passive, but denieth him not be active in one and the same natural death.  
Rom. 8.13. Isa. 12. speak not of the death of Christ at all.  
Some of these Texts alleged say that Christ was active, others that he was Passive in his death, that is, in one and the same death whether it be natural or supernatural, but not one saith, his death was passive. Divers of the Scriptures alleged hold forth manifestly both his natural and supernatural death; the most include his supernatural death, none deny it.  
The scope of the distinction is to make Christ the formal taker away of his own life.  
The deduction from it; therefore neither Jews nor Romans put Christ to death: of both which before and in the answer immediately following.  
This distinctions twofold death is but one: for he died not a passive death as a Malefactor, according to the Dialogue, p. 97. and 100 It denyeth the death of Christ as Mediator to be Passive, which can hardly escape a contradiction. It denieth Christ as he was Mediator to be a Malefactor, though to be imputatively a Malefactor was essential for the time unto his being a Mediator.  
As in your distinction of Legal and mediatorial obedience, you understand the terms Legal and Mediatorial to signify two kinds of obedience, which are but two appellations of the same obedience, so in this distinction of the active and passive death of Christ, (according also as you express yourself clearer upon the margin) you make these terms to signify two kinds of death which only signify divers affections in the Person dying.  
The terms Mediator and Malefactor are to be distinguished as the whole and the part of the same office.  
To be a Malefactor imputatively was an essential part, for the time, of the office of the Mediator.  
The terms Active and Passive do not denote or distinguish two deaths, but are to be distinguished as adjuncts or affections of the same Person and Officer, as concerning one and the same death.  
Dialogu. When I speak of the death of Christ as a Malefactor, than the Scribes and Pharisees must be considered as the wicked instruments thereof, yet this must be remembered also, that I do not mean that they by their torments did separate his soul from his body, in that sense they did not put him to death (himself only did separate his own soul from his body by the power of his Godhead) but they put him to death, because they inflicted the sores of death upon his body, they did that to him which they thought sufficient to put him to death: and men are often said to do that which they endeavour to do; as in the example of Abraham, Heb. 11.7. Haman, Esth. 8.7. Amalek, Exod. 17.16. Saul Psal. 143, 3. The Magicians, Exo. 8.18. The Israelites, Numb. 14.30. as the matter is explained in Deut. 1.41. and in this sense it is said, that the jews did kill and slay the Lord of life, because they endeavoured to do it.  
Answ. In respect of the natural death of Christ, God was the universal efficient. The second cause cannot act without the concourse of the first, Act. 17.28. The formal efficiency of the second cause consists with, and is subordinate to the universal efficiency of the first cause; so as the efficiency of the second cause is both ordered by, and is also the effect of the first cause; but the deficiency of the second cause, though it be ordered by, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ad efficientem causam indirectè refertur voluntas ipsius Christi. Synops. pur. theol. disput. 27. thes. 19  yet it is not the effect of the first cause.  
Christ as Mediator was the voluntary cause freely and readily consenting to the Father's will, Heb. 10.7. and 9.14. Gal. 2.20. Christ was Lord of his own life, he had power of right concerning it, joh, 10.18. It was his own, and he had done no wrong in case he had not taken upon him the form of a servant, Phil. 2.6.7. He had power of might to have preserved his life, no man could take it from him against his will, joh. 10.18. All which notwithstanding, he voluntarily humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross, Phil. 2.8. Thus Christ was active concerning his death, but not as his own executioner, and formal shedder of his own blood.  
The Executioners were the immediate, external, and  cause, so are these Texts to be understood, 1 Pet. 3.18. Act. 2.32. and 3.15. 1 Thes. 3.15. Jam. 5.6.  
Two of your instances hold not, viz. Exo. 8.18. which the diligent Reader may easily perceive, and Numb. 14.40. where the words are better read by Learned Translators, And they risen up early in the morning that they might ascend, etc. A third, viz. Exo. 17.16. is expounded with as good reason against you. That also Esth. 8.7. might be troubled if not taken from you, the true meaning of places is to be attended. Your number of instances, if need were, I doubt not, may be made up elsewhere.  
'Tis true, the will is in divers places put for the deed, but not therefore in every place, nor consequently in this. So to argue were a non-consequence proceeding from particulars to an universal.  
Where in Scripture the will is put for the deed, there it is also manifest that though there was the will, yet there was not the deed, as in your instances of Abraham, Saul, and Haman, if yet the last will hold as here alleged. But you cannot produce any Scripture where the will is put for the deed, when there was a sufficient physical cause exerted to produce that effect, and also the effect followed; it were indeed an implicate, i.e. a contradiction, yet such is the case here. 'Tis true, no torments though in themselves killing could kill Christ until he pleased, and 'tis also true, that torments killing in themselves could kill him when he pleased.  
If because the life of Christ could not be taken away until the time appointed, nor without his consent, it therefore followeth, that the Jews and Romans did not take away his life, by the same reason it may be said of the blood that was shed at the scourging, crucifying, the piercing of his side with the Lance, that they did not take away that blood from him only endeavoured to take away his blood: for that blood was not shed until the time appointed, not until Christ pleased, it being in the power of the Divine nature to have retained it. Nay, why may it not be said by the same reason, of all the sufferings inflicted upon him by men, that they did but endeavour to afflict him, but they did not afflict him, since all the evils that men inflicted upon him were inflicted according to his consent, and in the time and manner as was written, Luk. 22.37. Act. 3.18. This reasoning too much favoureth Socinians and other heretics, who deny the sufferings of Christ to be real, affirming them only to be Metaphorical.  
It is a daring assertion, when there is not one text, nor (I believe) one Classical Author who affirmeth that Christ as the next and formal cause shed his blood, but on the contrary, plentiful Texts and Testimonies, that he was put to death, killed, and slain, and that by the Jews, Luke 18.33. 1 Pet. 3.18. Mar. 12.8. Act. 3.15. 1 Thes. 3.15. Jam. 5.6. Act. 2.23. Rev. 5.6, 9, 12. & 6.9. to contradict not only the godly whether learned or unlearned both of the present and all past generations since the Passion of our Lord Jesus, but also the Scriptures themselves in saying the Jews did not actually put Christ to death. Nor let the Jews, Romans, or Pilate rejoice at this; in vain doth the Dialogue discharge whom God hath charged.  
After all this, give me leave again to mind the Reader, that though this untruth were true, yet it is impertinent to the question; for what though the Jews did not put Christ to a natural death? what though Christ shed his own blood? what though he were his own Executioner, yea, killed himself? which last though the Dialogue in words somewhere rejects, yet in consequence asserts (at the writing of which my pen trembleth) doth it therefore follow that God did not inflict upon him his paenall wrath?  
Dialogu. He laid down his life by the same power by which he raised it up again, Joh. 10.17, 18.  
Answ. The power was the same, but the manner of putting it forth was not the same: In laying down his life Christ acted as a voluntary and solitary cause, that is, by way of consent and alone; but in taking up his life again, he acted as an efficient social cause, the Father and the holy Ghost cooperating with him.  
Dialogu Yea, his mediatorial death may well be called a miraculous death.  
Answ. His death was miraculous, many ways, the Personal union of soul and body with the Divine nature, during the space of their physical disunion one from another was miraculous, such strength of nature remaining under the extreme pangs, and at the instant of death was miraculous, as was the strength of Moses, Deut. 34.7. and of Caleb Josh. 14.11. in the time of old age, that Christ as man should die whilst the Manhood was in personal union with the Godhead, is miraculous; but that the Divine nature suspending its assistance, a man should die under deadly pains, was not miraculous.  
Christ's death was in some respect miraculous and supernatural, and in some respect not miraculous but natural; as Christ's natural so his supernatural death was miracalous, but it doth not follow it was miraculous, therefore it was not; the contrary followeth, his supernatural death was miraculous, therefore it was.  
Dialogu Christ died not by degrees (saith M. Nichols in his Daystar) as his Saints do, his senses do not decay, etc.  
Answ. Others say the same, who notwithstanding teach the doctrine of imputation and Christ's suffering of the wrath of God, the one opposeth not the other. Whether Christ's pains were so ended when he said, It was finished, as that his death was without pain (which yet I believe not) is not the question, but whether Christ suffered the wrath of God.  
Dialogu Austin saith thus, Who can sleep (saith he) when he will, as Christ died when he would? who can lay aside his garment, so as Christ laid aside his flesh? Who can leave his place as Christ left his life? his life was not forced from him by any imposed punishment, but he did voluntarily render it up to God as a Mediatorial sacrifice: in his life time he was often touched with the fear of death, but by his strong crying unto God with daily prayers and tears he obtained power against his natural fear of death, before he came to make his oblation; as I have expounded, Heb. 5.7.  
Answ. Augustine in his 119 Tractate upon john, speaks as you recite, until those words, who can leave his place so as Christ left his life? so far are his words, but no further in that place, nor (I believe) any where else. The rest seem to be your own, and (if so) ought to have been accordingly distinguished by the character. Your Exposition of Heb. 5.7. 
Sed Pelagiani quo modo dicunt solum mortem nos transisse, etc. August. contra duas Epistolas. Pelag. l. 4. cap. 4.  hath received its answer.  
If Augustine's judgement in this Controversy be of weight with you, you may learn it out of these his ensuing words. But (saith he) after what manner do the Pelagians say that death passed unto us by Adam? For we therefore die because he is dead, and he died because he sinned: they say (saith he) the punishment passed without the fault, and that innocent babes are punished with an unjust punishment by contracting death without the desert of death: 
See more testimonies both of August. and other Ancients to this purpose out of Grotius de satisf. Christ.  which the Catholic faith acknowledgeth of the one alone Mediator of God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus, who vouchsafed to undergo death for us, that is, the punishment of sin without sin: for as he alone was made the Son of man that we by him might be made the sons of God; so he alone undertook for us the punishment of sin without evil deserts, that we by him might obtain grace without good deserts; for as unto us there was no good due, so unto him there was no evil due.  
Dialogu Again, it is evident that his death was miraculous, because at that instant when he breathed out his soul into the hands of God, the veil of the Temple (which typified his humane nature) rend itself in twain from the top to the bottom; and at that time also the graves of the Saints did open themselves, and many of the dead Saints did arise, Mat. 27.51.  
Answ. The miracles that accompanied the death of Christ were divine testimonies of the Divinity and innocency of him that died, but no arguments that his death was miraculous. The position that his death was miraculous is true, but this probation holds not.  
It is rather thought that the Miracle of the Resurrection of the Saints was not till after the Resurrection; Many bodies of the Saints that slept, arose, and came out of their graves after his Resurrection, Mat. 27.51. but in matters of this nature we contend not.  
The miracles that fell out about the death of Christ whether before or at, or after it, were the Eclipse of the Sun, causing darkness, from the sixth hour unto the ninth, whilst Christ was hanging upon the Cross: The rending of the vail of the Temple, an Earthquake, the rending or the Rocks: the opening of the graves, and rising of many of the Saints. The conversion of the Centurion and others; the coming forth of blood and water out of Christ's side; all which are summed together in that memorial Distich,  
Eclipse, velum, terrae trepedatio, Rupes.  
Busta: cruci astantum conversio, sanguis, & unda.  
The death of Christ (saith D. Ames) was true not feigned; 
Mors ista Christi fuit vera non ficta. etc. Med. l. 1. c. 22. th'. 27  it was natural from causes naturally efficacious to procure it, not supernatural, it was voluntary, not plainly constrained; yet it was violent. It was also in some respect supernatural and miraculous, because Christ conserved his strength and life so long as he would, and laid them down when he would.  
Dialogu Hence we learn that the doctrine of the Papists and Lutherans in their transubstantiation and consubstantiation is very erroneous; for they place the meritorious price of their Redemption in the gross substance of Christ's flesh and blood, and in the passive shedding of it upon the Cross by the Romans.  
Answ. Neither the Papists nor Lutherans look at the blood of Christ as the blood of a mere man, but as the blood of God-man.  
Dialogu. The cleansing virtue of his blood lies in his own Mediatorial shedding of it, for though he did not break his own body, and power out his own blood with nails and spears, as the Roman soldiers did, yet he broke his own body in pieces by separating his own soul from his body by the power of the Divine nature: and then he did actually shed his own blood when he did pour out his own soul to death, Isa. 53.12. as a Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement for the procuring of his Father's Atonement for our full Redemption, justification and Adoption, and in this sense only the blood of Christ doth purge us, Tit. 2.14. and cleanse us 1 Joh. 1.7. and wash us from our sins, Rev. 1.  
Answ. Christ shed his blood voluntarily, that is, he consented obediently thereunto, but he shed it not formally as the next and formal cause thereof; so to say is in effect to affirm that he killed himself, and that he was his own executioner. Unto the cleansing virtue of his blood there is required not only the dignity of his person, but also that besides the shedding of his blood there is required that he should suffer a supernatural death, i. e. the penal death of the curse due to the Elect for their sin, which is synechdochically signified by [his blood] this putting of a partial and insufficient cause for the whole cause, Logicians call a fallacy of putting a not-cause for a cause; and is a fundamental and perpetual error in the Dialogue: the value of the Mediatorly obedience which is figuratively signified by Blood, proceeds from the eminency of the person obeying: the quality of the obedience, and the acceptance of God jointly, and not from any of them alone.  
The blood of Christ whereof 1 Joh. 1.7. and Rev. 1. was blood shed in a way of satisfaction to divine justice, Rom. 3.24, 25. not by way of a price improperly so called, whose acceptance is by Divines called Acceptilation. That Redeeming of which Tit. 2.14. signifieth a Redemption not by way of an improper or imperfect, but by way of a full and satisfactory price, such as was necessarily given for sin, that remission might proceed without any violation of justice: These objections have been urged before and answered before.  
That which the Author in this former Section of the second part affirmeth is, that the active bodily death of Christ only (i. e. his death actuated by the divine nature, separating his soul from his body, which the Dialogue calleth the masterpiece of his Mediatorial obedience) together with certain foregoing actions performed by him as God-man, was the meritorious price of our Redemption, denying that Christ suffered the curse of the Law in our stead; which it endeavoureth to prove by comparing the merit of Christ's obedience with the demerit of Adam's disobedience, Rom. 5.19. by allegation of certain Scriptures both misinterpred and corrupted, viz. 1 Cor. 6.20. etc. By the type of the Redemption-Mony, by the typical Redemption Leu. 25.25, 39, 47. by placing the meritorious efficacy of the blood of Christ in that it was shed by his own active priestly power, not by the Roman Soldiers: this last Proposition it labours to clear by the consideration of his priestly power, and in his Priestly action, namely, the sprinkling of his own blood. The efficacy of his death performed by the joint concurrence of both natures, is again ascribed wholly unto the divine nature; which gave the quickening power to the oblation of the humane nature: for the illustration and confirmation whereof, it propounds two distinctions, First of Legal and mediatorial obedience. The second of an active and passive death. Or that Christ died as a Mediator and as a Malefactor. Of the former distinction there will be a further and more proper place to speak hereafter; The latter the Dialogue hath taken much pains in, and made much use of; its grounds are Scriptures misalledged: its scope is to make Christ the sole actor of his own death: the inference from it, that the Jews did not put Christ to death: but if the distinction itself be proved to be but a figment, the scope thereof unsound, and if true, yet impertinent: the inference an untruth (of all which the Reader must judge) than the crutch falling, all that is built thereupon must needs fall together with it.    

SECTION II. A Discourse touching the obedience of Christ to the Moral Law: Whether it were done for our Justification or no by way of Imputation?  

CHAP. I. Of the Dialogues Reasoning against the influence of Christ's obedience into justification, by way of Imputation.  
THe Dialogue denying the imputation of sin unto Christ, thereupon necessarily denieth Christ's suffering of the punishment due for sin (which is usually called his passive obedience) and therewithal all legal obedience performed by him in our stead whether passive or active; hereupon it is necessitated to deny all Legal Mediatorly obedience, and consequently the legal 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 fruitful is error, one pulling on another.  
As the denial of Christ's Legal obedience to have place in the meritorious cause, forced the Author to find 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 righteousness assisting) we are to consider.  
Dialogu. Before I can speak any thing touching Christ's obedience to the Moral Law, it must be understood what you mean by this term moral Law: By the term moral Law you mean the Decalogue or ten Commandments, and call it the moral 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 moral 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 moral Law is a mere impertinency.  
It is sufficient (so fare 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 Christ's 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 Commandments 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 Commandments. 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 moral Law because it is the perpetual rule of manners teaching how we should be ordered towards God and Man, and also to distinguish it from the Ceremonial and judicial Law: But not because every one of the ten Commandments were engraven in our nature in the time of Adam's 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 moral Law.  
Though the Decalogue or moral Law were written in Adam's 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, man's nature remained when Adam was deprived of God's 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 itself nor in the intention of the Authors thereof, who have many more names to express the Law by.  
Dialogu. But the truth is, they are greatly deceived, for the ten Commandments do require faith in Christ as well as moral duties: but faith in Christ was not engraven in Adam's 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 devil's headplot, therefore the ten Commandments do require faith in Christ as well as moral duties.  
Answ. If the ten Commandments do require faith in Christ as well as moral duties, than the ten Commandments require moral duties as well as faith in Christ; if so, than they may aptly in that respect be called the moral Law.  
Moral duties so called from the Law, that universal 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 itself; Law and Duty are Relates: as therefore faith in Christ becometh a part of man's 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 moral duty? though strictly (and according to the sense of that usual distinction of faith and manners) it is not so taken.  
Adam's knowing nothing concerning faith in Christ until after the fall, doth not disprove a principle in him whereby he was able to believe in Christ. The Angels knew no more of Christ's being propounded to them to be believed in as their head and confirmer, than Adam did of Christ's being propounded to him to be believed in as his head and Redeemer: Yet the Angels in their Creation received a principle whereby they were able to believe 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 believed 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 yielded like obedience thereunto; the concreated image of God in Adam and in the Angels being the same in kind. Why then was not that principle in Adam able to have carried him out to have believed in Christ as a Head and Redeemer? could that command have consisted with the state of innocency?  
The cause of adam's not believing 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 Adam's heart, to prove that the term Moral 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 always 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 compass 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 mind that the 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 personal performance thereof had been justified legally, is that, by Christ's 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 Christ's performance of the Law that was given to Adam in innocency (whatsoever its extent be more or less, 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 general heads of all that is contained within the Law and the Prophets, than the ten Commandments must needs contain in them rules of faith in Christ as well as moral duties.  
Answ. If you intent no more than 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 believe in Christ, in case God should call for it: because the Law (now called the Decalogue) was given to Adam as a Rule of Universal, and absolute obedience; he stood obliged thereby not only unto what God did at present, but unto whatsoever God should afterwards require.  
If you intent that whatsoever is contained in the Law and the Prophets, is reducible to some one or more of the ten Commandments, 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 mediator 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 special to all his levitical 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 typical signification of the levitical 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 legal 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 itself, though dispensed after a Legal manner, comprehending the Law as a perpetual rule of righteousness, 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 typical Mediator) figuring Christ the Antitype, Gal. 3.29.  
It was confirmed by the blood of beasts, a type also of the blood 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, fulfil 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 threatening of eternal malediction, except they fulfil it: together with the unsupportable burden 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 kind of pedagogy 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 personal works, so the first Covenant is called the Law of works, because it requires works, i. e. personal keeping of the Law unto salvation.  
The observation of the levitical worship cannot be especially called the Law of works, because it is a part of the Ceremonial 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 carrieth us to the Law of faith.   

CHAP. II. Of the Dialogues Arguments against the Imputation of Christ's Obedience.  
Dialogu. I Cannot see how the common doctrine of Imputation can stand with God's justice; God cannot in justice impute our Saviour's Legal obedience to us for our just righteousness or justification, because it is point blank against the condition of the Legal Covenant so to do: for the Legal promise of eternal life is not made over to us upon condition of Christ's personal performance, but upon condition of our personal performance.  
Answ. Man's desert by sin is such, whence that God in justice cannot justify him by the Law, but man's desert is not such, whence God in justice cannot justify 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 believeth.  
Such was the demerit of sin, 
Longè itaque ista differunt, etc. 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 justify him Evangelically, according to God's righteous constitution. Such was man's desert why he should not be justified by his own righteousness, yet man's demerit not being absolute, but having dependence upon God's free constitution; he could not deserve why God might not justify him by the righteousness of another if he pleased.  
If it were unjust for God to justify otherwise then legally, than it were unjust for God to justify in the way of the Dialogue, viz. by atonement or acceptilation without all legal obedience, it is more against legal justification to justify without legal obedience, personal, or otherwise; then to justify by the legal obedience of another: 
Sophisma à limitato ad non limitatum.  the Dialogue by this reason fights as much or rather more against itself then against us; the fallacy lieth in asserting that in an unlimited sense which holds only in a limited sense: God cannot justify man fallen legally, ergò he cannot justify man fallen Evangelically, by the righteousness of another; is not only a mere 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 God's sight by Legal 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 unrighteousness, by this perfect rule of Legal righteousness, so by this Law of life God intended chief 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 intent to justify any corrupt son of Adam by Legal obedience done by his own person, nor yet by our Saviour's obedience imputed as the formal cause of a sinner's justification or righteousness.  
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 God's intent in propounding the Law of works to man fallen were, that man should seek that justification which was directly contrary unto Legal righteousness, that nothing opposeth, but rather maketh for justification by the righteousness of Christ; for justification by our own righteousness, and justification by the righteousness 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 righteousness, this by the righteousness of another.  
The principal use of the Law by accident is, that seeing ourselves uncapable of righteousness thereby; to provoke the soul to seek for life some other way, viz. by the mediation of the Mediator 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 righteousness 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 believers are bound not in order to justification, but in way of . As a Schoolmaster, until Christ, so long as there remains any of the Elect to be converted, according to the ordinary way of God's 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 schoolmaster to lead us unto Christ, the moral Law leads us unto Christ by an accidental direction of itself, it shuts souls up into the prison of sin, that it may condemn; it is by accident that being shut up, we seek after righteousness 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 intent to justify any corrupt son of Adam by Legal obedience done by his own person; but that God did not intent to justify his Elect by our Saviour's Legal obedience, followeth not at all from hence, except in the mistake of the Author 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 justice justify sinners by our Saviour's Legal obedience imputed: because Legal obedience is altogether insufficient to justify 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 justice impute our Saviour's Legal obedience to any corrupt son of Adam for his full and perfect righteousness, 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 believe 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 not 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 righteousness, 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, Leu. 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 binds 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 binds not without a superadded command; these are accessary Commandments added to the Law written; and bind 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 judicial and ceremonial Laws, which were accessary 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 accessary command concerning the Tree of the knowledge 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 sins, 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 Adam's sin, Rom. 5.20. moreover the Law entered, that sin i. e. Adam's sin (for of that he speaks) might abound; therefore Adam's sin was committed against the Law of Moses; to this purpose serveth the labour of Divines, showing how adam's sin was a violation of the most, yea, of all the Commandments: if so, than it was a breach of Moses Law.  
Dialogu If Christ's Legal obedience imputed were sufficient to justify a sinner from all kind of sin both original and actual, then Christ made his oblation in vain, for it had been altogether needless for him to give his soul as a Mediatorial sacrifice of atenement for the procuring of our justice in God's sight, if his Legal righteousness performed by his life had been sufficient to justify us from all sin in God's sight; for if righteousness could have come to sinners by the Law, than Christ died in vain, Gal. 2.21.  
Answ. Christ's inherent righteousness and active obedience is an essential part of our justification, but not all our justification; Christ's active and passive obedience make up our righteousness; Original justice and active obedience was sufficient to justify man innocent, but not to justify man fallen. The law in case of innocency required only doing, Leu. 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 righteousness 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 expressly concluding against justification by our own obedience, and implicitly for justification by Christ's obedience to the Law.  
Dialogu Christ's Legal obedience was but the work of his flesh or of his humane nature; therefore it could not be the procuring cause of God's atonement for justification; 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 testify, 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 Christ's 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; dependence in respect of subsistence, inferreth a dependence 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 itself, that doth not subsist of itself: From the personal union it comes to pass (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 Mediator to be incarnate, as a proper condition of his Mediatorly office, Gal. 4.5. to redeem such as be under the Law; to fulfil the Law is Legal obedience, but the Father required of the Mediator 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 itself a sacrifice for sin, he shall see his seed, etc. Isa. 53. therefore the Father required of the Mediator Legal obedience as a condition of his Mediators office, to suffer death for us in a way of justice.  
Dialogu There is great jarring among Divines about the right stating of the doctrine of imputation.  
1. Some affirm, that God the Father doth impute Christ's Legal obedience to sinners as their obedience for their full and perfect justification.  
2. Others do affirm that Christ's Legal obedience imputed is not sufficient to make sinners righteous, and so they do affirm that God doth impute another kind of Christ's righteousness to sinners for their full justification, viz. the purity of his nature to justify us from original sin.  
3. Others go further in the point of imputation, for they affirm that God imputes another kind of righteousness 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 Christ's Mediatorial obedience to be a sinner's obedience by God's 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 Christ's nature, and his active and passive righteousness, are not two, but one and the same kind of Legal obedience expressed by both its parts, viz. habitual and actual. The asserters of the last expressly are to be understood, as asserting the former implicitly: the act presupposing the habit than spoke not heretofore exclusively; the reason why later Writers speak more expressly is, because opposers have acted more subtly.  
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 itself, were this jarring not only great, but greater than it is: the Gospel remains the Gospel, notwithstanding through man's corruption it becometh an occasion of contention.  
Dialogu The actions of Christ's obedience neither active nor passive can be made ours by God's imputation, no more than our sinful actions can be made his by God's imputation; but our sinful actions cannot be made his by God's 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, than Christ must perform all manner of obedience for us that God doth require of us, or else God cannot in justice 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, etc. and yet we have as much need to be made righteous in such like actions as in any, therefore God cannot in justice make us perfectly righteous by the actions of Christ's 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 than not only Adam, but then all men had they stood in their innocency had performed. If he performed more than was required of us, than 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 virtue of the personal union.   

CHAP. III. Of the Dialogues distinction between Legal and mediatorial Obedience.  
Dialogu. IT is a necessary thing to observe a right difference between Christ's Legal and Mediatorial obedience, which we have in part distinguished already, but for your further satisfaction I will again distinguish between them.  
I grant that God required the Mediator to fulfil all righteousness, but yet his obedience to the Law of works, and his obedience to the Law of Mediatorship must be considered as done for several ends and uses.  
Answ. The scope of this distinction is to take away merit from the Legal obedience of Christ, because the value of his obedience rising from the eminency of the person, and its acceptation from office, in denying it to be performed by Christ as God-man, or as Mediator: it is deprived both of value and acceptation, which are two of the three ingredients often  of meritorious obedience. Meritorious obedience which is always to be kept in mind requires the concurrence of three things, viz. the dignity of the person, such a kind of obedience, and God's acceptation.  
The fallacy of this distinction which is one of the fundamental errors of the Dialogue, lieth in the mistake of an adjunct for a form, viz. in taking that which is but an inseparable concomitant or qualification of obedience for another kind of obedience.  
The terms of Legal and Mediatorly are two names of the same obedience, but signify not two kinds of obedience; one and the same obedience is called Legal, in respect of the Law which is the rule: and Mediatorly, in respect of the office of the person obeying.  
As if upon supposition of Paul's discharge of the debt he engaged for unto Philemon in Onesimus behalf, one should say, it were both a Legal and fidejussorial, i.e. a sureties act.  
That the legal obedience of Christ was not the obedience of Christ as man only, but of God-man, yea, of God man Mediator, is proved thus.  
Christ received the Law not as man only, but as God-man Mediator.  
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, Mine ears hast thou opened, a body hast thou prepared, Heb. 10.5. burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required, then said I, Lo I come, In the Volume of thy Book it is written of me, to do thy will O my God, yea, thy Law is in my heart; the boring of the ear, and preparing of a body note his incarnation, i e. Christ as God man.  
The Law or will of God which he was to do, is that will whereby we are sanctified, the word taken largely for our being consecrated unto God, and therefore notes Christ's redeeming of us.  
Christ was made subject to the Law, not as man only but as God-man Mediator: But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, that they might receive the Adoption of Sons, Gal. 4 4.5. His Son made of a woman, signifieth God-man: the Law whereunto he was subject, is the Law whereunto we are subject; he was made under the Law, from under which he redeemed us: his circumcision argued him a debtor to that Law, chap. 5.3. the end was to redeem us, which evinceth his doing thereof as Mediator.  
Christ fulfiled the Law not as man only, but as God-man Mediator. Think not that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I came not to destroy it but to fulfil it, Mat. 5.17. compared with Heb. 10 7. he that had a body prepared came to do the will of God, by which, i.e. by the doing of which (the relate taken together with the correlate of obedience) we are sanctified: Christ came to fulfil the Law as he was sent, but God set him as God-man Mediator, Gal. 4.4. those words are spoken by Christ after John's Baptism in the time of his Mediatorly obedience, according to the Dialogue.  
If Christ then according to the Scripture had the Law of works or the Law of Moses written in his heart, was made subject thereunto, and fulfiled it not as man only but as God-man Mediator, than Christ's Legal obedience was not the obedience of a man only.  
All the Legal actions of Christ God-man from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of Christ God-man Mediator.  
All the Legal actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of Christ God-man, therefore all the Legal actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion, were the actions of Christ God-man Mediator. The major is not denied by the Dialogue, which though it asserts the Legal obedience of Christ to be done by him as man only, yet it affirms not (to my observation) that any act of God-man was not the act of God-man Mediator. Neither indeed can the mayor (with any good reason) be denied, even those who say Christ merited for himself (which yet is generally denied by the protestants) understand the word wherefore Phil. 2.9. not causally, but as a note of consequence, according as it is used, Act. 20.26. Heb. 3.17. 1 Pet. 2.10. and reading those words Heb. 2.9. with a comma, or rather a colon, at death, and referring those words, suffering death unto the words foregoing [made little] not to the word following [crowned] acknowledge, that in those actions wherein he merited for himself, he also merited for us, which is sufficient to the Proposition asserted. Let an instance of any Legal act of Christ God-man incarnate, be produced, which was not an act of Christ God-man Mediator, as such, i. e, as Mediator.  

Principium operationum commune persona, formale natura. Polan. syntag li. 6. cap. 27. Trelcat. Jun instit. l. 2. c 4. Ame. med. l. 1. c. 18. Wolleb. compend. l. 1. c. 16.  The minor appears because rational actions of persons flow from the person as their agent; In the work of Christ four things are to be considered.  
1. The agent, i.e. the person.  
2. The principle according to which the action proceeds, viz. either or both of the two natures.  
3. The action.  
4. The work itself, that operation which proceeds from both natures, and so it is twofold, in respect of its next principle is yet but one action; because the person or agent is but one: actions in respect of their next principle proper to either nature, are common to the person consisting of both natures.  
The humane nature having no subsistence of its self, it is impossible it should have any efficiency of itself: Non-subsistence saith nothing: nothing cannot act of itself, but of this I spoke before.  
That Law which faith in Christ a Saviour establisheth, that Law Christ as God-man Mediator establisheth; but the Law of works is that Law which faith in Christ a Saviour establisheth, Rom. 3.2. therefore the Law of works was established, and consequently obeyed by Christ as God-man Mediator: for the establishing of the Law includes Legal obedience.  
He who as God-man Mediator is the perfecting end (i.e. is he, in whom the Law hath its perfecting end) of the Law, performed obedience to the Law: but Christ i.e. God-man Mediator, as such, is the perfecting end of the Law (so is the plain and acknowledged sense of the Greek word) Rom. 10.4. therefore Christ as God-man Mediator performed obedience to the Law.  
The Law is fulfiled as concerning them that are saved, Gal. 3.10. either by the obedience of Christ God-man Mediator, or by the personal obedience of the Believer, not by the personal obedience of the Believer, Rom. 3.3. Gal. 3.10. therefore by the personal obedience of Christ God-man Mediator.  
Dialogu The suffrage of the Godly Learned hereunto is known and acknowledged. 
Polan. l. 6. c. 14. Park. de desc. l. 3 n. 52, 53. Rivet. in Psa. 40. Consideratio deitatis alia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polan. syntag. lib. 6. c. 12. Inequalitas officiorum non tollit aequalitatem naturae, aut personarum. Ursin. expl. catech par. 2. qu. 33. q. 6.  Christ Jesus (saith Polanus) from the time whereat he took upon himself the form of a servant, began to pay the price of our redemption: Christ is such a Mediator as is a debtor to keep the whole Law: to that effect it was necessary, saith Rivet, that seeing Christ was our surety he should be made under the Law.  
The divine nature considered absolutely in itself, is not subject unto the Law, as subsisting in personal union with the humane nature, it is subject in respect of voluntary dispensation; the humane nature is subject absolutely, and properly, being a creature.  
The sum is, Christ, i.e. the person who is God man Mediator was subject unto the Law absolutely, as touching the humane nature, in respect of voluntary dispensation and office, as concerning the divine nature: it's a received rule given for the understanding of this mystery, that inequality of office taketh not away equality of nature and persons.  
First, God appointed the Mediator to fulfil the Law of works, I mean, so much of it as fallen within the compass of his humane course of life, not as a proper condition belonging to the Law of Mediatorship: [as Mediator] but as true man only, for he was bound to observe the Law of works as he was true man, as much as any other Jew, by a native right, Gal. 4.4.  
Answ. That God appointed the Mediator to fulfil the Law of works, as a proper condition belonging to the Law of Mediatorship as Mediator, and not as man only is already proved. Of the difference between the obligation of Christ and another Jew to Legal obedience, there is no need here to speak: they were both bound by native right, and otherwise: but not altogether upon the like grounds, and for very unlike ends: the obedience to the Law whereof Paul speaks, Gal. 4.4. was the obedience of Christ not as man only, but as Mediator, which is plain in that it was to redeem us that were under the Law, ver. 5.  
Dialogu. Secondly, Though I make this Legal obedience to be no more but humane obedience, yet I grant that he was thereby qualified, and fitted to make his soul a Mediatorly sacrifice, for he could not have been the Lamb of God without spot, if he had not been exact in the performance of so much Legal obedience as fallen within the compass of his humane course of life, Heb. 7.26.  
Answ. 
Rhetorf. de gra. exerc. 1. c. 2.  Righteousness or obedience in Christ hath a double consideration, either it is considered in him as in such a person, and not our surety; or as in such a person and our surety: righteousness in his person qualified him for the service of a surety: Legal Mediatorly obedience, or his personal and surety-obedience are distinguished only notionally not really, i. e. it is one and the same obedience, considered according to two notions.  
Dialogu Thirdly, The rewards which his father did promise him for his Mediatorly obedience, do far exceed the rewards which he doth promise to Legal obedience; for I cannot find that ever the Father did promise to reward any man's Legal obedience with such special rewards as he doth promise unto Christ's mediatorial Obedience. I will give thee the end of the earth for thy possession, Psa. 2. And He shall see his seed, and prolong his days, when he shall make his soul a trespasse-offering, Isa. 53.10.  
Answ. The terms Legal and Mediatorly intent not two kinds of obedience, but one and the same obedience under two denominations called Legal in respect of the Law which is the Rule of obedience; and Mediatorly, in respect of the office of the person who performed this obedience unto it both the promises instanced, and all other of like kind are made.  
Dialogu. Fourthly, Christ was not bound to fulfil personal obedience to every branch of the Law of works (for he had not wife and children to instruct, etc.) but he was bound to fulfil every branch and circumstance of the Law of Mediatorship, he must not be wanting in the least circumstance thereof, if he had been wanting in the least circumstance he had been wanting in all.  
Answ. Legal obedience consists not in performing personal obedience to every branch of the Law formally: But in performing all that the Law requireth as the Law requireth, actually or habitually.  
The Law of works, and the Law of the Mediator differ not as two Laws, but as the whole and the part of the same Law. The will of God concerning the Mediator was that he should obey the Law of works, 
Quando igitur quaeritur qualem obedientiam Deo praestiterit. Pareus in loc. Rivet. in Psal. 40.8.  and more: Pareus commenting upon those words, Heb. 10.8. speaks thus: If it be enquired (saith he) what obedience Christ performed unto God; we must answer, both the universal obedience of the whole Law given to man, and the special obedience imposed upon the Mediator alone: Christ faileth not of fulfilling the least iota unto either. By the Law Psa. 40. (saith Rivet) he understands as well all the Commandments of God common to all men, as the singular command of laying down his life.  
Dialogu. M. Calvin observeth rightly, that some of the actions of Christ were proper to his Godhead only; and some of his actions were proper to his humane nature only; and some of his actions were common to both his natures, and this observation (saith M. Calvin) shall do no small service to assoil many doubts, if the Reader can but fitly apply it.  
Answ. The same is observed by all Orthodox Writers generally: The Margin telleth you the use thereof was for the avoiding (as of other errors, so) of those wherein Nestorius and Eutyches were condemned. Had you sufficiently weighed the use that Calvin makes of his observation in the words immediately following, viz. For it is marvellous how much the unskilful, yea, not utterly unlearned are cumbered with such forms of speech which they see spoken by Christ which do rather well agree with his Godhead then with his Manhood; because they consider not that they agree with his person wherein he is showed both God and man, and with the office of a Mediator, you might not only have spared this Citation, but also the very distinction itself.  
Dialogu. It is absurd to affirm that all the acts of Christ's obedience were Mediatory, because his person consisted of both natures; for than his natural Actions should be Mediatorial as well as any other; You may as well say, that all actions of the Son, and of the holy Ghost are the actions of the Father, because they are united into one Godhead, as say that the acts of Christ's Legal obedience were Mediatorial, because his person consisted of two Natures.  
Answ. There are none of us that so affirm.  
Not his person alone, but both his Person and Office are requisite to every action of a Mediator; all his natural actions of obedience were Mediatorly: Such natural actions which are so the actions of men, as yet they are not humane, Rational, or Moral; which considered in themselves, without all circumstances of good or evil, are indifferent; not falling within the compass of a rule, are not here considerable.  
You have been already told, that we affirm not the Legal acts of Christ to be Mediatorly acts, because his person consists of both natures with the reason thereof: But we say, the Legal obedience of Christ were the actions of the person, consisting of both natures; they were not the actions of a mere man: and because they were performed by such a person, in way of such an office, they were all Mediatorly actions.  
The distinction of the personal actions in the Trinity, arising from the natures of the Persons in the Divine essence, holds proportion with our asserting the actions of Christ to proceed from his Person as the Agent: Notwithstanding the two Natures are Principles respectively of such actions.  
They that have competent knowledge in these great Mysteries of the Trinity of Persons, in one essence, and the two natures in one Person, will soon see your inconsiderateness in your comparing the Person, Natures, and Legal obedience of Christ, with the Divine Nature, Trinity of Persons, and Personal or Essential acts.  
Dialogu. As for example all the Actions of Christ from his birth until he began to be thirty years of age, must be considered as natural actions, or as Legal acts of obedience: for till he began te be thirty of years of age, he led a private life with his parents.  
Secondly, When he began to be thirty years of age he did then begin to declare himself to be the Mediaatour, for when he was baptised of John in Jordan, the holy Ghost lighted upon him in visible manner before all john's Auditory, and the Father by his voice from Heaven declared that he was the Mediator.  
Thirdly, In the upshot of his life, as soon as he had fulfiled all things that were written of him he sanctified himself, and sacrificed his oblation by the joint concurrence of both natures; and this was the masterpiece of his Mediatorial obedience. Having thus distinguished the actions of the Mediator, we may and must rank his acts of obedience accordingly; his obedience to the Law of works must be ranked among the actions of his humane nature, and his obedience to the Law of Mediatorship must be ranked among his Mediatorial actions, which he performed by the personal union of both his natures.  
Answ. The sum is, Christ was not declared publicly to be the Mediator until he was about thirty years of age; therefore he did no Mediatorly act before he was thirty years of age, a mere non-consequence: you may by the like reason say, the Father had not before declared him to be his beloved Son, therefore he was not his beloved Son. Joseph had not declared himself to be the Brother of the Patriarches and Benjamin, therefore he was not their Brother. Nor was his weeping in secret, Gen. 42.24. and weeping again in secret, and his soul-pouring upon his Brother, Gen. 43.30. brotherly acts.  
It hath already (I hope) been sufficiently proved, that all the Legal actions of Christ from his incarnation to his passion were the actions of a Mediator.  
Christ was a Mediator to be incarnate before the foundation of the world from eternity.  
Dialogu. It may be you think (as many others do) that Christ began to pay the price of our redemption from the very first beginning of his incarnation, for many affirm that he was conceived by the holy Ghost without any original sin, that so he might thereby justify us from our original sin, which opinion I have confuted: but the open History of the Evangelists do speak nothing at all of his mediatorial actions, till he was publicly installed into the office of the Mediator by John's Baptism.  
Dialogu Yet the Apostle testifieth that Christ himself saith by the Psalmist, Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In  offering and sacrifice for sin thou hast had no pleasure; then said I, Lo I come (in the Volume of thy Book it is written of me) to do thy will O God: Coming into the world, his incarnation, doing his will, is the fullfilling the Law for our Redemption.  
Whatsoever Righteousness the Law required unto Justification, Christ performed. 
Polan. de conceptione Christi.  But the Law required inherent righteousness from the first moment of our conception, and not only active obedience. Therefore it was necessary that Christ who fulfiled the Law should be inherently righteous from the first moment of his conception.  
The Dialogue itself acknowledgeth some Mediatorly acts before thirty years of age, viz, many Mediatorly prayers, and his incarnation, though incarnation is not a Mediatorly or office-act, but an act constituting the person called to that office. If that his meaning be of public actions of a Mediator: Our Question is not, Whether there were any public Mediatorly acts of Christ before his Baptism, but whether his Legal obedience was Mediatorly obedience?  
Dialogu Yea, when Christ began to be thirty years of age, he was publicly installed into the Mediators office, by the joint consent of all the Trinity; and so our Saviour doth explain the matter unto John, saying, Thus our Desire is (or thus it becometh us) to fulfil all Righteousness, Mat. 3.14. These two terms, 1. our desire, 2. our fulfilling all righteousness had need to be explainad: the term us or our desire must have relation to some other, namely, to the joint desire of the Trinity: all the Trinity desired to fulfil all that righteousness which appertained to the Mediators Person and Office: at this time they desired to fulfil that part of righteousness which appertained to his public Instalment.  
Answ. This is not to explain a difficult, but to take the Name of God in vain, by forcing a far fetched and impertinent conceit upon a plain place (whose sense he that runs may read:) 'tis ignorance or worse to turn the Greek: thus is our Desire, the word is rendered according to its meaning: Thus it Becometh Us.  
The speaker is Christ, The Persons spoken of are Christ and John, The Righteousness spoken of is the Office and Service committed respectively to Christ and John, part of which consisted in the present work, which though John at first harkened not to, yet soon after he did. If the Dialogue intends those words to fulfil that righteousness which appertained to the Mediator formally; that is to make the Trinity the Mediator: If efficiently then though the Interpretation were good, it is altogether impertinent to the confirming of that misleading distinction of Legal and Mediatorial obedience.   

CHAP. IU. Of the Dialogues further Reasoning against the influence of Christ's obedience unto Justification by way of Imputation.  
Dialogu THe Apostle in that Text Rom. 8.4. that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, doth not speak of that part of 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 righteousness which the Gospel-part of the Law taught and typified by their sacrifices of Atonement, which sacrifices are called sacrifices of Righteousness, because they taught sinners how they might obatin the Father's Atonement by the Mediators sacrifice of Atonement for their full and perfect Righteousness.  
Answ. In plainer words the meaning of the Dialogue is: The Apostle here by the Law understandeth not the Law of works, the Righteousness whereof consists in Legal and Personal obedience: But the Law of faith, namely, the Gospel whose Righteousness consists nor in Legal obedience, either personal or sureties; but in the Father's Atonement.  
It is plain enough by the dependence of this upon the foregoing 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 justify by reason of sin, which all know to be the Law of works.  
The way of fullfilling this Righteousness 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 Righteousness 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 fulfiled thereunto, the Gospel by our Sureties obedience thereunto received by faith.  
Typical Sacrifices of Atonement are called Sacrifices of Righteousness, because they taught and typified this truth.  
The phrase SACRIFICES of RIGHTEOUSNESS signifieth Righteous sacrifices, that is, Sacrifices done in Righteousness: 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 Righteousness by faith. So that hence there is neither cause nor occasion to confound Righteousness and Atonement. But let us proceed to your other Reasons.  
Dialogu Did Christ condemn sin in the flesh by his Legal Obedience? no; but by his Mediatorial Obedience only, Rom. 8.3, 4.  
Answ. It hath been before sufficiently shown, 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 sin, 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 Mediator, and made his soul a Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement for sin, and so he procured his Father's Atonement to poor sinners, and by this means he condemned sin in the flesh, and made sinners sinless, 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 falls, all which is built thereupon will perish with it.  
To be sinless is not enough to being Righteous: the unreasonable creature is sinless but not Righteous.  
The Dialogue having taken away from us the righteousness or Justification of the Legal obedience of Christ imputed, now telleth us what is our Righteousness, namely, God's Atonement or the Father's 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 sin, purging and cleansing of sinners, passing over, and not imputing of sin; so that a sinner's righteousness, justice, or justification, according to the Author, is nothing else but the Father's Atonement, pardon, and forgiveness, pag. 118.  
The Hebrew translated Atonement properly signifieth to cover something, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  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 pacify 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 Leu. 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 merciful, Deut. 21.8. And lastly to pardon Psa. 78.38. in which last sense the Dialogue takes it for our righteousness 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 itself, and the just confutation whereof here given, and kept in mind, 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 righteousness 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 righteousness.  
Pardon and sinlessenesse take away deformity in respect of the Law, but righteousness consists in a conformity unto the Law.  
Pardon of sin is an effect of that which is the sinner's righteousness: For the clearing whereof three distinct notions in the justification of a sinner are to be attended to.  
1. Righteousness itself, i. e. the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed, called by some justification taken actively, or the application thereof on God's part.  
2. The receiving of this gift of righteousness 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 believer in the Court of conscience hereupon to be just, by the virtue 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 Believer 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 eternal life. The first is our righteousness or justice itself. The second is our being justified. The third is the judicial pronunciation that we are justified, so that pardon of sin is not a part of righteousness itself, but a part of the judicial sentence concerning one that is righteous, and because he is righteous.  
To say pardon of sin is righteousness is self, is to confound the effect with the cause.  
Whence the reason is plain, why notwithstanding both righteousness or justice, and the pardon of sins be by Divines frequently made ingredients into the definition of justification, yet righteousness and pardon of sins are not to be looked at as the same thing. Such definitions are not (nor is it by the Author 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 essential. If pardon of sin were a part of a sinner's righteousness, yet being but a part, it could not be the whole. Pardon of sin cannot complete righteousness, because righteousness doth not only consist in being sinless, but also in being just; the heavens are sinless, 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 sinless acquits from obnoxiousness 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 believer is unjust; the unreasonable creature is not-unjust. Adam in innocency was more than not-unjust, yet was not just. The Believer 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 Christ's active and passive mediatorly obedience to the Law. It is such a fiction as the Author of it, and that at his conclusion undertaking to show its being from the causes thereof, Dial. p. 133. telleth us the formal cause is the father's atonement, pardon, and forgiveness, but the subject matter is believing 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 Legal 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 inquire after the essential matter of justification amongst the causes enumerated by the Author, behold the Dialogue is speechless, and presents you with a form without a matter, such a being as is neither created nor increated.  
If Christ's 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 Christ's Legal obedience so fulfilled and imputed.  
But Christ's 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. Leu. 16. therefore Christ was the real 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 penal and eternal curse, Gal. 3.13. which is already proved in the foregoing 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 blood is understood synechdochically, part of his suffering put for the whole, his blood was shed together with the wrath of God, because it was shed as the blood of a person accursed. And he went a little further, etc. fell on his face, etc. prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, Let this cup pass from me; to the same effect he prayed 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 showeth, there was no other possible way of redemption, but by his drinking up the cup of his Father's wrath for us, whatsoever the Dialogue saith to the contrary.  
God doubtless will not own those pardons for disobedience unto his Law, which will not own Christ's 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 justify any, whose very pardons God will condemn? The Pope's 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 Righteousness, 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 Righteousness to every one that believeth, Rom. 10.4.  
Answ. Christ is the perfecting end of the Law by fulfilling the duties required in the moral, etc. the truth signified by the Ceremonial Law.  
Dialogu. And thus I think I have explained the true nature of a sinner's righteousness, justice, or justification, which I have described to be nothing else, but the Father's merciful atonement, pardon, and forgiveness, so that I may more fitly call a sinner's righteousness a merciful justice put upon poor believing sinners, by God's fatherly pardon and forgiveness, than a strict Legal righteousness imputed to us from Christ's obedience, as our actual righteousness, as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach.  
Answ. Whether you have rightly explained a sinner's righteousness, 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 Believer, what is it else but to contradict the Apostles saying, God is just, and the justifier of him that believeth?  

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. Dialogu  The 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 etc. of the gift of righteousness; there is justice, Rom. 5.17. Justice in respect of Christ, mercy in respect of the Believer: that Christ satisfied the Law is justice, that this satisfaction was for us, and is given to us, is mercy.  
And indeed the righteousness which God the Father bestowed upon poor believing sinners in making them sinless 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,  etc. speaketh thus, he declareth that we cannot be just before God, but by forgiveness of sins, for God's forgiveness is a part of his merciful Atonement.  
Answ. Forgiveness of sin is inseparable from our righteousness, being the immediate effect thereof. We saw before that Atonement is sometimes taken for the forgiveness of sins strictly, sometimes it is taken for the expiation of sin, comprehending both the forgiveness 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 sin, a truth which the Dialogue denieth.  
Dialogu Hence it is evident that God's Atonement, pardon, and forgiveness communicated to poor believing sinners must needs be the formal cause of a sinner's righteousness.  
Answ. That this is not evident, yea, that the contrary is evident, etc. shall God assisting be made yet more evident, in its proper place, I doubt not.   

CHAP. V Whether the justice and Righteousness of a sinner doth lie only in Gods merciful Atonement.  
Dialogu THe justice and righteousness of a sinner doth not lie in his own righteous nature, nor in his own just actions, nor yet in the righteousness of Christ imputed, but it doth lie only in the Father's righteous atonement, pardon and forgiveness, procured by the meritorious Sacrifice of atonement, and conveyed by the Father through the Mediator to every believing sinner, as soon as they are in the Mediator by faith.  
This doctrine of a sinner's righteousness 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 days 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 mind of the Scripture lieth the truth, and in the differing understanding thereof lieth the controversy, 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 mind what the Orthodox, and what the Dialogue understands by Mediatorly obedience, and the father's atonement, or that so often as the phrases do occur in the next following pages, he may neither be at a loss, nor deceived by these dark and equivocal terms of the Dialogue, but being informed beforehand of both our meanings thereby, pass 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 masterpiece whereof was his yielding himself to suffer a bodily death.  
Atonement or pardon of sin (according to the sense of the Dialogue) is such as not only denieth itself 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 itself 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 righteousness differ in their natures, to take away unrighteousness from a sinner, is not to give righteousness to a sinner, 'tis an impossibility for that which is not justice to be justice.  
2. That the righteousness of the Dialogue is such a thing as consists of a form without any essential matter, and is indeed a Nonens, such a thing as is a nothing.  
3. That 'tis such an Atonement as denieth itself both to be from, and also denieth any being of the Legal 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 peril 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 witness that fiction of the Author 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 sinner's justification by God's Atonement: for as soon as ever God had told them, that the seed of the woman should break the devil's headplot, he explained unto them the manner how the seed of the woman should do it, namely, by his mediatorial 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 Believers 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 only said, and not proved.  
Dialogu After the flood 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 smelled in Noah's sacrifice did look. The word Rest implieth that now God's 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 Christ's sacrifice.  
Answ. It is also out of doubt with us, that Noah's 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 Noah's 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 believed that he was made righteous or sinless by Gods merciful Atonement procured by Christ's Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement.  
Answ. Here indeed you implicitly say again, that Atonement is our righteousness, and confound being righteous, and sinless; but you do but say the one, or the other, yet you beg, but prove not the Question.  
Dialogu For the God of glory jesus Christ appeared to him (that is, to Abraham) whilst he dwelled at Ur of the Caldees, Act. 7.2. no doubt but jesus 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  devil's headplot by his sacrifice of Atonement, and how he should thereby procure his Father's Atonement to all poor  sinners. All which Abraham believed, and so his sins were done away by God's Atonement, which he received by his faith, and so he was made perfectly just and righteous in God's 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 righteousness, not a part, much less the whole thereof. That which Abraham was made perfectly just and righteous by, was that which was accounted unto him for righteousness. That which was accounted unto him for righteousness, was that which he believed, namely, the righteousness 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 sinner's righteousness in the sense of the Dialogue.  
Dialogu. The doctrine of a sinner's justification or righteousness was abundantly taught under the Law by their sacrifices of atonement, namely, by their burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and trespass-offerings, in Leu. 1. Leu. 4. Leu. 5. etc. 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 sin, pacific wrath, and procure reconciliation to the sinner, which was really done by the blood of Christ, Heb. 2.17. in such manner as hath been formerly both said and proved.  
Dialogu. The doctrine of a sinner's justification or righteousness by the Father's Atonement was taught, and explained by the Prophets. The Prophet David saith in the Person of Christ, I have preached thy Righteousness to the great Congregation, Ps. 40.9. what righteousness was it that he by himself and by his Officers preached to the Church of the first born? Was it his Legal Righteousness made theirs by his Father's Imputation? no, the Text denieth that, and saith, that it was such a righteousness, 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 Righteousness be obtained by his Sacrifice of Atonement, than Atonement is not Righteousness. Righteousness as formally performed is an ingredient into the meritorious cause of justification. Righteousness 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 Righteousness, than that Righteousness 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. signify 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 righteousness 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 Legal Obedience, but by his active Meditoriall Obedience, when he made his soul a mediatorial Sacrifice of Atonement for poor sinners. Compare Heb. 9.12.14. with Dan. 9.24. therefore Christ purchased and procured such a righteousness for sinners as shall last to all Eternity by no other way or means, but by his mediatorial Sacrifice of Atonement, therefore his Father's Atonement is a sinner's Righteousness.  
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 freedom from sin, by his active our right unto eternal life, no part of Christ's 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 righteousness of Christ the Mediatorly sacrifice and cause of this effect, therefore Atonement is not righteousness. But to speak after the stile of the Dialogue, If Righteousness for sinners be purchased and procured by the sacrifice of Atonement, neither then can atonement be a sinner's Righteousness. 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 witness to this doctrine. S. Paul the Apostle doth tell us Rom. 8.4. that the Righteousness of the Law (namely, the righteousness which was taught and typified by the sacrifices of the Law) might be fulfiled 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 Righteousness of the moral Law (which the Dialogue thinks to evade, by saying, Christ fulfilled the righteousness typified by the Sacrifices of the Law) is hereby proved: because the fulfilling of the Righteousness of the moral Law by Christ, was that which the Sacrifices of the Ceremonial Law typified, so unhappy is the Author in his arguing. Christ fulfilled both the Righteousness required in the moral, and signified in the Ceremonial Law. Atonement acquits from unrighteousness, but doth not formally fulfil any righteousness. 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 Righteousness of God in him; that is to say, that we might be made righteous or sinless by God's 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 sinner's righteousness 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 Legal Obedience of Christ. And that this your doctrine of a sinner's righteousness 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 witness of the forementioned, you produce not 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 days only, the Reader that pleaseth may be fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius, who at the end of his defence of the Catholic 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.   

CHAP. VI How Abraham's Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness.  
Dialogu Abrahams' Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness, because by it he did receive the Father's Atonement for his full and perfect Righteousness, because he believed all this both in Gen. 11.31. and again Gen. 12. therefore God imputed that faith to him for righteousness, for by that faith he apprehended and received the Father's Atonement, and applied it to his own soul, as an effectual remedy to acquit him from the guilt of all his sins, and so by that means he became sinless, that is to say, justified and righteous in God's sight.  
Answ. We deny that Abraham apprehended at all any such Atonement, as the Dialogue teacheth, and it remaineth still to be proved. I take it for granted with us, that faith doth not justify us as a work; but objectively or relatively, that is, for the sake of that which is believed. Though Abraham apprehended the Father's Atonement by faith, it doth not therefore follow, that the Atonement apprehended was his righteousness. Abraham by faith apprehended Atonement or pardon of sin, not as the matter but as the effect of Righteousness.  
Atonement is frequently taken for expiation, noting both the cause and the effect, namely, both the Legal meritorious obedience of Christ, and the acquitting of us from the guilt of sin. But so the Dialogue takes it not: because it acknowledgeth no essential influence of the obedience of Christ (no not of its own Mediatorial obedience) into the being of our righteousness. Atonement according to the Dialogue is the pardon of sin, to apply therefore Atonement as an effectual remedy to acquit us from the guilt of sin, is to make atonement it's own cause, and its own effect, that is, to make it before and after itself. The imputation of Abraham's faith for righteousness doth plainly argue, that Abraham was made partaker of the righteousness of the moral Law, or Law of works by faith without works: 1. Because no man can attain eternal life without fullfilling the Law, either in himself, or in his surety: Without the righteousness of the Law there is no life, Leu. 18.5. Deut. 27, 26 Ezek. 18.11. Gal. 3.10. 2. Because the nature of righteousness consists in conformity and obedience to the Law; you may as well say that a man may be learned without learning, or that he may be a man without a reasonable soul, as to say there is a created righteousness without conformity to the Law. 3. Because the Scripture saith the righteousness of the Law, that is, the righteousness which the Law requireth, is fulfiled in us that believe, Rom. 10.4. Most vain is the shift of the Dialogue endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place by interpreting against text, context, and Scripture, those words [Righteousness of the Law] only of the righteousness typified by the Ceremonial Law, (which it wrists to its own imaginary righteousness; that is indeed no righteousness but a nonens, as having no essential matter, witness the Dialogues enumeration of the causes) since the righteousness of the moral Law fulfiled by Christ was typified by the Ceremonial Law; the righteousness of the Law is fulfiled in us, because we by faith apprehend the obedience of Christ who fulfiled the Law for us: 
Perkins in Gal. 3.  so M. Perkins with the rest of the cloud of witnesses, neither is there any other tolerable interpretation possible to be given; With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, Rom. 10.10. that is, unto a judicial righteousness; upon believing we are judicially declared to be righteous with the righteousness of the Law, though not by the Law. That which was imputed to Abraham for righteousness was that which Abraham so believed, as that his faith for the sake of the object thereof, was accounted unto him for righteousness; Imputing and believing are as giving and receiving: But righteousness without works, viz. the righteousness of Christ (not pardon of sin, which is the effect of that righteousness received, Act. 10.43.) was imputed unto Abraham for righteousness, Rom. 46. because it is imputed to all that are blessed universally, whereof Abraham was an eminent one, therefore the righteousness of Christ was that which Abraham so believed, as that his faith for the sake of the object thereof, was accounted unto him for righteousness.  
Dialogu And in this sense the Apostle Paul doth prove that Abraham's faith was accounted to him for righteousness, by a Testimony taken from David, Psa. 32. saying, even as David also describeth the blessedness of that man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works; saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord doth not impute sin: What other reason can any man else render, why the Apostle should enterlace this testimony in this place, but to describe unto us the true manner how Abraham's faith did make him righteous, namely, because by his faith he did apprehend and receive the father's atonement, by which his sins were forgiven, covered, and not imputed.  
Answ. We readily acknowledge that Paul Rom. 4.3. proveth that Abraham's faith was accounted to him for righteousness out of Moses Gen. 15.6. the scop of the Apostle in citing Psal. 32.1, 2. is not to prove the personal justification of Abraham by faith, but to prove justification in the general both of the Father of the faithful, and all others to be by faith, and the reason why the Apostle citys the testimony of David Rom. 4.6, 7, 8. is to strengthen his doctrine of justification by faith without works, which he having proved by the example of Abraham, proceedeth to confirm it from the testimony of David,: His argumentation or manner of reasoning lying thus, justification is by imputation, therefore by faith without works: the not-imputation of sin presupposeth imputation of righteousness, ver. 6, 7. Evangelicall imputation of righteousness supposeth the righteousness that is imputed to be another's subjectively and inherently, therefore to be applied as ours by faith. Touching abraham's apprehending the Father's Atonement by faith, and the imputing o● accounting his faith unto him for righteousness, we saw before; but that Abraham's faith was accounted unto him for righteousness in the sense of the Dialogue, is by us still denied, and disproved, by you still said and not proved.  
Dialogu. And thus after this sort the Apostle doth bring in forgiveness of sin as an effect of justifying faith: for faith is the only instrument of the Spirit, by which sinners come to be united to the Mediator in and through whose Mediation they apprehend, and receive the Father's Atonement, pardon, and forgiveness, for their full and perfect justification.  
Answ. If atonement, pardon, and forgiveness be the effect of justifying faith, than they cannot be our righteousness, for that is the object of our justifying faith: Righteousness is before justifying faith as the object is before the act. Atonement is after it as the effect is after the cause; to say the cause and the effect is the same, is to say a thing is before and after itself.  
Dialogu. This was the only true reason why God imputed Abraham's faith to him for righteousness, namely, because he believed in God's atonement, through the mediation of the seed promised.  
Answ. We have seen before that Atonement was not, and also what was the true cause why Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness. The Atonement of the Dialogue is not God's Atonement, but a pestilent fiction, to believe in it is to believe in an abomination.  
Dialogu And it is further evident that this doctrine of a sinner's righteousness by faith was taught and preached by all the Prophets, as Peter affirmeth, for all the Prophets (saith he) do witness that through the Name of Christ, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins, Act. 10.43. that is to say, they shall receive remission of their sins for their justification by the Father's atonement, procured by Christ's sacrifice of atonement.  
Answ. We are to distinguish between the righteousness of a sinner and the remission of sins: Righteousness is the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed: Remission of sins is the judicial declaration of our discharge from the guilt and punishment of sin; a part of our justification strictly taken, and an effect of righteousness. The name of Christ is Jehovah our Righteousness, Jer. 23.6. according to which whosoever believeth in him, how can it be otherwise but that remission of sins must follow as the effect doth its cause?  
If then righteousness be the cause, and atonement or remission of sin the effect; To say again, Atonement is our righteousness, is to say the effect is the cause, that is to say, a thing is before and after itself, that is to say and say again an impossibility without any probability.  
Dialogu. And to this tenor the Apostle Paul doth explain the use of faith in the point of a sinner's justification, Phil. 3 9 and in Rom. 10.4, 6, 10. With the heart saith he man believeth unto righteousness. He doth not say faith is a sinner's righteousness, but that by it a sinner believeth unto righteousness.  
Answ. A bare denial especially strengthened with the reasons thereof that are readily obvious out of the foregoing discourse, is a sufficient answer to your bare allegation of Phi. 3 9 The righteousness whereof Paul speaks, Rom. 10.10. because it hath faith foregoing it, as is evident out of the words alleged, must needs be such as followeth faith, and may be either understood of God's declaration of the righteousness of a believer in the Court of conscience, or of the believers declaration of his righteousness unto others, as works are said to justify declaratively, which latter interpretation the context seemeth to favour: Paul doth not say, atonement is a sinner's righteousness, which is the question, but he doth say, that visible confession, namely, external profession, worship, and conversation, is the effect of that faith which is accounted unto righteousness, and brings salvation, though itself be invisible and in the heart. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.  
Dialogu And in this sense all Sacrifices of Atonement are called Sacrifices of Righteousness, not only as they are the procuring cause of the Father's Atonement for a sinner's righteousness, but also because they must be offered in righteousness, Mal. 3.3. that is to say, in faith, because poor believing sinners do by faith receive the Father's atonement for their full and perfect righteousness.  
Answ. This is in effect but what was objected and answered before.  
Dialogu. And it is further evident that faith doth not otherwise justify a sinner but as it is that grace or instrument of the Spirit, whereby a sinner is enabled to apprehend and receive the Father's atonement, by the Apostles discourse in Rom. 3.21, 22, 23, 24, 25. all which Verses I will briefly expound unto you: First, The Apostle in these words doth teach us the true nature of a sinner's justification, he calls it the righteousness of God; He doth not call it the righteousness of Christ but the righteousness of God the Father, because the formal cause and finishing act of a sinner's righteousness or justification doth come down from God the Father upon all believing sinners. A sinner cannot be made righteous by the works of the Law, as the former verse doth conclude: For by the Law men come to know themselves to be sinners, and they that are sinners are ever sinners in themselves, therefore if ever sinners can be made righteous they must be made righteous by such a kind of righteousness as it pleaseth God the Father to bestow upon them, and that can be no other righteousness than a passive righteousness proceeding from God's merciful atonement, pardon and forgiveness.  
Answ. The righteousness whereby a sinner is justified is called the righteousness of God, because he is the author of it; it is as much as called the righteousness of Christ, Rom. 5.18. where it is called the righteousness of one, which one is Christ. The imputation of the righteousness of Christ is the formal cause of our justification, and is the act of God the Father: The word Father not being taken personally, for the first person in the Trinity, but essentially for all the three persons, God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost; Because all works wrought upon the creature are the works of the three persons equally.  
A sinner is not justified by the works of the Law, namely, by works that we have done, Tit. 3.5. For to such a work four things are requisite, viz. that it be wrought, 1. By virtue of the grace of the first Covenant. 2. By our own persons. 3, With exact obedience to the Law. 4. Under the promise of justification unto continuance therein. But yet a sinner is justified by the works that Christ hath wrought, though not by the works that we have wrought.  
If that Proposition be absolutely true, that they that are once sinners are ever sinners, then either the Saints in glory were never sinners, or they are and ever shall be sinners, and consequently neither are nor ever shall be perfectly blessed, See Ephes. 5.27.  
Neither the justified persons continuance to be a sinner, which is the condition of all in this life, nor the dependence of justification upon God's free pleasure, nor the passiveness of the soul in receiving justification, do at all infer atonement, much less the atonement of the Dialogue to be our righteousness. The good pleasure of God is the cause why the righteousness of Christ imputed, and not atonement is our righteousness.  
Dialogu But yet the Apostle doth further describe this righteousness of God, ver. 21. by two other circumstances, 1. Negatively. 2. Affirmatively. 1. Negatively he saith, that this righteousness is without the works of the Law. He doth plainly affirm that the works of the Law have no influence at all in the point of a sinner's justice or justification.  
Answ. We are justified without the works of the Law, that is, without the works of the Law done by us, but not without the works of the Law done by Christ: We are justified freely, it costeth us nothing, 
Buchan: loc 31. q. 16.  yet we are justified justly, it cost Christ the laying down of a full price.  
Dialogu. He doth affirm that this righteousness of God whereby sinners are made righteous, is such a reghteousnesse as is witnessed by the Law and by the Prophett. It is witnessed by the Law, namely, by that part of the Law which did teach and typify unto sinners how they might be sinless by God's atonement through their sacrifice of atonement, as the procuring cause thereof, as I have opened the matter more at large already.  
Answ. 
Willet. in loc. q. 27.  The Apostle in those words by the Law, Rom. 3.21. doth not intent the Law of works, nor the Ceremonial Law only, but the Law of Moses. Moses wrote of me, Joh. 5.46. The ceremonial Law did not typify our being made righteous by atonement, much less by the atonement of the Dialogue, as it is to be seen in the answer of the places you refer unto.  
Dialogu Faith itself is not a sinner's righteousness, and therefore it cannot be accounted as a sinner's righteousness, in stead of the righteousness of the Law, as some would have it. For if faith were a sinner's righteousness no otherwise but in the place or stead of the righteousness of the Law, than faith could not justify a sinner any further than the Law would do, if it could be supposed that a sinner could by any means attain to the righteousness of the Law, and then truly faith would be but a poor righteousness to cover a sinner's nakedness. For if a sinner could keep the whole Law in every circumstance of it, from his birth unto his death, yet it would not be sufficient to justify him from his original sin.  
Answ. It doth not follow though faith is not, therefore atonement is a sinner's righteousness. None of us say that faith is a sinners, righteousness, otherwise then relatively for the sake of the object apprehended by faith; and so the Apostle saith expressly, Abraham's faith was accounted to him for righteousness: Yea, the Dialogue, if atonement might pass for righteousness, acknowledgeth, that faith for the atonements sake received by it, is accounted for righteousness. No marvel though the Dialogue denieth faith to be accounted a sinner's righteousness in stead of the righteousness of the Law; the righteousness of the Law being righteousness properly and truly so called, which the Dialogue simply denieth to have any influence into the matter of justification. There is no need unto mere justification that faith should justify a sinner further than the Law requireth: yet faith doth not only justify a sinner, which the Law could not, Rom. 8.3, 4. but also justifieth him in some respects in a more excellent manner then the Law could have justified an innocent person.  
Dialogu. If any Orthodox writer say faith justifieth in stead of the Law, their meaning is, we are made partakers of the righteousness of the Law Evangelically, that is to say, by faith, which we cannot be partakers of legally, that is to say, by works. The righteousness of Christ (in respect of which faith is said to justify) consisting both of original righteousness and actual obedience, justifieth us as well from original as from actual unrighteousness; We receive by faith the righteousness of the Law, namely, that righteousness which the Law requireth, Rom. 8.3, 4. And so Evangelicall righteousness, or the righteousness which is by faith, is given to us in stead of Legal righteousness. We are through sin uncapable of the righteousness of the Law legally, 
Haec propositio, side justificamur legaliter intollecta cum papistis non est vera, sed blasphema-correlative: autem accepta est vera. Ursin. exp. Cat.  in the stead whereof we are made partakers of the righteousness of the Law Evangelically, without which we cannot attain eternal life.  
Faith justifieth not properly as a work or quality, but relatively for the objects sake, namely, the righteousness of Christ apprehended thereby. This Proposition, We are justified by faith (saith Vrsinus) understood legally with the Papists, is not true, but blasphemous; but taken correlatively, that is evangelically, it is true.  
The true manner how the Law taught sinners to get righteousness by faith: When a poor humbled sinner brought his sacrifice of atonement to the Priest to be offered for him upon the Altar, he must lay both his hands with all his might upon the head of the sacrifice of atonement; This kind of imposition was ordained by God to teach and typify unto sinners how they must by faith rest and depend upon the sacrifice of Christ as the only meritorious procuring cause of the Father's atonement for their full and perfect righteousness.  
Answ. That he laid on his hands with all his might, cannot be proved, nor doth the proving thereof prove any thing of the Question; Of it hath been already spoken in its proper place. The atonement of the Dialogue being disproved, it is therewithal disproved, That the laying on of hands typified their relying upon the sacrifice of Christ for such atonement.  
Dialogu. Vers. 25. Whom God hath fore-ordained to be a propitiation (or a sacrifice of atonement) through faith in his blood; The Apostle explains the matter by another sentence, Rom. 5.11. by whom we have received the atonement. The Apostle doth imply three things in this sentence. 1. That Christ is the Mediator by whom sinners do receive. 2. The main thing which they do receive by him is the Father's atonement. 3. That the means or manner by which they receive the Father's atonement, is the grace of faith.  
Answ. The Apostle Rom. 3 25. alludeth unto the Mercy-seat, Exo. 25.22. as appeareth by Heb. 9 5. where speaking of the Mercy-seat in Exodus he calleth it by the same word in Greek which is used here, teaching us thereby that the Mercy-seat was a Figure of Christ by whom our transgressions of the Law are forgiven and covered: the Mercy-seat covered the Ark of the Testimony, that is, the Ark wherein was the Law, which was the testimony of Gods will concerning the duty of man.  
The Atonement of which Rom. 5.11. is to be understood of reconciliation applied, according to the sense of the latter reconciliation mentioned vers. 10. and notes a change in respect of dispensation on God's part, and a change in respect of state, relation, and disposition, on our part: See more Sect. 2. Chap. The Greek words are not the same, and may in respect of their signification, if we seclude the meritorious cause of atonement from atonement, be distinguished as the whole and the part: his blood signifieth his passive obedience, the meritorious cause of the forgiveness of sin, faith is the instrument by which we receive it; Atonement or remission of sins is a principal good received by faith, yet it is not righteousness. But the Dialogues atonement is neither principal nor less principal, but a mere fiction.  
Dialogu. Vers. 25. To declare his righteousness by the passing over sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.  
1. God declares his righteousness toward sinners by ordaining Jesus Christ to be a propitiation.  
2. By ordaining the grace of faith as the instrument of the spirit, whereby poor sinners might be enabled to believe in the Mediators propitiatory sacrifice, and receive through him the Father's atonement for their righteousness.  
Answ. Then God declared justice as well as mercy in the forgiveness of, or passing over sin. A truth much opposed throughout a great part of the Dialogue; which contradiction had it been attended to, doubtless the Author would have provided against it by some Socinian evasion, or mis-applied distinction. The Father's Atonement is received by faith, but not for our righteousness: This error of the Authors especially in his sense is oft annexed unto some foregoing truth, or words that are capable of a construction according to truth by a formal repetition of the question, without so much as a thread of reason to hold them together. But I hope saying the same thing frequently and boldly, though sometimes with the word, Therefore, inserted without any tolerable inference of reason, is not enough to deceive the Reader.  
Dialogu. And therefore justified persons have need of new justice to their consciences every day.  
Answ. Very true, if understood of the sense of their justification; but not true, if understood in regard of a new Justification: Justification is an individual act which receiveth not more or less in respect of itself, though in respect of the sense of it it receiveth more or less. Paul was as much justified the first instant of his believing, as he is now in glory: Because the righteousness of Christ which is the matter of justification is the same.   

CHAP. VII. Of the Enumeration of the causes of Justification, according to the Dialogue, and according to the Orthodox.  
Dialogu. ANd now for a conclusion I will sum up the Doctrine of Justification into six heads.  

1. The subject matter of Justification is, believing sinners of all sorts both Jews and Gentiles all the world over.  
2. The formal cause of Justification, or of a sinner's righteousness is, the Father's atonement, pardon, and forgiveness.  
3. The meritorious procuring cause of the Father's atonement for a sinner's Justification, is, Christ's mediatorial Sacrifice of atonement.  
4. The next instrumental means by which a sinner doth receive and apprehend the Father's atonement for his justification, is faith in Christ.  
5. The only efficient cause of all the former causes and effects, is God's free grace and mercy in himself.  
6. The end of all is the glory of God's free grace and mercy in the believing sinners justification and salvation.   
Answ. Divers Orthodox Divines handling the doctrine of justification, distribute the matter of justification into the matter taken actively, that is, one of the essential causes by which we are justified, viz. the active and passive obedience of Christ: and the matter taken passively, i. e. the Subjects which are justified, viz. beleeeving sinners. In the last you follow them, in the first you leave them. Your leaving out one of the essential causes both renders and leaveth your justification a nonens, a nullity, there being no created being, but consists at least of a logical matter and form.  
Atonement or pardon and forgiveness, i. e. the judicial declaration of a believer to be discharged from the guilt and condemnation of sin is an effect of a sinner's righteousness, which also hath been showed before; so far is it from being the formal cause thereof.  
The meritorious procuring cause not only of our atonement, but also of our righteousness, is Christ's Mediatorly Sacrifice, but not in the sense of the Dialogue, for there is no such Mediatorly obedience as it imagines.  
Faith apprehends the righteousness of Christ as the matter of our righteousness, and atonement or pardon as the effect thereof.  
You leave out part of the final cause, viz. the glory of his justice.  
But because it is not sufficient for the edification of the Reader, that error be discovered, except the truth be also manifested: I shall shut up this fourth and last head of controversy between the Dialogue and us, with an enumeration of the causes of justification, according to the doctrine of the Orthodox.  

The efficient cause.  The efficient cause is the gracious good pleasure of God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, Tit. 3.4. Rom. 3.22. Psal. 3.9. He is God, Lord, Lawgiver, and Judge, his will is the Rule of Righteousness, All reason in one reason, and the reason of all reasons; to whom it was free to justify man in whether way he pleased, either legally by our own works, or evangelically by the works of another.  

The meritorious cause.  The meritorious cause is the whole Legal obedience of Christ consisting of his habitual conformity together with his active and passive obedience, from the instant of his incarnation unto his passion inclusively; performed by him as God-man, our Mediatout and Surety in way of Covenant; to the fullfilling whereof the application of all the good of election, consequently justification as a part thereof was due unto the Elect according to the order of justice, though (as concerning themselves) purposed, purchased, and perfected altogether in way of mere grace.  

Four things to be attended for the clearing of the meritorious cause.  Four things attended to will help to clear the meritorious cause.  


1. The Person.  
2. The Office.  
3. The Service.  
4. The merit whereupon debt ariseth according to order of justice.    

1 The Person. 
The Person obeying is God-man; the eminency of the person is requisite to the value of the Service.  2 Office. 
By Office he was Mediator, which he took not upon him, but was called thereunto, an essential part whereof was to stand as our surety, and pay our debt even unto the death; during which space only Christ's Mediatorship is to be looked at as having influence into the meritorious cause of our justification. Notwithstanding Christ still continueth a Mediator and Surety, yet no more to pay our debt: that being already discharged, death had no more dominion over him, Heb. 7.27.9.28. 1 Pet. 3.18. He was offered once, he suffered once.  3 Service. 
His service, or his perfect obedience consists of his original conformity, and his active and passive obedience unto the Law.    
His original righteousness is that gracious inherent disposition in Christ, from the first instant of his conception, whereby he was habitually conformable to the Law, Luk. 1.35. there was more habitual grace in Christ then there is duty in the Law, or then there is or shall be habitual grace in the Elect both Angels and men, because Christ was God-man, and received the Spirit out of measure as much as was possible to be in a creature. This original righteousness of Christ answered for our original unrighteousness.  
Concerning his active and passive obedience to the Law, observe these three propositions.  
Prop. 1 All his obedience to the Law proceeded from him as God-man Mediator: See this proved, Cham part. 2.  
Prop. 2 Both active and passive obedience were requisite unto the work of the Mediator.  
That passive obedience was requisite is unquestionable. That active obedience was requisite is thus proved.  
There was no part of Christ's obedience which was not active. As there was no part of Christ's active obedience that was so active as that it was no way passive; so there was no part of his passive obedience, which was so passive as that it was not also active.  
The Law requireth not only death in case of sin, Gen. 2.17. but also doing of the Legal obedience unto the command, Deut. 27.26. Gal. 3.10. otherwise there is no life. The command then must be obeyed in ourselves or in our Surety. It cannot be obeyed in ourselves.  
Obedience of the Saints whether in grace or glory is not Legal, viz. such as is 1. Performed in our own persons. 2. From a concreated principle of grace received in the first Covenant. 3. In way of merit. 4. Perfect. Therefore in our Surety.  
Because this double satisfaction answereth to our double misery. viz. the guilt of punishment, or condemnation, and defect of righteousness.  
Because righteousness properly and truly so called consisteth in actual obedience.  
Prop. 3 All his active and passive obedience concurres to complete the work or service of the Mediator.  
He was born for us, Luk. 2.10, 11. he was made subject to the Law for us, Gal. 4.4. for our sakes he sanctified himself, Joh. 17.19. and that from the womb unto his last oblation of himself upon the cross; He obeyed the Law for our sakes. I come to do thy will O God, Heb. 10.7. by the which will we are sanctified, cap. 10. that is, that will whereby he was appointed to this office, and by doing his will in that office, according as he was appointed. What Christ did in way of discharging his office he did for us. Christ fulfilled the Law, Mat. 5.17. in way of discharging his office: Therefore he fulfiled the Law for us: He came to fulfil all the Law: As he came so he was sent, and his sending or mission was nothing else but his actual entering upon his Office, according to the pleasure and command of the Father. Briefly,  
He came as he was sent,  
He was sent as Mediator, Ergo.  
Either all Christ's active obedience was for us, 
Obedientia Christi est una copulativa. Alste. Theo. Sect. 3. loc. 22. Med. l. 1. c. 21. & 23, 24. Wolleb. l. 1. c. 18.  or some of it only for himself; but there can no reason be given why any of it should be only for himself; If it should be granted (which the Protestant Writers do generally deny) that Christ merited for himself, yet the Proposition stands, if that Christ merited not only for himself but for us also.  
Every action of Christ's obedience was an integral part of his satisfaction, that is, though some part of this obedience be more eminent than others, yet the whole is not complete without the least. All the obedience of Christ makes but one obedience: All his obedience is one copulative.  
Merit. Merit justly indebteth, it is that whereunto the thing merited is due according to the order of justice.  
Debt then according to the order of justice is so a debt, as that in case God should not perform it, he should not be just. The application of the good of election to the redeemed becometh a just debt, for the obedience sake of Christ by virtue of the Covenant between God and Christ, wherein God hath in this sense, freely made himself a debtor; Isa. 53.10. He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin, 1 Joh. 1.9. As Adam's disobedience justly deserved condemnation; so Christ's obedience justly deserveth salvation for his seed: His merit exceedeth Adam's demerit.  
Obj. Works and Grace are opposite, Rom. 11.6. 
Buchan. just. Theol. loc. 31. qu. 16.  How can merit consist with the Covenant of grace?  
Ans. The Covenant of grace denieth merit in the proper debtor, but not in the surety, It denieth merit in us but not in Christ. In the Covenant of works man was capable of merit, Rom. 3.23. in the Covenant of grace man is uncapable of merit, so we are to understand Rom. 11.6. But to him that workerh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. Our salvation cost Christ the full price, though it cost us nothing at all.  

The material cause.  The material cause of our justification is the whole course of the active and passive obedience of Christ, together with his habitual conformity unto the Law.  
As the matter of Adam's justification in innocency had not consisted in one act of obedience, but of a whole course of obedience, the finishing of which was requisite to have made him just: So it is with the obedience of Christ.  
If the justification of a sinner consisteth not only in the not-imputation of sin, but also in the imputation of righteousness, then both the active and passive obedience of Christ are requisite to the matter of our justification. But the justification of a sinner consisteth not only of the not-imputation of sin, but also of the imputation of righteousness: 'Tis not enough for us not to be unjust, but we must also be just: Therefore,  
Perfect obedience to the Law is the matter of our justification, Gal. 3.10.  
But the whole obedience of Christ was requisite to the performance of perfect Obedience to the Law.  
Therefore, The whole obedience of Christ is requisite to the matter of our justification.  
That righteousness of the Law which Christ fulfiled in our stead is the matter of our Justification.  
But the righteousness of the Law which Christ fulfilled in our stead is completed of his whole active and passive obedience, together with his original righteousness. Therefore  
The difference between the obedience of Christ considered as an ingredient into the meritorious cause, 
The difference between the obedience of Christ considered as an ingredient into the meritorious cause, and considered as the matter of our justification.  and considered as the matter of our justification, appeareth thus.  
In the meritorious cause it is to be considered together with the person, office, and merit. In the material cause it is considered as distinct from all these.  
They are distinguished as cause and effect. Obedience in the material cause is the effect of obedience considered in the meritorious cause.  
They are distinguished as the whole and the part: Christ's obedience is but a part only of the meritorious, but the whole of the material cause.  
In the meritorious cause it is both a Legal and an Evangelicall act. Christ's obeying the Law is Legal, but his obeying for us is Evangelicall; in the material cause it is only an Evangelicall act, it is given to us freely. There it is considered as wrought by him for us, here as applied to us. There is as a garment made, here as a garment put on. There it may be compared to the payment of the money by the Surety, here to the money as paid and accounted unto the use of the debtor.  
As it is not the commission of our disobedience, but the guilt and punishment that is imputed to Christ; so it is not the formal working of obedience or doing of the command, but the good, virtue, and efficacy thereof, that is imputed unto the Believer: Obedience, righteousness and life, disobedience, guilt (which is a right unto punishment) and punishment, that is, death, answer one the other.  
The formal cause of justification is imputation. 
The formal cause.  Imputation is the actual and effectual application of the Righteousness of Christ unto a Believer.  
To impute, reckon, or account, in this place intent the same thing, the same word in Greek being indifferently translated by any of these, Rom. 4. To impute, is to reckon that unto another which in way of righteousness (whether of debt or grace) belongs unto him. Imputation is either Legal, imputing to us that which we have done, so the word is used, Rom. 4. or Evangelicall, imputing to us that which another hath done. Thus to impute is for God in his act of justifying a sinner to account the righteousness of Christ [which is not ours formally, nor by just debt] to be ours by grace, and that as verily and really ours as if it were wrought by us. And in this sense the word is used ten times, Rom. 4.3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11.22, 23, 24. The justification of a Believer is either by righteousness inherent or imputed. But not by righteousness inherent. Therefore by righteousness imputed. The righteousness whereby man is justified before God is perfect. It were destructive to the merit of Christ, and to turn the Covenant of grace into a Covenant of works, to say we are justified by righteousness inherent in us.  
The instrumental cause of justification is faith. We are justified by faith correlatively, that is, we are justified by that which is the correlate of faith, namely, the obedience of Christ. The meaning is, 'tis the obedience of Christ, not faith itself that justifieth, i. e. that which is apprehended, not that which doth apprehend.  

Synop. par. Theol. disp. 33. n. 32. Twist. l. 1. p. 1. de prae. D. 3. f. 4. Med. l. 1. c. 20.  The final cause is the manifestation of the glory of mercy tempered with justice. Of mercy in that he justifieth the ungodly, Rom. 4 5. And that freely, Rom. 3.24. Of justice in that he justifieth not without Christ's full satisfaction unto the Law, Rom. 3.26.   

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 itself from further acting the part of an opponent against the imputation of Christ's Legal obedience both active and passive unto justification: and now proceeds to act the part of a Respondent unto certain Arguments of M. Forbes alleged 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 sinner's righteousness but Jesus Christ alone and his righteousness, 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 righteousness, but how? not as the doctrine of imputation speaketh, but thus, God made him to be our righteousness in a mediatorial way, by ordaining him to be the only meritorious procuring cause of his atonement, which is a sinners only righteousness. Christ is not a sinner's righteousness any otherwise but in a mediatorial way only, as I have oft warned. Christ is called Jehovah our righteousness, but still it must be understood in a mediatorial way, and no otherwise.  
We have seen already that Atonement is not righteousness, it cannot then be a sinners only righteousness.  
That which the Dialogue calls a Mediatorial way is indeed no way, but is destructive unto the true way, and consequently an heretical way, denying of and inconsisting with the Mediatorly obedience of Christ unto the Law.  
The Legal 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 material cause thereof. Of which before.  
Dialogu. And thus Christ is our Righteousness in one respect, the Father in another, and the holy Ghost in another. Each person is a sinner's righteousness in several respects, The manner how Christ should justify 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 justify us with his blood, Rom. 5.9. that is to say, by his Sacrifice of Atonement; therefore his righteousness cannot be the formal cause of a sinner's righteousness; it is but the procuring cause of the Father's atonement, which is the only formal cause of a sinner's righteousness.  
Answ. That Proposition, Christ bore our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement, is an equivocal proposition capable of divers constructions: 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 diversely of the cause of justification. We are said to be justified by grace, Rom. 3.24. i e. as the efficient cause; By his blood Rom. 5 9 i e. as the meritorious cause: By his obedience Rom. 5.19. i e. as the material cause: By imputation (viz. of his obedience) Rom. 4.6. i e. as the formal cause; By faith Rom. 5.1. i e. as the instrument.  
Your inference, Christ bore our iniquities by his sacrifice of atonement, therefore his righteousness cannot be the formal cause of a sinner's righteousness, is impertinent; and argues that you understand not our doctrine. We say not that the obedience of Christ is the formal, but the material cause of a sinner's righteousness, and that imputation is the formal cause thereof.  
Dialogu The Father is a sinner's righteousness, 1. Efficiently. 2. Formally; His Atonement so procured must needs be the formal cause of a sinners full and perfect righteousness.  
Answ. To say the Father is a sinner's righteousness formally, sounds too near Osianders' error who held that we were justified by the essential righteousness of God. But the following words show you mistake or at least inconveniently use the term formally, and intent no other than your former error. The efficient cause of a sinner's righteousness 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 Father's Atonement, by quickening their souls with the lively grace of faith, by which grace sinners are enabled to apprehend and receive the Father's Atonement.  
Answ. Faith is the instrument or instrumental 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 error both in Divinity and Logic to say the holy Ghost who is God and only God is an instrumental cause, which always notes inferiority.  
Dialogu. It is well that your Author will grant remission of sins to be righteousness in effect: if remission of sins be a sinner's righteousness, than (I pray) consider whose act it is to forgive sins formally. I have already proved it to be the Father's act to forgive sin formally, and not Christ's; he doth forgive sin no otherwise but as a Mediator by procuring his Father's pardon and forgivensse.  
Answ. Righteousness 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 formal cause of justification, is a transient act, and is the effect of the Father taken essentially. Our Question is not concerning the formal but the material cause of justification.  
Dialogu M. Forbes is put to his shifts to declare that Christ's passive Obedience is the matter of a sinner's righteousness, 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 gross absurdity, if he had made any action of Christ's Godhead or Priestly nature to have been a sinner's righteousness by imputation: Therefore to avoid that absurdity he doth place a sinner's righteousness 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 Christ's 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 blood and death alone.  
To that end he distinguisheth between the matter of our righteousness and the requisites in Christ to the end that he may be righteousness unto us; like as the blood of the Lamb is to be distinguished from those things in the Lamb, which made the Lamb's blood to serve for a propitiation for sin; placing the active obedience of Christ amongst the requisites, and excluding it from the matter of our righteousness, in both which we leave him.  
The distinction you mention and call it a shift, I find 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 Christ's passive obedience. Of the impropriety of the use of those words [Christ's Godhead or Priestly nature] hath been spoken before. To make the actions, i. e. the active obedience of Christ God-man Mediator, part of the matter of a sinner's righteousness (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 Author is in a great error, to ascribe the whole matter of a sinner's righteousness to Christ's bloody Sacrifice only: Neither was his bloody sacrifice the only procuring of his father's 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 error 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 error; and do hereby bear solemn testimony against it; Yet withal we may not conceal that observable temperature of that Learned and Godly Author 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 righteousness 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 righteousness, 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 Mediator with the joint concurrence of both natures, might have been spared, Who is he that doubts of it?  
Dialogu. The blood of Jesus Christ doth cleanse us from all sin, 1 Joh. 1.7. by a Synecdoche; for the Apostle doth not say that his blood alone without any thing doth cleanse us from all sin (as M. Forbes would have him speak) but he names his blood as a Synecdoche of his death or as a Synecdoche of his mediatorial obedience, which also he sealed with his blood, when he made his soul a mediatorial Sacrifice.  
Answ. M. Forbes so far speaketh the truth as he interprets blood synechdochically of Christ's 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 mediatorial Obedience is confuted before, and therewith its interpretation.  
Dialogu I grant that all mankind are one with Adam by ae natural union, as proceeding from the same root and fountain of nature; but I fear your Author doth stretch out natural union with Adam unto a personal union (I mean M. Forbes doth so by consequence) to the end that he might make Adam's personal action to be ours by imputation.  
Answ. The scope of M. Forbes is to prove the imputation of Christ's passive obedience, and that only in his death, to be the matter of our justification. Paul's comparison according to his interpretation is instituted not between that single act of Adam's disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit, imputed unto his seed; and the obedience of Christ in general both active and passive imputed to his seed, but between the single act of Adam's disobedience, and one act of Christ's obedience, viz. his death.  
We consent to M Forbes as concerning the argument taken from the comparison, we descent 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 public persons: Adam therefore being in that act of disobedience only a public person, hence that act only is imputed unto his seed; but Christ being in all his acts of obedience a public person, hence therefore all the acts of Christ's obedience are imputed to his seed. As upon the supposition of Adam's continuing in obedience (because he had then continued a public person) all the acts of his obedience even unto the finishing of perfect righteousness, 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 personal, nor only natural, but mystical. 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 Adam's disobedience had this effect, that it procured a corrupt and sinful nature to himself, and to all his posterity, which otherwise had continued righteous and sinless.  
In like sort Christ's mediatorial 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 sinful nature of Adam's posterity was the effect of Adam's disobedience, in like sort as Atonement, i. e. remission of sin is the effect of Christ's obedience, than it was the effect thereof according to justice (as indeed it was, for original sin is the penal effect of Adam's sin) he is just to forgive us our sin, 1 Joh. 1.9.  
Dialogu By one man, namely Adam's sin in eating the forbidden fruit, death entered into the world, and death by sin, namely, spiritual 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 Adam's sinful eating; not whose act of disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit, all men have sinned in eating the forbidden fruit, for than 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 Christ's obedience unto us, to avoid the Apostles argument taken from the imputation of Adam's disobedience to mankind, Rom. 5. denieth that we are guilty of Adam's sin, acknowledging only that we receive from Adam a corrupt nature or a spiritual death in sin, viz. that which we call original sin.  
Whilst you acknowledge corruption of nature to be the punishment of Adam's sinful 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 Adam's sin is evident.  
1. From the express Text; for that all have sinned, Rom. 5.12. or in whom, i. e. in Adam all have sinned, as it is upon the margin, and according as the Learned Interpreters generally turn it; Both come to the same sense. In this Chapter the Apostle insists upon Adam's sin, as in the 7th upon original sin.  
2. From the effect; all sinned in Adam because all died in Adam, even those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, viz. Infants who sinned not actually in their proper persons, but only in their public 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 original sin. This doctrine of yours too much favours Pelagius, who denied Infants to be guilty of Adam's sin and of original sin.  
4. Adam in his first transgression stood as a public person by the free constitution of God, whose will is the rule of righteousness, who is the figure of him that was to come, Rom. 5.14.  
Adam's being a public person was a great aggravation of Adam's sin, hence a world of sin was in Adam's sin.  
1. Because Adam was the whole world, the world sinned in Adam's sin.  
2. Because Adam by that sin slew the whole world.  
3. Because all sin by consequence was contained in this sin. Thence is Original sin as an effect from the cause, hence actual sin as an act from the habit.  
4. It was a universal 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 Christ's mediatorial Sacrifice of Atonement to us as our act, unless 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 Believers 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 mystical (not personal) union of Christ and Believers concur.  
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 Legal charging the offence or debt of a third person (who is the offender or debtor) upon the surety.  
Christ's 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 ourselves. The obedience of Christ is imputed to us as the Subjects merely, not as the causes of it. Christ's actions are ours not properly but virtually in respect of their vigour, good, benefit and efficacy.  
Dialogu. In like sort our blessed Mediator (as he is the mystical head of all believers in the Covenant of grace) did take care to do all and every act of mediatorial obedience that might procure his Father's Atonement for the good and benefit of every member of his mystical body, as fully and effectually as if every member could have performed those acts of mediatorial obedience themselves. And in this sense God doth impute the efficacy of all Christ's mediatorial obedience to all believers as the only meritorious price of his Father's 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 man's merit against grace, 
Bellarm. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 7. Tutissimum, etc.  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 Author, who after his labour hitherto against the doctrine of Imputation, now at length may seem to acknowledge it: But though his words be equivocal, 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 mind of the Dialogue uttered by the tongue of the Orthodox; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but it is with the mind 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, marvel 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, Martion, and Bafilides, think the Gospel to be in the words of the Scripture, but in the sense. Who is ignorant that the Arrians speak heresy by that Text, The Father is greater than I, Joh. 14.28. or that the Papists idolatry by that Proposition, This is my Body, Mat. 26.26. And they who please may read 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 Adam's sin, but by way of imitation. An error or heresy expressed by the words of the Scripture, or the words of the Orthodox is never the less 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.   

CHAP. IX. Of Atonement or Reconciliation.  
Dialogu THe Father's Atonement comprehendeth under it justification and adoption.  
These two parts of the Father's atonement or reconciliation are evident by the effects, which all the Sacrifices of atonement under the Law did procure to poor believing sinners (for all sacrifices of atonement under the Law did typify Christ's Sacrifice of atonement) and they procured the Father's atonement, which hath a threefold effect towards poor believing sinners.  
1. All Sacrifices of Atonement in general were ordained to procure a savour of rest unto Jehovah, namely to procure a savour of rest to God the Father.  
2. The sin-offerings (which were Sacrifices of atonement) were ordained by God to procure Gods merciful atonement, pardon, and forgiveness to poor believing sinners, by which means only sinners are made sinless, that is to say, just and righteous in God's sight.  
3. The burnt-offerings (which also were Sacrifices of Atonement) were ordained of God to procure his favourable acceptance towards poor believing sinners, by receiving them into special favour as Adopted sinners.  
Answ. The Dialogue throughout all its Discourse concerning Atonement, Par. 2. seemeth to understand pardon of sin by atonement: See pag. 151. and 162. here it seemeth by Atonement to understand reconciliation, and so indeed it is to be understood.  
The Reader is here desired to keep in mind, that our Question is not, Whether justification and Adoption are parts of Atonement. The affirmative whereof, the Author (therein following M. Wotton) asserts in this place. But whether the obedience of Christ be the matter of a sinner's righteousness. Although therefore that the Dialogue here said the truth, yet it is impertinent, according to the sense of the Orthodox, neither making for, nor against, as concerning the matter of the controversy.  
Atonement or Reconciliation, as also Justification and Adoption, are joint effects of the same cause, viz. the Mediatorly obedience of Christ, which was the Sacrifice of Atonement; but it doth not therefore follow that Justification and Adoption are parts of atonement, one joint or fellow-effect, because a fellow-effect is not therefore a part of its fellow-effect.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Though the Hebrew word that signifieth to cover sin, and to expiate sin, be translated atonement (which Translation the Dialogue hath formerly followed) and the Greek word signifying propitiation, which is the same in effect with reconciliation be generally ascribed unto Chrsst, Rom. 3.25. 1 Joh. 2.2. and 4.10. the cause put for the effect, because Christ is our propitiation causally, Heb. 2.17. yet neither covering of sin, nor the expiation of sin, nor Christ himself is our reconciliation properly and formally; pardon of sin is a necessary and inseparable antecedent, Christ is the procurer, and expiation holds forth the manner of procuring reconciliation, but none of them are reconciliation itself.  
Reconciliation in general, 
Reconciliation what? Ex hoc colligimus duplicem reconciliationem in Scriptures confiderari, unam generalem & applicabilem in cruse peractam, alteram particularem & applicatam. Dau. in Col. 1.23.  is the restoring of friends after offence given and taken, or taken though not given, into the same condition of friendship, wherein they were before the offence was given or conceived to be given.  
The Scripture mentions reconciliation under a double notion, either as procured Rom. 5.10. 2 Cor. 5.19. Col. 1.20. or as applied Rom. 4.11. Colos. 1.22. we speak of it in the last notion only.  
Because man by reconciliation (though he be restored into a better, yet) is not rrstored into the same estate formally, wherein he was before the fall: for than though he was a son, Luke 3.38. and in a state of favour with God, yet he was not just, nor was his condition immutable, but now being reconciled, he is not only just but also in a state of special favour, a son, and his condition immutable; hence it may be described thus: Evangelicall reconciliation is a transient act of Gods special grace, whereby a believer for the sake of Christ (who is the propitiation for our sin) received by faith, is restored into an estate of everlasting favour, sonship, and one-ness of spirit.  
Reconciliation notes a change of the parties reconciled, 
August. in Joan. tract. 110.  and consequently a change both in respect of God and man; on Gods part it infers no change in respect of affection, but in respect of the manifestation of his love and dispensation; God always loveth the persons of the elect, 
Lomba. l. 3. dist. 19 & dist. 32. Thom. p. 3. q. 49. art. 4. ad 2. Calv. instit. l. 2. c. 16. sect. 2, 3, 4. Dau. Col. 1.20.  the love of God is an immanent act, and is nothing else but God himself loving. To affirm any change in God in respect of his affection, were to affirm, that God is unconstant and mutable, to deny his immutability, and by consequence to deny him to be God. By reconciliation God's affection is not changed, but God's dispensation and our condition and disposition. That is taken away by the Mediatorly obedience of Christ, in respect of which God might justly have been angry with us for ever, and proceeded against us unto just condemnation.  
In respect of man it notes a change in regard of state, relation, and disposition. A state of favour and adoption are essential unto, therefore doubtless parts of Evangelicall atonement or reconciliation. But whether justification precisely considered be a part or necessary antecedent and means of Reconciliation, as there is no need of discussing in order to the resolution of the present question, so is it freely left to the judgement of the Reader, or to any after disquisition; only adding that satisfaction for an offence is an antecedent and means rather than a part of the reconciliation following thereupon, between such as are made friends after variance.  

Quamvis reconciliatio potius quiddam consequens, & justificationis effectus sit. Syn. pur. Theol. dis. 33. n. 6.  Reconciliation (say the Leiden Divines) is rather a consequent and effect of justification. And both that Text, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, 2 Cor. 5.19. and the Analogy of faith may as well bear an interpretation agreeable hereunto as any other, thus: God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, how? by not imputing their trespasses unto them; so as the not-imputation of sin may seem to be an antecedent and means rather than a part of atonement or reconciliation.  
Dialogu Therefore his forgiveness of sin is not only a bare acquittance of the fault, but it doth comprehend under it his receiving of sinners into favour. And I do also grant that his receiving of sinners into favour must be distinguished as another part of God's Atonement.  
Answ. Here you do not obscurely (what before you did in effect expressly, viz.) make forgiveness and receiving into favour parts of God's atonement: yet pag. 154. lin▪ 19 you make them effects of the Father's atonement. If they be parts, they cannot be effects, if effects they cannot be parts, because the part is before the whole, i. e. it's integrum, but the effect is after the cause; you may as well make the same thing before and after itself as make these stand together.  
Dialogu. This also must be remembered, that no other person in Trinity doth forgive sins formally but God the Father only; Mar. 2.7. Col. 2.13. he of his free grace did ordain the Mediator, as the meritorious procuring cause of his forgiveness, and therefore it is said that he doth forgive us all our sins for Christ's sake, Ephes. 4.32. sometimes Christ is said to forgive sins, Col. 3.3. but still we must understand his forgiveness to be in a mediatorial way, not formally.  
Answ. The acts or works of God are of three sorts: Essential, whose principle is the divine essence subsisting in the relative properties of Father, Son, and holy Ghost, its object the creature: Personal, whose both principle and object or term is one or more of the three persons; or mixed, the principle whereof is the divine essence, the object or term one of the persons, such is the Incarnation, having the divine essence for its principle, the second person for its term or object.  
The external essential works of God are wrought jointly, immediately and formally by all the persons; because the principle of them is the divine essence, 
Essentiae in personis non discrepat potentia. Aug. in Joan. tract. 20.  which is common to all the three persons; the Son is God of himself, the holy Ghost is God of himself, the denial hereof argueth no little ignorance of the nature of God.  
The Father (father being taken essentially) forgiveth sin formally and authoritatively as the Supreme Lord, Christ as Mediator formally and authoritatively by an authority derived as a subordinate Lord. When we say Christ forgiveth sin formally, the meaning is, he actually taketh away sin by an authoritative and judicial discharging the sinner from the guilt and punishment thereof, and doth not only declare the forgiveness of sin, as the Ministry doth.  
Dialogu And whereas I have oftentimes in this Treatise made God's atonement to comprehend under it our Redemption from sin, as well as our justification and adoption; I would have you take notice that I do not mean that God's atonement doth contain under it Redemption as another distinct point differing from justification; but I make our redemption and freedom from sin by the Father's atonement, to be all one with our justification from sin.  
Answ. Redemption is taken actively, Luk. 2.38. for the purchasing of grace and glory for the elect by laying down of a price, so Redemption is the meritorious cause, and atonement is an effect; Or passively, for the good of Redemption applied, Rom. 8.23. so redemption is the whole, and atonement is the part; but atonement whether it be taken for reconciliation or for freedom from sin, can in neither sense be the same with redemption. Forgiveness of sin Eph. 1.7. Col. 1.14. is mentioned as a principal, but neither there or elsewhere as the total good of redemption.  
Dialogu. The Father's Atonement or Reconciliation is the top-mercy of all mercies that makes poor sinners happy.  
Answ. The great act of mercy is the gift of Jesus Christ to be our Head and Saviour. He is the Gift of God, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Joh. 4.10. How shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Rom. 8.32. No benefit following the Gift of Christ is to be compared with Christ himself.  
Dialogu But the truth is, a sinner's Atonement must be considered as it is the work of all the Trinity.  
1. The Father must be considered as the efficient and as the formal cause of a sinner's atonement.  
2. The Mediator must be considered as the only meritorious procuring cause of the Father's Atonement. Rom. 5.10.  
3. The holy Ghost must be considered as the principal instrumental cause of the Father's atonement, by working in sinners the grace of faith, by which sinners are enabled to apprehend and receive the Father's atonement: Or thus, The Father must be considered as the efficient cause, the Son as the mediatorial procuring cause, and the holy Ghost as the principal instrumental cause of all blessings, that poor believing sinners do enjoy, Eph. 1.3.  
Answ. The will of God which is an immanent act is the efficient cause, but a created effectual transient motion of the Spirit, the formal cause of the working a sinner's Atonement: By that God from Eternity willeth the infallible being of atonement; By this God in time worketh atonement according to his will.  
The Universal efficient cause of all things is uncreated; but created acts of God whether permanent or transient, done in time, or aeviternity, are the formal causes of things, i. e. of giving to them their actual being: All the external essential works of God, i. e. all his works concerning the creature, viz, whatsoever being or thing is besides God, are wrought jointly, immediately, equally, and formally (as was said before) by all the three persons, because essential works universally, both internal and external proceed from the essence itself, subsisting in the three Persons, Father, Son, and holy Ghost; not from the manner of the essence, i. e. the persons as persons.  
The order and manner of the working of the three Persons upon the creature is answerable to the manner of their subsistence in the divine nature. The Father worketh of himself, the Son worketh from thefather, Joh. 5.19, 30. and 8.28. The holy Ghost worketh from the Father and the Son, Joh. 16.13. hence though all the works of God concerning the creature, are wrought jointly by all the three persons; yet is the work principally ascribed to that person whose manner of subsistence doth most eminently appear therein. Beginning works, as creation, are ascribed principally to the first person; the carrying works on to perfection as redemption, to the second person; the perfecting of them, as the application of redemption (under which last work the grace of justifying faith is contained) unto the third person.  
To make the first person an efficient, and the third person an instrumental cause in the working of reconciliation or faith, were by consequence to affirm some inferiority of the third person in respect of the fi●st, consequently an inequality between the persons, which were to infer an inequality in God, because every person is God, which (leaving the consideration of more dangerous inferences to the intelligent Reader) is inconsisting with the perfection of God, so unsafe is it to speak unadvisedly in these mysteries.  
The second person in the Trinity is to be considered as in himself, so he is only God and not man; or as subsisting in personal Union with the manhood, so he is God-man.  
The second Person in the Trinity considered in himself works together with the Father, and the holy Ghost jointly and equally in all essential works, consequently as concerning faith, atonement, etc. as we have already seen.  
The Mediatorly obedience of Christ, i. e. of God-man consisting of the divine and humane nature in one person, called by the Father unto that service, is the procuring and only meritorious cause of the Father's atonement, and all other spiritual blessings that believing sinners do enjoy.  
Dialogu. To conclude, If thou hast gotten any spiritual blessing by any thing that I have said in this Treatise, Let God have all the glory.  
Answ. To conclude, 
Herosis in capite Pol. Syn. l. 7. c. 22. Vide Par. 1. Cor. 1.11. and 11.19. Ames. Cas. Con. l. 4. c. 4 Val. tom. 3. dis. 1. q. 11. punct. 1, 2, 3.  Taking heresy for a fundamental error, that is, such as whosoever liveth and dieth in, cannot be saved,  
The Dialogue containeth three Heresies.  
The first denying the imputation of the sin of the Elect unto Christ, and his suffering the punishment due thereunto; contrary to 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.13. Isa. 53.5, 6. and  
Other Arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative:  
Thereby leaving the Elect to perish in their sin, 1 Cor. 15.17, 18.  
This Heresy is maintained in the first part.  
The second, denying that Christ as God-man Mediator obeyed the Law, and therewith that he obeyed it for us as our surety, contrary to Galat. 4.4, 5. Matth. 5, 17, 18. Heb. 10.7. compared with Psa. 48.7, 8. Rom. 3.31. and  
Other arguments in the Answer proving the Affirmative:  
Thereby rendering Christ both an unfaithful, and an insufficient Saviour, and spoiling the elect of salvation.  
This Heresy is maintained in the former Section of the second part.  
The third, 1. Denying the Imputation of Christ's obedience unto justification; Contrary to Rom. 4. Rom. 5.19. Phil. 3.19. and the arguments in the answer proving the affirmative. Thereby leaving all that be ungodly under an impossibility of being justified.  
2. Destroying the very being of a sinner's righteousness, by taking away the obedience of Christ unto the Law, and imputation, which are the matter and form, that is, the essential causes of justification.  
3. Placing a sinner's righteousness in a fictitious Atonement or pardon of sin, such as in effect manifestly doth not only deny itself to be the effect of, but denieth, yea, and defieth the very being of the Mediatorly obedience of Christ to the Law for us.  
This Heresy is maintained in the second Section of the second part.  
The first holdeth us in all our sin, and continueth the full wrath of God abiding upon us.  
The second takes away our Saviour.  
The third takes away our righteousness and our justification.  
What need the Enemy of Jesus, grace, and souls add more?  
This threefold cord of Heretical doctrine so directly and deeply destructive to the truth of the Gospel, and salvation of man, We (desiring after Christ's example to distinguish where there is cause between Peter and Satan, reserving all charitable and compassionate thoughts according to rule, touching the compiler thereof, who (we hope) did it ignorantly, do principally impute to him, who is not only a liar but also a murderer from the beginning.  
Now the good Spirit of Grace that great Defender and Teacher of the Truth as it is in Jesus, who in his rich mercy causeth all than whom he loveth to believe the truth that they may be saved, and in his righteous judgement giveth up such who receive not the truth in the love of it, to believe a lie that they may be damned,  
Grant that truth may look down from heaven in this hour and power of the spirit of error so perilously prevailing to deceive if it were possible the very elect;  
Preserve the Reader from every false way, and lead him into all truth; Magnify his compassion in the pardon and recovery of the Author, a person in many respects to be very much tendered of us; in so saving of him (though as by fire) as that his rising again may be much more advantageous to the truth, comfortable to the people of God, and honourable to himself, than his fall hath been scandalous, grieving or dishonourable:  
And lastly, Inspire us all with a discerning and conscientious spirit, as concerning the mystery of piety working in the way of truth, and the mystery of iniquity working in the way of lying; so as that in these evil days wherein errors and heresies must be, we may manifest ourselves approved, and to be acted vigorously and efficaciously by the spirit of him who sealed that good confession before Pontius Pilate, saying, To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world that I should bear witness to the truth.  
Christian Reader, if (as sometimes through grace it was with Augustine concerning the Heresy of Pelagius) by occasion of this Dialogue and other perilous Treatises, with which this hour of temptation abounds, threatening (it it were possible) to deceive the very elect; thou hast been stirred up more to search into, and hate the unsound tenets contained therein, and more to search into and love, the sound doctrines contrary thereunto; Remember to glorify that God which brings Light out of Darkness by his good Spirit, leading all those whose Names are written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, into all truth, teaching them to abhor the wine of deadly errors, notwithstanding they are presented in a golden cup; and to discern Satan though transformed into an Angel of Light;  
Glory be to God in Jesus Christ.    
FINIS.  Isa. 45.21. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
And there is none else beside me, a just God and a Saviour, there is none beside me,  Rom. 3.26. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
To declare I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.  
Discant hi igitur quid peccatum Mereatur, quaeque ad illud expiandum satisfactio necessaria sit: Ne fortè de ijs dicendum sit quod Irenaeus.  Iren. adv. haer. l. 3. c. 21. 
Debitum Christi dum negant, satisfactionem illius integram dum credere renuunt: debitores ipsi manent, antidotum vitae non accipientes.  Parker De Descensu l. 3. n. 52.  

The Copy of a Letter written from New England, in Answer to a Letter which they had received from some Brethren in Old England, in the behalf of Mr Pinchin.  
Reverend and Beloved Brethren in our Lord Jesus,  
WE see by your Letters you have thought it meet to address yourselves to us (the Elders of these Churches) in behalf of Mr Pinchin and his Book, to incline us to a favourable construction of the Tenets held forth in it as Disputable, and (and to some of note) probable; and for himself to move us to intercede with our Magistrates to deal favourably with him as a Gentleman pious and well deserving. In both which we shall give you a just account of our Proceed.  
When Mr Pinchin's Book came over to us, it was the time of the ●itting of our General Court, wherein both the Magistrates and Deputies of every Town in the Country, do assemble together to consider and determine of the chiefest affairs which concern this Colony: At the same time a Ship in the Harbour was ready to set sail for England. Now the Court (both parts of them, the Magistrates and Deputies) perceiving by the Title Page that the Contents of the Book were unsound, and Derogatory, both to the Justice of God and the Grace of Christ, which being published in England might add to the heap of many Errors and Heresies already too much abounding, and this Book being published under the name of a New English Gentleman, might occasion many to think, that New England also concurred in the allowance of such Exorbitant Aberrations: They therefore judged it meet, not to stay till the Elders could be gathered together; but whilst the Ship yet stayed, to declare their own Judgement against the Book, and to send a Copy of their Declaration to England by the Ship, then ready to departed: Had the Tenets therein seemed to them to be matters, either of doubtful disputation, or of small moment, we doubt not, they would either not at all have declared themselves against the Book, or if they had; they would have stayed for some opportunity of previous consultation with the Elders; but some of the Tenets seemed to them so directly to shake the Fundamentals of Religion, and to wound the vitals of Christianity, that they being many of them well versed both in the Dogmatic and Controversall points of Divinity, thought it their duty to profess their Orthodox faith against all destructive Paradoxes, and dangerous Innovations vented from amongst ourselves; for according as they believe, they do also profess (as ourselves likewise do) That the Obedience of Christ to the whole Law (which is the Law of Righteousness) is the matter of our Justification; and the Imputation of our sins to Christ (and thereupon his suffering the sense of the wrath of God upon him for our sin) and the Imputation of his obedience and sufferings are the formal cause of our Justification, and that they that do deny this, do now take away both these, both the matter and the form of our Justification (as this Book doth) and take away also our Justification, which is the Life of our souls and of our Religion, and therefore called the Justification of life, Rom, 5.18. As for the Notion which you conceive he declineth, of Infinite wrath, we readily conceive with you, that though God's wrath be (as himself is infinite, yet no creature can hear infinite wrath) but he swallowed up of it; and therefore the wicked are put to suffer finite wrath in an infinite time; yet this suffering in an infinite time is accidental, in regard of the finiteness of the creature, but Christ being infinite God, as well as finite man, his manhood suffering, though in a finite measure, the sense of God's wrath both in soul and body, the infiniteness of his Godhead (whereto his manhood was united in one person) made his finite suffering, in a finite time, to become of infinite value and efficacy, for the satisfaction of God's Justice, and transaction of our Redemption. (Thus much for the Book.)  
Now for the Author of the Book; before your Letter came to our hands the Court dealt favourably with him, according to your desire: Before they knew your desire, they appointed three of our fellow Elders and Brethren, all of them his friends and acquaintance (such as himself chose) to confer with him, and finding him yielding in some main point (which he expressed willingly under his own hand) the Court readily accepted the same, as a fruit of his ingenuity, and a pledge of more full satisfaction; withal they gave him a Book, penned (at their appointment by our Reverend Brother Mr Norton) in way of Answer to all his grounds, which he thankfully accepted, and promised upon a due perusal & consideration thereof, to return further Answer. All which, though it pleased God to have done, before your Letter came to our hands; yet we acquainted our Magistrates with the contents of your Letter, whereto they returned this Answer; They doubted, either you had not read the Book throughout, or that having seriously weighed it (as the matter required) you would find some Fundamental Errors in it, meet to be duly witnessed against: For ourselves we thankfully accept of this your labour of love in advertising us of what you think behooveful; wherein though we differ, and (as we believe) justly differ from you, yet if we did not lovingly accept advertisements from our Reverend Brethren sometimes when there is less need, we might discourage ourselves and other Brethren from sending us due advertisements when there is more need. Now the Lord Jesus Christ, the God of Truth and Peace, lead you by his Spirit of Truth into all Truth; and support you with a Spirit of faithfulness and holy zeal, to stand in the gap against the Inundation of all the Errors and Heresies of this present Age; and by his Spirit of Peace, guide and bless your Studies and holy Labours, to the advancement and establishment of Peace with Truth throughout the Nation; So desiring the Fellowship of your Prayers, we take leave and rest,  
Your loving Brethren in the Lord Jesus and in the Fellowship of his Gospel, 

John Cotton,  
Rich. Mather,  
Zech. Symmes,  
John Wilson,  
Will. Thompson,