PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)

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

  • Active,
  • Paſſive:

and the Imputation thereof.

Being an ANSWER to a DIALOGUE INTITULED The Meritorious Price of our Redemption, Juſtification, &c.

By JOHN NORTON Teacher of the Church at Ipſwich in New-England.

Who was appointed to draw up this Anſwer by the Generall 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 Nevill at the Sign of the Plough in the new Buildings in Pauls Church-yard, 1653.


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; He­reſie 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 Colonie Now ſitting at Boſton in New-England.

Right Worſhipfull, Worſhipfull, and much Honoured in our Lord Jeſus,

THat this weak Treatiſe cometh forth under your Name cannot ſeem ſtrange to him who remem­bers Natures Off-ſpring by in­ſtinct ſheltring it ſelf under thoſe wings from whence it received life and breath.

Reluctances from perſonall unfitneſſe to undertake this Service, Religion forbad me to hearken after, whileſt I conſidered the call of the Court thereunto to be the call of God; and how unworthy it would be for any of Aarons 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 tacitely to ſtrengthen the adverſary in bearing falſe wit­neſſe 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 Magiſtrates power in matters of Religion be atteſted to by Civill-Law, Common-Law, Nature, Scripture, Reaſon and Teſtimony both old and new.

The lawfull 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 fullfilled 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 then it ſhould be unlawfull for Civil power now to aſſiſt the Cauſe of Religion. The reaſon given of ſuch adminiſtrations was not typicall but morall, 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. 3.29Nebuchadnezzar makes a Decree againſt Blaſ­phemy. Ezra 1.Cyrus giveth out a Proclamation for the Buiiding of the Temple. Dan. 6.29Darius 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 & 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 Warre 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 Sinne,Rev. 17. •• which ſuppoſeth Civil Authority acting therein. Iſa. 49.23The 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 Legall 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 adaequate end of the Magiſtrate is to procure that the people may live a peaceable life in all godlines and honeſty. 1 Tim. 2.2Magiſtrates are called Gods, ſtrange Gods who take no care of godlineſſe. 'Tis a carnal and unworthy po­ſition that limits the Magiſtrate to the Cor­porall, and reſtrains him from the care of the ſpirituall good of the Subject, thereby ſpoil­ing this Olive of its choiceſt fatneſſe where­with it rejoyceth 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 Sauls Oath, the trouble of Iſ­rael and eſcape of the Enemy; a ſad errour that foſters all errour; a Satanicall device tending to undermine the policy of God; at­tempting to charm that Sword with a fallacy, whoſe dexterous and vigorous uſe inſtrumen­tally puts away evill 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 rejoyce ye Heretiques, Idolaters, Seducers, Ranters, &c. but wo be to the Sheep of the ſlaughter, whoſe Poſſeſſours may ſlay them, and pleade themſelves Not-guilty at the civil Barre.

Both Swords make up a compleat Medium of all our good and remedy of all evil, and are of ſpeciall uſe each to other mutually, as well as of neceſſary uſe unto the people joyntly. The Magiſtrates need the Miniſtery 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 Samuels 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 Emperour (ſaith Occam to Ledovick) you ſhall defend me with your Sword, and I will defend you with my Pen.

The counſell 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 Chriſts 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 Metaphori­call Sea and Wilderneſſe of this Life, which that man of God and Saint of the Lord were unto Iſrael throughout that naturall Sea and Wilderneſs unto the Land of Canaan. This is that Moſes and Aaron.

Both Powers are Gods way to mans well-being and all good, the polity of hea­ven. The violation of them is Satans me­thod to mans wo and all evil; the treachery of Hell. Whereby is legible the conſtant Antipathy between Dogmatiſts and Order; together with the reaſon of the preſent in­ſurrection by the Spirit of Errour againſt both Policies;Contemptus Diſciplinae comes hae­reſeon. Danaeus de hereſibus Prolegom. cap. 1. Ataxie (as of old) being ſtill found a neceſſary companion of Here­ſie, and all experience having proved that the latter cannot be long-lived without the former.

How formidable then is that worſe then Ammonitiſh Luſt (too much adhered unto by many not only in but of Iſrael, in this hour of the Goſpels Paſſion) which endea­voureth together with the putting out of the right eye of Magiſtracy, that neither the name of Councels 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 deniall 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 Papll 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 myſticall in it ſelf, yet my­ſticall in this that the way to ſo manifeſt confuſion and ruine 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 ſoberneſſe) a matter of aſtoniſhment, when ſo drunken a Tenet in an Age of ſuch learning, piety, action, ſuffering, and ſucceſſe, 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 wondred at it ſelf, that after ſuch ſore travell and bring­ing forth of a man-childe, 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 Tacticks of the Civil Sword, as that the neglect hath been contempora­ry and acceſſory to the efficacy of errour, the effectuall exerciſe thereof ſignall to the times of Zions mercy.

Atquehinc profecta eſt totâ, &c. Zanch. in praecept. 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 ruine him.

Scultet. in Iſa. 49.23.It went well with thoſe Churches when that good Old Duke hearkened 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 errour 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 weakneſſe of men. To tolerate every thing, and to tolerate nothing, are both intolerable.

Zeno's Union, Anastaſius Act of Oblivion,Zenonis〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Anaſtaſii〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 loſſe 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 errours in thoſe that profeſſe the ſame Religion, between Fundamentals and not Fun­damentals, between errours 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 ſpeciall 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 cont. 5. l. 2. c. 19, 22. Phi. 3.15, 16.Junius treating of this Subject, betakes himſelf from diſpu­tation unto praier; yet ſo, as commend­ing to his Reader the counſell 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: Nevertheleſſe whereunto we have already attained, let us**〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉eſt verbum militare, tum enim milites di­cuntur〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cum perſiſtentes in ſuâ quâ­que ſtati­one, ordi­ne proce­dunt, &c. Zanch. in loc. walk by the ſame rule, let us minde the ſame things.

The ſum whereof is, that thoſe who con­ſent in Fundamentals, notwithſtanding they diſſent in points of an inferiour nature, are not only to be tolerated but are to be looked upon (by Gods bleſſing thereby in the uſe of means) as likely to be gained, provided they walk regularly and orderly.

Such hitherto have been the ſuitable pro­ceedings of this Court unto the premiſes, tem­pered with that zeal againſt the errour and ten­derneſs towards the Author of this Dialogue, as that they that hear thereof have cauſe to bleſſe you, as the eyes that ſaw gave wineſſe to you.

Upon which occaſion, having (after the example of Leo to Theodoſius) rendred 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 memoriall 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 Wilderneſſe,

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 your ſelves with the generations to come, when that ſhall appear to be the way of Chriſt.

I have no more to adde, 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 doubtleſſe witneſſe a good confeſſion, a ſervice of a high nature, which God will not forget, and poſterity will re­remember, gain to it ſelf 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 propheſie in Sack-cloth.

And laſtly, help to prepare that choice weapon of bearing witneſſe to the Truth, an Engine fitter to do execution then 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 then it ſhall be ſaid, They over­came by the Bloud 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, alwaies inſpiring you with that divine diſcern­ing of the Seaſons, that through his Grace you may quit your ſelves 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 Introduction. Ch. 1 Pag. 1
  • The ſtating of the Controverſie. 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. Lev. 1.4. and 4.29. Lev. 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 onely; 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



  • Of the nature of Mediatorly Obedience, both according to the Dialogue, and according to the Orthodox. Ch. 1 Pag. 135
  • Of the divers waies of Redemption. Ch. 2 Pag. 141
  • Of that wherein the true meritorious efficacy of the Bloud 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 Chriſts dying as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor. Ch. 5 Pag. 164


  • Of the Morall Law. Ch. 1 Pag. 176
  • The Dialogues Arguments againſt the Impu­tation of Chriſts Obedience unto Iuſtifica­tion, Anſwered. Ch. 2 Pag. 185
  • Of the Dialogues diſtinction between Legall and Mediatoriall obedience. Ch. 3 Pag. 195
  • Of the Dialogues further Reaſoning against the influence of Chriſts obedience unto juſtifi­cation by way of Imputation. Ch. 4 Pag. 207
  • Whether the Iuſtice and Righteouſneſſe of a ſinner doth lie only in Gods mercifull atone­ment, pardon, and forgiveneſſe. Ch. 5 Pag. 216
  • How Abrahams Faith was imputed to him for Righteouſneſſe. 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 Iuſtification 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 INTITULED The Meritorious Price of Mans Redempti­on, Reconciliation, Juſtification, &c.

And pretending to Prove

  • I. That Christ did not ſuffer for us thoſe unut­terable Torments of Gods Wrath which com­monly are called Hell torments, to Redeem our Souls from them.
  • II. That Chriſt did not bear our Sins by Gods 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 of2 the Elect. This Dialogue ſingleth out a principal part of his Prieſt-hood, 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 it ſelf, 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. IThe 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 Beleevers, 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. IIGod in the firſt Covenant (the ſubſtance where­of is, Do this and thou ſhalt live, Lev. 18.5. But in the day thou eateſt thereof thou ſhalt ſurely dye, Gen. 2.17. ) proceeded with man in a way of juſtice.

Prop. IIIJuſtice in God is either Eſſential, whence God can do no wrong: Or Relative, in reſpect of the3 creature, viz. Gods conſtant will of rendring to man what is his due; this is the free conſtitution of Gods good pleaſure, whoſe will is the firſt and abſolute rule of Righteouſneſs.

Prop. IVRelative 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. VMerit 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 rendring 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 it ſelf, that eternal rule of manners, The recompence 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 vertue 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. VIThe 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 dye. As God (with re­verence4 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. VIIThe elect then having ſinned, the elect muſt di••if they die in their own perſons, Election is fru­ſtrate, God is unfaithfull; 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 Gods will is the rule of righteouſneſs, ſo Gods will is the rule of the tem­perature of righteouſneſs.

Prop. VIIIThough 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 ſatisfie 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 beleeveth in Jeſus, Rom. 3.26. God ſuffereth multitudes of ſins to be unpardoned, but he ſuffereth not one ſin to be unpuniſhed.

Quaere 1What 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, whence5 flows his proceeding with men according to the Law of righteouſneſs freely conſtituted between him and them.

Quaere 2What is the ſupream 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 hominū? 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 minde, and occaſionally to be applied, ſerving not as a ſword to cut, but as a leading truth to looſe 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. 3Wherein 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 kinde of his obe­dience.
  • 3. In the acceptation of this obedience.

The perſon obeying was God-man. The firſt Adam was by Gods inſtitution a publick perſon, hence in him ſinning the world ſinned, The ſe­cond Adam is not only by Gods inſtitution a pub­lick perſon, but alſo an infinite perſon, becauſe God: This publick 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 Gods inſtitution in that act of diſobedience, A6 world of men; why ſhould it ſeem ſtrange that the ſecond Adam being an infinite perſon ſhould be by Gods inſtitution in the courſe of his obedience, As the world of the Elect? He being an infinite per­ſon there needed no more then Gods 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 kinde 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, then the diſobedience of Adam was deteſtable; yea more acceptable then 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 bloud 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 ſa­tisfie juſtice.

Quaere 4How 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. 1Diſtinguiſh 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 it ſelf without any re­ſpect to the condition or diſpoſition of the patient, 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 patient being under ſuch a curſe, this may be called A penal adjunct. For examples 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, loſſe of friends, are accidental parts of puniſhment or penal adjuncts, ariſing not from the meer ſeparati­on of the ſoul and body,Polan. Carcer de­biti pars nulla eſt. Parker de Deſcen. l. 3. num. 91. but from the diſpoſition of the patient. 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 loſſe; and the inflicting of the poſitive evil flowing from the curſe, conſidered abſolutely in it ſelf, without any reſpect to the diſpoſition of the pa­tient,8 called The pain of ſenſe: This eſſential pu­niſhment was that and only that which Chriſt ſuffered.

Medull. 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 befals the reprobate, not from the curſe ſimply, but from the diſpoſition of the patient under that curſe. Of theſe accidental parts of puniſhment (which if you pleaſe may well paſſe 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, &c.

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 ſinnes 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 ſhews.

Diſtin. 2Diſtinguiſh 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 provolitione malorūodio oppoſitoamori aeterno.Twiff. Vind. Grat. l. 3. errat. 8. S. 7. Dei ira in electos non eſt odium op­poſitum dilectioni quā an­tea ipſos eſt proſecutus, Rhetorf. exc. 1. c. 2. and the hatred of God ſtrictly taken. Wrath is ſome­time taken for Gods 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 Chirſt, 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. 3Diſtinguiſh 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. 4Diſtinguiſh between ſuch a meaſure of puniſh­ment and the particulars whereby that meaſure is10 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. 5Diſtinguiſh between a Local hell and a Penal hell;Bonavent. li. 3. in Sent. diſt. 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. 1Either 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 paſſe, one jot or one tittle ſhall in no waies paſſe from the Law till all be fulfilled, Matth. 5.18. This ſen­tence was univerſal given to Adam as a publick perſon, and holds all his poſterity, whether elect or reprobate in caſe of ſin, guilty of death. Here­by the omnipotent hath ſo limitted 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 Lots 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 this11 purpoſe Piſcator well interprets thoſe words of our Saviour [If it be poſſible, &c.] Matth. 26.39. Confer. Piſcat. A­nalyſ. & Obſerv. 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 Chriſts ſuffering of the wrath of God for their ſin, he praieth that then the cup might paſſe from him, but becauſe that could not be, he ſubmits his will to his Fa­thers will, the ſumme whereof is, God ſheweth 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. 2Either 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. 3He that was the Surety of the Elect, was bound to pay their debt, and conſequently to ſatisfie 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 it ſelf, but to the manner of the diſpenſation of the Co­venant of grace under the Goſpel: we are to know that the Covenant of grace it ſelf obligeth us to fulfill the Covenant of works in our Surety. Faith eſtabliſheth the Law, Rom. 3.31. We cannot fulfill the Covenant of works, or the righteouſneſs of the Law in our Surety by believing, if it were12 not a truth that he fulfilled the Covenant of works for us.

Arg. 4Either Chriſt ſuffered the puniſhment due to the Elect for ſin, or the Law remaineth for ever unſatisfied: for it is as true as ſalvation it ſelf, that the Elect ſatisfie it not in themſelves.

Arg. 5If the Goſpel ſave without ſatisfaction given to the Law, then 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. 6If Chriſt ſuffered not the puniſhment due to the Elect, then 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. 7If Chriſt did not ſuffer the wrath of God, a puniſhment due unto the Elect for ſin, then there can be no juſtification of a ſinner, without Chriſts 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. 8If juſtifying faith eſtabliſh the Law, then 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 forbid: 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 denyall 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 Peters words) from the charge of a damnable hereſie? and if ſo, in that it ſo denies Chriſt to have ſuffered the wrath of God as therewithall 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 leſſe then both an abominable and damnable hereſie.

Theſe premiſed, come we now to the Dialogue it ſelf, beginning with its beginning, viz. the ſtating of the Controverſie.

CHAP. II. The ſtating of the controverſie.

DialoguI Hold that Jeſus Christ our Mediatour did pay the full price of our Redemption to his father by the merit of his mediatorial obedience, which according to Gods determinate counſell, 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 conjoyned are the meri­torious price: whence according to the language of the Orthodox the mediatorly obedience of Chriſt is the meritorious price of our redemption;14 but this manner of ſpeech the Dialogue declines, chuſing rather to expreſſe it ſelf by affected if not ambiguous terms, viz. [Chriſt payed the price of our redemption by the merit of his Mediatoriall 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, then ſtate a Queſtion to be diſputed. That part of the Controverſie 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 Chriſts obedience to the Law of works as God-man, his judiciall 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 ſatisfie the juſtice of God, nor can we perform legall obedience, yet all theſe muſt be ſuffered, Gen. 2.17. overcome, 1 Cor. 15.17. and done Lev. 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 eternall death.

The Mediatorly obedience of Chriſt being by your leaving out theſe eſſentiall parts thereof made unſufficient, there can be no mediatorly ſacrifice,15 ſatisfaction, price, or any merit therein or there­from.

The triall of Chriſts Mediatorly obedience lay in the greatneſſe of thoſe ſufferings, which as Media­tor he was to undergo, and was ſo much greater in reſpect of God, then 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 ſinnes 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 Chriſts Media­torial obedience ſo tried, as they do that pleade moſt for our redemption by his ſuffering Gods wrath for us.

Anſw. If you did not ſay ſo, your Reader might well dread hearkening to ſuch a Mediatoriall obedience which the Teacher thereof durſt not profeſſe 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 rendred more apt to be re­ceived. Aarons Calf was never the leſſe 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 it ſelf, howſoever guilded over with the falſly 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 Mediatoriall ſa­crifice of Atonement was the Maſter-piece.

Anſw. We place it not only in Chriſts ſufferings, but both in Chriſts ſufferings and Gods acceptation;16 the worth of a thing and the price are to be diſtin­guiſhed;Vid. Cham l. 9. p. 121. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Mate­riali­ter.For­mali­ter.Rhetorf. the full worth may be tendred 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 vertue in it ſelf, 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 mediatoriall 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 Chriſts. Mediatoriall obedience; I differ from o­thers in this, namely, in the manner of his ſatisfaction, I ſay, that Chriſt did not ſuffer Gods 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 Gods 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 yeelding that ver­bally which he took away really; ſo while you yeeld verbally that divine wrath is fully ſatisfied, you ſteal away the truth from the leſſe wary Rea­der really; for in the very next line but one, you ſay, Chriſt did not ſatisfie Gods wrath for our ſins by ſuffering ſo much as any degree of Gods wrath at all.

And though you would ſeem to qualifie and hide your vaſt and ſad diffrence 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 of17 Chriſts ſatisfaction. Whileſt you deny and oppoſe what you know we affirm and defend, namely, Chriſts 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 confeſſe our ſins he is faithfull 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 beleeveth in Jeſus, Rom. 3.36. yea, with the eſtabliſhing of juſtice; Do we then make void the Law by faith? God forbid: 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 your ſelf.

DialoguSecondly, Though I ſay that Chriſt did not ſuffer his Fathers 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 teſtifie.

1. Peter told the Jews that they had killed the Prince of Life, as God before had ſhewed by the mouth18 of all the Prophets, that Chriſt ſhould ſuffer, and he fullfilled it ſo. Act. 3.17, 18.

2. Chriſt did expreſly by his Diſciples tell, that he muſt go to Jeruſalem and ſuffer many things of the Elders and cheif 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 beleeve 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 fullfilled 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 Iews 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 fullfilled 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, then it was not Gods wrath but mans wrath that he ſuffered.

5. The Lord told Adam not only that the promiſed ſeed ſhould break the devils head-plot, but alſo that the devil ſhould crucifie him and pierce him in the foot­ſole, Gen. 3.15. the devil did it by his inſtruments, the Scribes and Phariſees by Pilate and the Romane ſouldiers.

Anſw. He that ſaith, Though Chriſt did not ſuffer his Fa­thers wrath in whole, nor in part, yet he ſuffered all things that his Father appointed him to ſuffer,19 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 alledged by you confirm, though ſome of them alledged by you, deny what you af­firm.

Chriſt ſheweth that he muſt ſuffer many things by the Elders, chief Prieſts, and Scribes, Matth. 16.21. true, yet he doth not there ſhew that he muſt not ſuffer the wrath of God. God fullfilled thoſe things which he had before ſhewed by the mouth of all his Prophets, that Chriſt ſhould ſuf­fer, Act. 3.18.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 fullfilled by the Romanes, and the Jews, as the inſtruments thereof; not abſolutely for all things whatſoever he was to ſuffer from any.

They fullfilled all things that he was to ſuffer from them, true, but it doth not therfore 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 chiefly, and with him beleevers 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 loſſe; but20 may with the more facility, clearneſſe, and diſtinct­neſſe go along with us in the following diſcourſe: he is deſired here to take juſt and ſeaſonable notice, that the whole controverſie between you and us conſiſteth of four parts.

1 Concerning Chriſts ſuffering the wrath of God due to the elect for ſin.

2. Concerning Gods imputation of ſinne 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, alledged 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 threatned cannot21 extend it ſelf 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 miſld the Authour, 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 evill (the evil of Adams ſin excepted) in one word. As all lines u­nite in the center, ſo all ſorrows meet in that one term Death. The commination Thou ſhalt ſurely die, is not particular concerning ſome kinde of Death, but indefinite, therefore aequivalent to a univerſall comprehending all kindes of death; God inflicts no evill upon man but for ſin, and all evill not only of affliction, but alſo of ſin followeth up­on Adams ſin; Originall ſin proceeding thence as an effect from the cauſe, and actuall 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 spi­rituall death, i.e. the death of the ſoul in ſin, 1 Tim. 5.6. 1 Joh. 3.14. Of eternall 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 poenal in the Re­probate.
      • Separation from the ſenſe of the good things in the promiſe,
        • Partiall, 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, eternall, and properly poe­nal in the Repro­bate.

The caſtigatory or correctively poenall part of death only was executed upon the elect, the eſ­ſentiall properly poenall part upon Chriſt: both the eſſentiall and circumſtantiall properly-poenall parts of death upon the Reprobate.

The caſtigatory but not poenall, i. e. ſtrictly-poe­nall23 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 eſſentiall properly-poenall death of the curſe, that is, the whole eſſentiall 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 publike perſon con­taining all mankinde (and which is more: ſo ſtan­ding as that the firſt Adam a publike perſon contai­ing all mankinde diſobeying, was a figure of Chriſt the ſecond Adam a publike perſon containing all the Elect obeying; ſo Paul expreſly, 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 controver­ſie: 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 the24 poenall Death of the curſe due to the Elect for ſinne.

Briefly, this Text Gen. 2.17. is Gods judici­all denunciation of the puniſhment of ſinne, with a reſervation of his purpoſe concerning the execution of the execution of it. The puniſh­ment is denounced to ſhew divine deteſtation of ſin, to deterre 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 threatned be ex­tended unto the Redeemer?

Dialogu. This Text doth not comprehend Jeſus Chriſt with­in the compaſſe of it, for this Text is a part of the Covenant only that God made with Adam and his poſterity, reſpecting the happineſſe they had by Cre­ation.

Anſw. Though Chriſt do not fall within the compaſſe of the Covenant of works, it doth not thence follow that he is excluded the compaſſe 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 beleeveth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved, but he that beleeveth not ſhall be damned.

Adam in his eating intended and prohibited in25 this verſe, was a figure of Chriſt to come, Rom. 5.14. Vel potiuex ipſo e­ventu & Evangelij patefactione hunc typum Apostolunos vult intelligere. Pareus in loc. Sequitur illam comminationem (quo die comederis morieris) ex intentione divinā non fuiſse purè legalem, &c. 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 compaſſe of the Text, the Text is not true.

Dialogu. Death here threatned 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 Mediatour 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉cognoſ­citur qui in morbo re­medium, in morte vi­tam, in perditoreervatorem adumbra­tum voluit. Paraeus in locum. He that com­pareth Rom. 5.14. with Gen. 2.17. hath an unſpeak­able ground of conſolation, whileſt he reades Gods purpoſe to redeem us in our firſt fathers ſinning, and we in him. From hence Paul gathers an ar­gument to conclude that all Adams poſterity deſ­cended from him by way of ordinary generation to be guilty of Adams ſin. Whileſt 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 tacitely contradict your ſelf, and act our cauſe.


Dialogu. The nature of death intended in this Text is ſuch as it was altogether impoſſible the Mediatour 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 eſſentiall part of death for ſin was intended to the ſurety not to the elect ſinner. The eſſentiall and circumſtantiall poenall part of death in ſinne and death for ſin, was intended for the Repro­bate.

The Text muſt needs proceed according to this interpretation in reſpect of the elect. There ias good and greater reaſon why it ſhould ſo proceed in reſpect of Chriſt, it being much more impoſſi­ble that he ſhould ſuffer death in ſinne, that is, be­come a ſinner, then that the elect ſinners ſhould ſuffer poenall i. e. properly-poenall death for ſinne: that is, be damned, though both be impoſ­ſible.

Dialogu. The death here threatned must be understood pri­marily of a spirituall 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 eternall death to be intended afterward, nay, it rather argueth eternall 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 ſpirituall death, i. e. death in ſinne, 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 ſinne be under­ſtood ſecondarily, then this argument concludes not againſt Chriſts 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 Adams 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 eternall 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 eſſentiall poe­nall part thereof, is ſolely intended concerning Chriſt; and death in ſin, not at all.

Dialogu. Calvin in Gen. 2.17. demandeth what kinde of death it was, that God threatned 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 the28 place, how God threatned 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 Adams falling into death in ſin the ſame day that he ſinned, is altogether im­pertinent: the Queſtion being, Whetheruch poe­nall death for ſin is not here intended, as it was poſ­ſible for Chriſt to ſuffer? Mihi defi­nitio peten­da ex oppo­ſito vide­tur: tenen­dum inquā 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 kinde of bleſſedneſſe. Therefore the death he fell into comprehended all kindes 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 Mediatour from ſuffering the firſt cur­ſed spirituall death, then there is good reaſon alſo to exempt him from ſuffering any other curſe of the Law whatſoever.

Anſw. The ſum is, Chriſt could not ſinne, Therefore he could not ſuffer the puniſhment due to the elect for ſin as a ſurety; a moſt reaſon-leſſe and ſick conſe­quence, and the contrary true; He could not as Mediator and Surety have ſuffered ſatisfactorily the puniſhment for ſinne, if he had not been without ſinne.

Though Chriſt was not a ſinner inherently, yet he was a ſinner imputatively, whereupon the ſub­ſtantiall curſe of the Law was juſtly executed upon him.

Dialogu. Examine the particulars of any other curſe of the29 Law, and they will be found to be ſuch as Chriſt could not ſuffer. Diſeaſes, naturall death, putrefa­ction of body after death, eternall 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 naturall death in our ſtead, nor ſee corruption, nor ſuffer eternall 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 eſſentiall 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 coruption) yet ſhall ſuffer the wrath of God. No reprobates endure all miſeries formally and individually, yet all ſuffer the wrath of God. Eternall death is an evill, not in kinde but in value: not formally but virtually: As the enjoyment of bleſſedneſſe doth not preſup­poſe all temporall good things enjoyed in kinde, ſo neither doth the ſuffering of the wrath of God ſuppoſe the ſuffering of all temporall evils in kinde.

Duration of puniſhment for ever is not of the ſubſtance of puniſhment, but is an adjunct follow­ing upon the inability of the Patient to ſatisfie ju­ſtice; as continuance in priſon is no part of the debt, but the conſequent of the debtors inability to pay the debt; the puniſhment of the damned continueth for ever, becauſe they can never ſatisfie divine juſtice; The puniſhment of Chriſt endured but a time, becauſe he ſatisfied juſtice: The ſuffer­ings of Chriſt were eternall in value, though tem­porall30 in duration;Mors ae­terna dura­tione & pondere. Paraeus in Rom. 3. Willet. Sy­nopſ. cen. 5. gen. cont. 28. par. 4. qu. 3. had they been eternall in dura­tion, he had been overcome by the curſe; had they not been eternall 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 ſpirituall 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 bloud, are to be underſtood ſynechdochically, mentioning a more viſible part of his ſufferings for the whole.

Dialogu. My reaſons why Chriſt could not ſuffer eternall 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 ſhewed that utterly impoſſible immediatly before. 2. Then he did deſcend locally into hell it ſelf to ſuffer it there: for no man can ſuffer death eternall 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 eternall wrath of God, and conſequently eter­nall death in value, equivalent unto, yea, exceeding of eternall death in kinde: it doth not follow that he muſt ſuffer all the other curſes of the Law in kinde; but the contrary followeth, he hath ſatisfi­ed the debt, therfore 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 it ſelf, namely, the privation of the preſent fruition of the good of the promiſe, and inflicting of the ſinleſſe miſery of the curſe: or conſequentially, viz. not in reſpect of the puniſhment it ſelf, but in reſpect of the condition of the Patient, ſuch are called de­teſtable conſequents, namely ſins, imperfections, &c. 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 eternall vertue of Chriſts 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 damna­torū 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 generall kindes 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. Malefactors may and oft do ſuffer out of the ordi­nary place of execution. The devil alwaies 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 it ſelf, 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 and32 a locall hell; a poenall hell may be where there is not a locall 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 entred 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 eternall 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 eſſentiall poenall wrath of God, which anſwers the ſuffering of the ſecond death due to the elect for their ſin, before he ſuffered his naturall death.

Dialogu. If Chriſt bare Adams ſin by Gods imputation, and his curſe really, then you make Chriſt to be dead in ſinne.

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 righteouſneſſe of, or a­ctuall working of Righteouſneſſe by Chriſt,Willet. Synopſ. but the vertue, power, and efficacy which is imputed to the beleever; ſo it is not the inherence or commiſſion of ſin, but the guilt and puniſhment of ſin that is imputed to a Beleever.

Dialogu. Conſider the true force of the Word Impute, in the naturall ſignification thereof, and then I beleeve33 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 mens ſins to any, is to account them guilty of other mens 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 Legall Surety; ſo ſin is imputed to the offender, Lev. 17.4. Or that which is not his properly, but as a legall 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 ſinne, 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 paenal ſatis­faction of the debt.

3. If he can ſatisfie 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 perillous 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 meer imputation of the guilt of ſin, doth no more infer a participation with the commiſſion of ſin, then the imputation of the righteouſneſſe of34 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 erre, not diſtinguiſhing according to the Scri­pture.

Dialogu. The common doctrine of imputation, is I know not what kinde of imputation; it is ſuch a ſtrange kinde of imputation, it differs from all the ſeverall ſorts of imputing ſin to any that ever I can meet withall in all the Scriptures.

Anſw. It is a judiciall imputation of that unto a perſon, which is not his properly, but made his by way of voluntary, and both Legall and Evangelicall ac­count.

If you know not what kinde of Imputation it is, the being of things depends not upon mans know­ledge, much leſſe 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, &c. are not in the Scripture expreſly, yet are they acknowledged generally to be contained in the Scripture by juſt conſequence; becauſe the things contained by thoſe terms are found therein expreſly: 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 immediatly before, we ſhall expect in their place.

CHAP. IV. 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 Chriſts Suffer­ings. p 33. is both ſo­lid and acute, and that this Learned Authour is ſo to be interpreted, his own words ſufficiently argue.

Dialogu. The Evangeliſt Mathew hath expounded this text in a quite contrary ſenſe, Mat. 8.17. ſaying, that this Text was fullfilled when Christ did bear our infirmi­ties and ſickneſſes from the ſick, not as a Porter bears a burthen 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 ſinne, 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 Chriſts bearing them in our ſtead, appears ver 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 generall uſe, ſignifying ſometimes to bear as a Porter beareth a36 burthen,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and ſometimes otherwiſe; yet Sabal he hath carried, ſignifying properly to bear as one beareth a burthen, 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 ſpirituall griefs and ſorrows for us.

2. That he ſhould heal bodily diſeaſes as a type and figure of his bearing our ſpirituall griefs and ſorrows. Piſcat. in Mat. 8.17. Veritas magis quid quam figu­ra habere debet, ficut dicitur plus hic eſt quā Jonas. Park. l. 3. de Deſc. n. 63. Dialogu.So the word [fullfilled] in Mathew is true properly of the type or ſpecimen, and ſymbo­licaly or typically of the thing ſignified: or the word [fullfilled] in Mathew 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 confeſſe 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 bare theſe wounds, bruiſes, and ſtripes of Gods wrath for our ſins.

1. It was Satan by his instruments that wounded and bruiſed Chriſt, according to Gods prediction, Gen. 3.15.

2. Chriſt bare 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 fullfilled all his ſufferings, Act. 13.27, 29. Peter expounds the Text of his bodily ſufferings only, 1 Pet. 372.24. If Peters phraſe, He bare our ſins in his body on the Tree, had meant any thing of his bearing Gods wrath for our ſinnes, the caſe of his ſufferings had not been a fit example to exhort to patience, his appeal to God hadot been ſuitable. 3. The end was a triall of his mediatoriall 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 univerſall effici­ent, not a meer counſeller, 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 Inſtrumens in inflicting ſuch a ſtroak, therefore it is no ſtroak of divine vindi­cative juſtice, is no good conſequence: All evils inflicted upon the reprobate, whether corporall or ſpirituall, are ſtroaks or acts of vindicative juſtice: So often then as Satan or men are inſtrumentall in inflicting ſuch evils, ſo often Satan and men are inſtru­mentall in ſtroaks 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 diſtres 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 inſtrumentall. Caſting the wicked men into hell, is alſo an act of vindica­tive juſtice; in which Gods Angels are inſtruments,38 Matth. 13.42. Creatures then 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 authours 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 Authour and principall 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 imme­diatly 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 reade 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 ſhews it is capable of them metaphorically. Satan being a ſpirit may have acceſſe 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 only39 in body but in ſoul, Iſa. 53.10. when thou ſhalt make his ſoul a ſacrifice for ſin: My ſoul is exceeding ſor­rowfull even unto death, Mat. 26.38. Mar. 14.13. His great heavineſſe, ſore amazement, agony, ſweat as it were drops of bloud, Mar. 14.33, 34. Luk. 2.44. cannot be looked at in a perſon that was God-man as leſſe then 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 aequiva­lent to the pains of hell it ſelf. Parker de Deſc. l. 3. n. 62. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Vir dolorū.His ſufferings are in the plurall number called paſſions, not a ſingle paſ­ſion, 1 Pet. 4.13. Death's not a ſingle death, Iſa. 53 9. to ſhew, 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 bare our ſins in his body, 1 Pet. 2.24. there­fore our ſins were imputed to him; he bare 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 ſpirituall: As we were delivered from our ſin, ſo he bare 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 Chriſts ſuffering patiently the puniſhment of our ſins he committed not, are we exhorted to ſuffer patiently our cha­ſtiſement for the ſinnes 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 ſupream end you leave out, namely, the manifeſtation of the glory of Gods mercy tempered with juſtice; Mercy to the elect, juſtice unto Chriſt. To declare, I ſay, at this time, his righteouſneſſe [or juſtice] that he might be juſt, and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jeſus.

Whileſt 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.

DialoguI 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 Mediatour and a Malefa­ctour are clearly diſtinct in themſelves, yet your di­ſtinguiſhing between Chriſt dying as a Mediatour and as a malefactor is unſound; becauſe it implieth that in dying as a Mediatour, 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 eſſentiall to the death of the Mediator.

The Dialogue makes him a malefactor, in reſpect of mens falſe imputations only, but denies any im­putation of ſin unto him by God.

Dialogu. He bare our ſins in his body upon the tree, 1 Pet. 2.24. Peter means he bare 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 in­flicted41 upon him by the Jews, bare, as you ſay, our puniſhments and our ſins, i. e. the eſſentiall part of our puniſhment due to us for our ſin; From your own words I inferre then; Chriſt bare 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 bare our puniſhment and our ſins in the ac­count of God.

In that then Chriſt ſuffered puniſhment.Paraus in Heb. 10. and bare 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 ſignifie 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, whileſt 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 ſinne, you run your ſelf into a contradiction.

He bare 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 bare them upon the tree, that is, he bare 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 bare the morall curſe which was the truth ſignified by the Ceremoniall curſe, Deut. 21.23. the morall curſe extendeth both to ſoul and body.

Dialogu. I will ſhew you how Chriſt did bear our ſins divers waies, in ſeveral ſenſes.

1. When he bare away our diſeaſes as I have expoun­ded, Iſa. 53 4.

422. 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 Iews, 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 miſ-interpreted, but corrupted the three former texts, viz. Iſa. 53.4, 5. 1 Pet. 2.24. We have ſeen before. 'Tis very true that Chriſt bare our ſins as our Prieſt and ſacrifice, and as a porter bears a burden, yea as a ſurety: but very falſe that he bare them only in your ſenſe. Scripture is in ſenſe and not in ſound only.

〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.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 chiefly. To complain unto God is blameleſſe and no grudging: To cemplaln againſt God is a ſin and ſheweth 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 reade 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 ſinnes of Iſrael upon the Prieſt and ſacrifice, and no other.

Anſw. If he laid them no otherwiſe on the Antitype then upon the type, then 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 bare the iniquity of the holy things by his Prieſtly appearing before Iehovah with his prieſtly apparrell, especially with the golden plate, Exo. 28.38. he bare the iniquity of the Congregatton by eating the peoples ſin-offering in the holy place to make atonement, Lev. 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 bare the ſins of men, namely, by his Mediatoriall 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 re­ſpects44 to anſwer the Antitype;Similitudo non currit quatuor pe­dibus. Paraeus Log. 122. Figura non habet quod­cunque ha­bet veritas. but to teſtifie and according to the pleaſure of the Authour to exem­plifie the thing typified. Logick refers types to ſi­militudes, and you know the Proverb, Similitudes run not on four feet; there is alwaies ſome diſlike­neſſe between the parts of the compariſon: Ionah was a type of Chriſt lying dead in the grave, yet Ionah though he lay in the Whales belly, did not lye 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 Chriſts bearing ſin was thereby fully intended, you conclude nothing. Aaron the High-Prieſt wearing the golden plate upon his forehead, having engraven therupon HOLINESSE TO THE LORD, typified rhe perfect holineſſe 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 Lev. 10.17. by eating the peoples ſin-offering, declared by that act, together with the fore-mentioned 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 Chriſts ſacrifice is his voluntary and obedient yeelding 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 bare ſin, ergo not by imputation, you may ſee your ſelf intangled in a45 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 ſinne, interceſſion, are doubtleſſe divers things, though they concurre as ingredients into the ſame whole of Mediator­ſhip.

Thoſe other words [OF ATONEMENT] are here only ſuperadded unto your reaſon imme­diatly before-going, and were alſo neceſſarily im­plied there: this then being the ſame reaſon with the former, the former Anſwer may ſatisfie both.

The force of this reaſon is;〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Surſum tu­lit Piſcat. in 1 Pe. 2.24. Chriſts ſacrifice was effectuall to procure Atonement, therefore ſin was not imputed to him: a meer non-ſequitur; 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 op 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 our ſelves, as concerning the type or manner how the burnt-offering was laid upon the Altar (whereunto the croſſe 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. Lev. 1.4. as confeſſing his guilt, and putting, or imputing it upon the Beaſt to be ſacrificed. Compare Exo. 29.10. Lev. 4.24, 29. & 5.5, 6. & 16.21. By the like ceremony of Im­poſition of hands ſin was charged, both for the te­ſtifying46 of the accuſation, and the ſtoning of the of­fender, Deut. 17.7. Guilt thus typically imputed to the Beaſt, it was ſlain and laid upon the Altar.

The Apoſtle then whileſt he is ſpeaking of the Antitype, chooſing out ſuch a word to expreſſe Chriſts bearing of ſin, teacheth us thereby that Chriſt did both carry up and bear the load of our ſins imputed to him upon the croſſe, and alſo bear them clear away: and thus Iſaiah, Paul, and Pe­ter ſweetly agree together, and interpret one ano­ther, as concerning Chriſts 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 burthen 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, U