type of our moral justification both by the meritorious cause of Christs Sacrifice and by the formal cause of Gods Attonement 2. The Seventy do render Caphar to cleanse as in Exod. 29. 37. and in Exod. 30. 10. 3. They render it to purge in Deut. 32. 43. Exod. 30. 10. Isa 60. 7. and these three differing expressions do but explain the former word Attonement in our Translations for in Exod. 29. 33 36. it is in the same verses it is also explained by the word sanctified as Synonimas to Caphar By these and such like terms given by the Seventy to Caphar it is evident that they understood that when Gods angry face was attoned by sacrifice in relation to their ceremonial sins that they were thereby sanctified to the purifying of their flesh Heb. 9. 13. and that thereby their persons were justified in respect of their appearing before Gods presence in his Sanctuary or in regard of feasting with him on the holy flesh of the Passeover or Peace-offerings and in this respect they called such cleansings Heb. 9. 1 10. justifications of divine Service Heb. 9. 1. and carnal justifications in v. 10. viz. Ceremonial Ritual and Typical as Mr. Trap expounds it or the righteousness of the flesh as I have more largely opened the matter a little before and so also when the Temple was ceremonially purged from the pollutions of Antiochus it is said in the Seventy to be cleansed but in the Hebrew Text it is said to be justified Dan. 8. 14. Hence it follows by an unavoidable consequence that their Dan. 8. 14. legal Ordinances by which they obtained Gods attonement for their legal cleansings sanctifyings and justifyings and for their legal righteousness did typifie and exemplifie how sinners are cleansed washed sanctified and justified as it is expressed by these terms in 1 Corinth 6. 11. and how they are made righteous by the righteousness of the Law as it is in Rom. 2. 26. and in Rom. 8. 4. namely because the sacrifice of Christ is the fulfilling and end of all sacrifices and of all other legal cleansings and therefore it is the onely meritorious and procuring cause of Gods attonement and forgiveness for the formal cleansing washing sanctifying and justifying the conscience from the accusing and condemning power of all moral sins by which means we may stand before God as justified persons in his sight when we come to put up our requests unto him or to feast with him at the Lords Table for when we come to the Lords Table Gods forgiveness is the greatest and most precious dainty for which Christ shed his blood and therefore at his last Supper he said thus to his Disciples This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for the many for the remission of sins Mat. 26. 28. according as it was promised in Dan. 9. 24. this dainty of Gods forgiveness is the great purchase of Christs blood which makes them blessed that have it Psa 32. 1. and makes them eternally righteous in Gods sight that have it Dan. 9. 24. This and a nâ—w heart are the two great legacies of the new Covenant Jer. 31. Heb. 8. These things thus opened me thinks should so enlighten the eyes of our understanding to see what the righteousness of God is and to imbrace it as a most blessed truth or at least not to resist it but to strive to understand is better but when Gods will is to darken the understanding of men with erroneous conceptions then the tongue of Angels cannot prevail with them to hold the contrary And thus have I in some measure opened this phrase The Righteousness of God by his Reconciliation or Attonement and I have opened the word Attonement both in the meritorious and in the formal causes namely that Sacrifices for sin did meritoriously cover Gods angry face attone pacifie reconcile expiate propitiate purge sanctifie cleanse and purifie or make righteous a sinner by procuring Gods attonement for his formal reconciliation righteousness and justification And now methinks Mr. Norton may do well to consider his unadvisedness in villifying this kind of attonement And 2. In restraining it only to a covering of pitch and such like tenaclouâ— matter whereby he confounds both his own understanding and his Readers also The second part of Mr. Nortons comparative Argument in pag. 53. is this Christ was made sin as he was made a curse but he was made a curse by judicial imputation therefore he was made sin by a real imputation Reply 10. In my examination of Gal. 3. 13. I have shewed how Christ was made a curse and in the beginning of this Chapter I have shewed how he was made sin therefore I shall not need to make any further reply here to these things but refer the reader to those places 2 The rest that he allegeth in p. 55. wherein he makes God to charge Christ with sin as a supreme Judge according to the judicial way of Court proceedings because it is no Scripture language in the point of Christs satisfaction but devised terms to express his own erronious conception therefore I shall not need to give any other answer to it here CHAP. XV. The Examination of Gal. 3. 13. with Deut. 21. 23. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law when hee was made a curse for us For it is written in Deut. 21. 23. Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a Tree THe Cusre of hanging upon a Tree which Christ suffered the Dialogue doth expound of the outward curse which he suffered in respect of the outward manner of his death by hanging on a Tree But Mr. Norton in page 93. Doth expound it Of the inward and eternal Curse which he suffered from Gods immediate wrath when hee hung upon the Tree SECT I. Mr. Norton frames his Argument thus If not only the Malediction of every one that is hanged on a Tree is held forth but also Christs Redemption of us from the Curse of the Law by being made a curse for us is both held forth and foretold in Deut. 21. 23. then the Text in Deut. 21. 23. hath not only a proper but a typical signification But not only the Malediction of every one that is hanged on a Tree is held forth but also Christs redemption of us from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us is both held forth and foretold in Deut. 21. 23. Therefore the Text in Deut. 21. 23. hath not only a proper but â— typical signification The minor saith Mr. Norton is the Apostles Reply 1. Mr. Norton doth exceedingly abuse the Apostles meaning to say that his minor is the Apostles and also in saying that the Apostle doth cite Deut. 21. 23. to prove that our Redemption by Christ is both held forth and foretold there But for the better finding out of the Apostles meaning in Gal. 3. 13. There are two distinct clauses in the fomer part of the verse that are of necessity to be
again Joh. 10. 17. No man taketh it from me I lay it down of my self ver 18. The Son of man came to serve and to give his soul for the ransom of many Mat. 20. 28. He made his soul a sin Isa 53. 10. and powred out his soul to death Isa 53. 12. Thirdly Saith Fulgentius The whole man Christ laid down his soul when his soul departed dying on the Cross Ad Transi li. 3. In this sentence you see that Fulgentius speaks of two souls in Christ First Saith he Christ laid down his vital soul And then secondly saith he his immortal soul departed dying on the Cross Fourthly The soul that died in Christ for our redemption was this vital soul for this kind of soul hath its seat in The death of satisfaction was by the true bodily death of Christ and not by his spiritual death the blood Gen. 9. 4. and when Christ shed his blood this soul of his was powred out and then his immortal soul departed and this was typified by the vital soul of the beast that was in the blood of the Levitical Sacrifices in Lev. 17. 11. and see Ains also in Deut. 12. 23. the soul of the flesh iâ— in the blood and I have given it to you upon the Altar to make attonement for your souls for it is the blood that maketh attonement for the soul this I noted in the Dialogue pag. 94. and this positive ceremonial type was given to the Jews to exemplifie their attonement and redemption by the shedding of the vital soul that was in the blood of Christ and our Saviour did confirm this to be a truth at his last Supper saying this cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you and for the many for the remission of sins Matth. 26. 28. And he was the Mediator of the New Testament by this death Heb. 9. 15. And his death in ver 15 16 17. is exemplified by the bodily death of men whose death doth make the legacies of their testament to be valid and so in like sort until Christ had powred out his vital soul his Legacies of the New Testament were not confirmed but as soon as that act was done they were all confirmed for the many Dan. 9. 27. And by his death he is said to make peace or attonement Col. 1. 20. as Aarons incense did in Numb 16. 44. See Ains and by which we have redemption Ephes 1. 7. and by which we are ransomed Matth. 20. 28. It is this vital blood of Christ that cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1. 7. This vital blood of Christ was it that was ordained to procure Gods everlasting attonement for all our moral sins even as the blood of Buls c. was ordained to procure Gods attonement for their ceremonial sins Heb. 9. 12 13 14 15 16. Heb. 10. Fifthly saith P. Martyr Because blood is the life God P. Martyr in his com pl. par 2. p. 581. would signifie that sin is not purged by sacrifice unless it were by death Sixthly Mr. Carlile doth thus paraphrase on Lev. 17. 11. I have appointed the blood to be an expiation and purgation for you even for your sins for it is this blood that purgeth you Seventhly From the springing up of corn after it is dead in the earth Christ brings a similitude of his death and of the fruit of his death Joh. 12. 24. None that I can find interpret this death of any other death but the true bodily death and sacrifice of Christ Eighthly Tindal saith thus Paul concludeth in Heb. 9. 16 17. Tindals works p. 462. that Christ must needs have dyed saying That wheresoever a Testament is there must the death of the Testament-maker go between or else the Testament is not ratified and sure But saith he Righteousness and Remission of sins in Christs blood is the New Testament whereof hee is the Mediator Ergo The Testament-maker must needs have dyed And saith he he must or it behoved him to die for he took our very mortal nature for the same decreed council saying It behoved that the Son of man must die Joh. 12. Tindal laies the whole weight of all the blessings of the new Covenant on the bodily death of Christ he makes no mention of the spirituall death of Christs soul And saith he in pag. 257. The offerings of Christs body and blood is the onely satisfaction for our sins And saith he There is no other way to salvation but by Christs death and passion and he speaks this of his bodily death And saith he whosoever goeth unto God and unto forgiveness of sins or salvation by any other way than this the same is an Heretick Here Tindal opposeth his judgement of Heresie to Mr. Nortons judgement Ninethly We die a double death saith Chrysostom as I formerly cited him therefore we must look for a double Resurrection But Christ saith he dyed but one kind of death therefore he rose but one kind of Resurrection Adam dyed both in body and soul he dyed to sin and to nature c. The first is the death of the soul the other is the death of the body for the death of the soul is sin or everlasting punishments To us men there is a double death and therefore we must have a double Resurrection To Christ there was but one kind of death for he sinned not and that one kind of death was for us he owed no kind of death for he was not subject to sin and so not to death Tenthly Theodoret in Dialogue 3. saith How could the soul of our Saviour having an immortal nature and not touched with the least spot of sin be possibly taken with the hook of death In these words he doth plainly and sully deny the spiritual death of Christs immortal soul and therefore he is point blank against Mr. Norton Eleventhly Cyril de Recta fide ad Reginas l. 1. saith If wee conceive Christ to be God incarnate and suffering in our flesh the death of his flesh alone sufficeth for the redemption of the world Twelfthly Fulgentius and fifteen Bishops of Africa made this confession of their Faith The death of the Son of God which he suffered in his flesh alone destroyed in us both our deaths to wit the death of the soul and body But Mr. Norton holds this confession made in the Dialogue to bee Heresie Thirteenthly Fulgentius ad Transimundum l. 3. c. 7. saith When the flesh onely died and was raised again in Christ the Son of God is said to have died Ibidem c. 5. The flesh dying not onely the Deity but the soul of Christ cannot be shewed to have been dead also Fourteenthly Gregory on Job l. 4. c. 17. Coming to us who were in the death of the spirit and flesh Christ brought his ONE DEATH to us and loosed both our deaths his single death he applied to our double death and dying vanquished our double death Fifteenthly August in ser 162. saith
by a valuable sum of mony or the like But it is evident that the Law may be satisfied two wayes 1. Either according to the exact letter of the Law which requires Eye for Eye Tooth for Tooth Exod. 21. 24. and so for him that steales one Ox five Exod. 21. 24. Oxen in kind Exod. 22. 1. Or 2. The Law may be satisfied by suffering or by paying that which is equivalent to the damage of the Eye lost And so in case a poor man steal an Ox and not able to pay five Oxen for one yet if his rich friend will pay that which the owner shall accept for five Oxen the Law in the true intent of it is satisfied and so the first born of man and of beast was redeemed with mony Numb 18. 15 16. In like sort I find this sentence in the learned that that is to be held for satisfaction which was mutually agreed on between the Father and he Mediator from Eternity and to this very purpose doth Mr. Gataker cite that Proverb Money is recompensed by the feet and thus Christ made satisfaction for the Elect and this is acknowledged even by such as hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God There is a twofold payment of debt saith Mr. Ball one of the things altogether the same in the obligation and this ipse facto freeth from punishment whether it be paid by the Debtor himself or by the Surety Another of a thing which is not altogether the same in the obligation so that some act of the Creditor or Governor must come unto it which is called Remission in which case deliverance doth not follow ipso facto upon the satisfaction and of this kind saith he is the satisfaction of Christ Now if Mr. Nortons meaning be that except Christ did satisfie the punishment due to the Elect in kind the Law doth for ever remain unsatisfied then I deny the major for the Law may be satisfied though Christ did never suffer the Curse in kind 1 It cannot be in kind according to the first Covenant made with Adam as I have shewed often 2 It is evident that it was from another Covenant made between the Trinity according to the Council of their own will which Covenant was revealed to Adam presently after the fall as I have opened it in some measure Upon Goviarus p. 25. Heb. 10. 10. Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Aâ—imad gives this exposition of Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will by which Will we are sanctified through the oblation of his body c. That Will saith he is the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father about Christs undertaking our cause upon himself and performing those things that are requisite for the expiation of our sins therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ which he performed to the peculiar Law of Mediation for this Christ did not make satisfaction by fulfilling the first Covenant but by fulfilling another voluntary Covenant that was made between the Trinity Law set apart he was not bound saith he by any other Law to the oblation of himself Hence it follows that if Christ made satisfaction by another voluntary Covenant between the Trinity then not by the first supreme Covenant made with Adam And to this very purpose also doth Mr. Ball and Mr. Baxter speak as I have noted in Chap. 3. Sect. 3. His fifth Argument examined which is this If 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 c. Reply If by satisfaction Mr. Norton mean such a satisfaction as he hath formerly laid down namely by suffering the essential torments of Hell in kind Then I deny the consequence For first The Gospel doth save without satisfaction in kind And Secondly without any prejudice to the Law as I have shewed in my Reply to the former Argument and shall reply further to Rom. 3. 31. at the Examination of his eighth Argument His Sixt Argument examined which is this If Christ suffered not the punishment due to the Elect then the Elect must suffer it in their own persons Reply Niether of these is necessary for the Gospel doth tell us of another price paid and so consequently of satisfaction by that price and therefore not by suffering hell torments in kind as in Isa 53. 10. When he shall make or set his soul a trespass i. e. a Trespass offering as Ephes 5. 2. Mat. 20. 28. and by his soul must be understood his vital soul as I have expounded it in Chap. 7. Sect. 3. p. 68. His seventh Argument examined which is this If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no justification of a sinner without his suffering the punishment due to sin i. e. his passive 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 Reply The consequence of this Argument is built upon a very weak foundation neither do the reasons annexed sufficiently strengthen it First saith he If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no remission This is but humane language the Scripture doth not say so but that which the Scripture saith is this namely That without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin Heb. 9. 22. God told the result of the eternal Decree to Adam that the Devil must persecute Christ and shed his blood by peircing Heb. 9. 22. Esa 53. 10. Gen. 3. 15. Phi. 2. 8. him in the foot-soal and yet that the Seed of the Woman at the self-same time should break the Devils Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death through all his temptations and trials and then having finished all that was written of him he should set his soul a Trespass-offering which he did when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and at that time he bowed his head and gave up the ghost by his own Priestly Power and not by Sathans power And without this combate with Sathan and without this shedding of blood there is no Satisfaction and so no Remission But this Death and Sacrifice of Christ might be and was without any suffering from the immediate wrath of God Though not without Gods appointment and permission to Sathan to do his utmost against this Seed of the Woman to spoil his obedience if he could in which conflict Christ had his Col. 2. 14 15. Foot-soal pierced but the Devil had his Head-plot broken Gen. 3. 15. because he could not provoke Christ to any impatience or turning away back till he had spoyled the Head-plot of Principalities and Powers by
the mirror of his Tenent as in page 4. 17. 40. 55. 213. 246. c. and hee thinks that the very words of the Text do plainly confirm his sense because he hath bestowed but little pains in his Exposition Mr. Norton makes God to be just in this Text because he exacted such a full satisfaction from Christ our Surety materially as he hath threatned to sinners in the moral Law and therefore he makes the Incarnation and the Death of Christ and all his sufferings to be in obedience to the moral Law which hee calls the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice Reply I on the contrary do therefore make God to be called Just in this Text because he declared his Righteousnesse in forgiving beleeving sinners for the satisfaction sake of Christ which he performed according to the voluntary positive Law and Covenant as it was determined in Gods secret will and revealed only in his voluntary positive Laws and not in his moral Law for his positive Laws do often differ yea they are often contrary to his moral Law And in my Reply to his fifth and sixth Propositions in Chap. 2. and elsewhere I have shewed that Gods secret will declared only in his positive Laws and not in his moral Law is the inviolable Rule of his Relative Justice 2 It is acknowledged by many judicious that there passed a voluntary Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity for mans Redemption and that God did first declare this counsel of his Will in Gen. 3. 15. namely that he would put an utter Gen. 3. 15. enmity between the Devil in the Serpent and the seed of the deceived Woman and that the Devil should have ful liberty to deceive this seed of the woman and to pervert his obedience if he could by fraud as he had done Adam or by force in putting him to an ignominious violent death on the Crosse by piercing him in the Foot-soals but God declared also that this seed of the Woman should not be deceived but that he should break the Devils Head-plot by continuing constant in his obedience to the death and that he should make his soul a sacrifice in the midst of his Tortures on the Crosse which doubtlesse was exemplified The ground of full and just satisfaction to Gods justice is not by paying our full debt materially bur formally that God doth accept for full and just satisfaction which was constituted so to be by the conditions of the voluntary Covenant to Adam by the death and sacrifice of a Lamb as I have shewed elsewhere as full satisfaction to Gods Justice and as the procuring cause of Gods Reconciliation to all that should beleeve in this Promised seed for what else can bee called full satisfaction but that only that is so made by the voluntary Covenant for the half shekels in Exod. 30 12. was called the price of the Redemption of their lives but any man may see by Psal 49. 8. that materially it was not a full price until it was made to bee the full price formally only by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant Of this see more in Chap. 14. Sect. at Reply 8. 3 The performance of the said Combate and Sacrifice on Christs part is in Scripture phrase called The Righteousnesse of Christ and the meritorious nature of it was to bind God the Father to perform his Covenant on his part which was that he should be attoned and reconciled to beleeving sinners by forgiving their sins and receiving them into favour and the performance of this on God the Fathers part is often in Scripture-phrase called the Righteousnesse of God as I have shewed in 2 Cor. 5. 21. That so he might be just and the Justifier of him which beleeveth in Jesus But for the better understanding of this 26. verse I will propound and answer these two Queries 1 How God declared his Justice at this time 2 Why at this time 1 Touching the manner how God declared his Justice that must be fetched from its coherence with verse 25. and there it Rom. 3. 25. is said that God declared his justice in setting forth Christ to be a propitiatory through faith in his blood for the remission of sins 1 Hence it is evident that God had covenanted to and with Christ that if he would undertake to be the seed of the Woman and in that humane nature to combate with the Enemy Sathan to the shedding of his blood and would still continue obedient to the death and at last make his soul a sacrifice then he should be his Mercy-seat and then he would be reconciled to all beleevers and forgive them their sins through faith in his blood and therefore as soon as sinners are united to Christ by faith It is Gods Justice or his Righteousnesse to remit their sins that are past as I shewed before in 1 Joh. 1. 9. and more fully in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Heb. 8. 12. 2 This very name His Propitiatory whence God declares Christ is Gods Mercy-seat in point of satisfaction Heb. 4. 16. his Justice in remitting sins doth plainly tell us but that we are dull of hearing that Christs satisfaction was not Solutio ejusdem but tantidem by vertue of the voluntary Covenant or else what need is there that God should declare his justice from his Propitiatory or from his Mercy-seat or from his Throne of grace as Christ by his Satisfaction is called in Heb. 4. 16. if Christs satisfaction had been solutio ejusdem as Mr. Norton holds then it should have been more fitly said that God declared his justice from his Justice-seat and not from his Mercy-seat but because Christs death and sacrifice was by the voluntary positive Law and Covenant made to be the Tantidem for beleevers as it is evident by the former instance of the half shekels which was made to be the full price of the Redemption of their lives formally only by Gods voluntary Covenant therefore it is most fitly said that God declared his justice from his Mercy-seat 3 This phrase Caporeth his Propitiatory or his Mercy-seat is first used in Exod. 25. 17. And it is commonly used saith Ainsworth to set forth Gods merciful covering of sins as in Psal 65. 4. where it is translated by the Seventy with the allowance Psal 65. 4. of the Holy Ghost in Heb. 9. 5. Hilasterion that is a Propitiatory or a Covering Mercy-seat and saith he this is applied by the Apostle to Christ Rom. 3. 25. See more of Caphar in Chap. 14. Sect. 6. Reply 8. The Hebrew Caphar saith Ainsworth is applied to the covering of an angry countenance as in Gen. 32. 20. There Jacob is Gen. 32. 20. said to cover Esau's angry face or to appease his anger by a liberal and acceptable gift and this word Caphar saith Ainsworth is often used in the Law for the covering or taking away Christs sacrifice is called a sacrifice of Attonement because it doth appease Gods angry face
procure his Attonement to beleeving sinners of offence by pacifying Gods anger by gifts and sacrifices and typified that Christ should give himself to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement whereby sin is covered or passed by Exod. 29. 36. Lev. 1. 4. Lev. 4. 20. 26. c. And thus Gods angry face was covered or appeased by the burnt offering of Christs body as soon as he had finished all his sufferings for he offered himself by the holy fire of his eternal Spirit so Dr. Taylor doth once make the type of Fire to speak in Noahs sacrifice in Heb. 9. 14. for as the Altar did signifie the Heb. 9. 14. God-head of Christ so the fire of the Altar must be alike type of the God-head of Christ also and thus Christ was the Mediator of the New Testament through this kind of death Heb. 9 14 15 16. by which hee procured Gods Attonement or Reconciliation for the iniquity of the many and so he became his Mercy-seat and after this manner God set forth Christ to be his Propitiatory through faith in his blood to declare his Righteousnesse by remitting sins 4 Peter Martyr doth open this phrase His Righteousnesse or the justice of God in Rom. 3. 21. thus If a man do more narrowly consider this word the Justice or Righteousnesse of God It is the mercy of God which he bestoweth upon us through Christ And in Rom. 10. 3. He calls the justice of God Gods forgivenesse and saith he I have in another place admonished Rom. 10. 3. that the Hebrew word Tzedec which our men have translated Righteousnesse signifieth rather Goodnesse and Mercy and therefore to this day the Jews call Alms by that name and saith he Ambrose on this place is of the self-same mind and see more how Peter Martyr doth expound Gods Righteousnesse in my Reply on 2 Cor. 5. 21. 5 I have also shewed in the Dialogue page 118. that Tzedec Justice or Righteousnesse is often translated by the Seventy Goodnesse or Mercy as in Psal 24. 5. Ps 33. 5. Ps 103. 6. Es 1. 27 Dan. 4. 27. Dan. 9. 16. Deut. 24. 13. and their Translation doth well agree to the true sense of Ps 112. 4. 9. and to Ps 94. 15. where God is said to turn Judgement into justice namely to Psal 94. 15. turn vindicative justice into merciful justice for indeed God hath as exact a way of merciful justice by the satisfaction of Christ according to the voluntary positive Law and Covenant to beleevers as if the rigor of his moral Curse had been executed on their Surety in kind and better too because the first way was constituted to be the way and the other is but imaginary according to the legal proceedings of Court justice And indeed the Justice or Righteousnesse of God the Father wherein he is just according to his Covenant with Christ to forgive them their sins that do beleeve in the death and sacrifice of Christ is an example of the highest degree of Mercy Charity and Alms that the world can afford 6 God is said to judge the world in Justice namely in his merciful justice Psal 96. 13. Psal 98. 9. Psal 68. 5. Psal 146. 7 8. And it is said in Act. 17. 31. That God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in Righteousnesse some understand it of Gods vindicative justice on the impenitent at the day of Judgment but Broughton reads it in Mercy or in merciful justice namely by his Gospel of grace declaring his merciful justice in judging the world by it for by his Gospel of grace he doth judge the world in favour to their poor blind and captivated souls as in Esa 42. 1 2 3 4. and in Mat. 12 18. and in Joh. 12. 31. and Obad. vers 21. and see Broughton also in Job 37. 23. By these and such like particulars we may see how God was just according to his Covenant with Christ to declare his righteousness by forgiving the sins of beleevers for his sake and from that Covenant with Christ he hath also Covenanted with the Elect mercifully to forgive their iniquities and to remember their sins no more Jer. 31. 34. which is expounded â—hus in Heb. 8. 13. I will be pacified or reconciled to their unrighteousness and this is called God the Fathers righteousness whereby he makes a sinner righteous Secondly I come now to answer the second Queâ—â—ion Why did God declare his Justice or his Righteousness at this â—inâ— The answer is that he might be just and the Justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus God declared the exact time when he would fulfil his Promise The end of Gods merciful justicâ— dâ—clared from his Mercy-seat in Christs satisfaction was that he might be just and that he might be the justifier of beleeving sinners Dan. 9. 24. Gal. 4. 4 5. and Covenant by his Angel Gabriel to Daniel namely that from his prayer to the death of the Messiah it should be exactly Four hundred and ninety years and that then the Messiah by his death and sacrifice should end all legal sin-offerings and finish all trespass-offerings and make reconciliation for iniquity and so by that means bring in or procure an eternal Righteousness or an eternal Reconciliation instead of their typical Righteousness for by the language of the Law we are taught that a sinners righteousness doth consist in Gods reconciliation or in Gods forgiveness and receiving into favor Dan. 9. 24. and in relation to this Paul saith That when the fulness of the time spoken of by Daniel was come God sent forth his Son made of a woman made under the Law namely under the Law of Rites that he by his death might fulfil those typical Rites to redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons So then as Christ was just in making satisfaction according to Covenant in the exact time foretold for mans redemption so God upon that performance covenanted to declare his Justice at this time to all beleevers in all the Nations of the world that he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus by forgiving their sins and not remembring their iniquities Heb. 8. 12. See Ains also in Psal 25. 11. and therefore Christ did now send abroad his Apostles to beseech men to be reconciled to God 2 Cor. 5. 20. Secondly I find that Dr. Hamon and others doth thus paraphrase upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just in Mat. 1. 19. Joseph being a just man that is saith he being a merciful pious man was not willing to expose or subject Mary to the publick and shameful punishment which among the Jews belonged to those women whom the Husbands when they first came to them found not to bee Virgins was willing secretly to dismiss her that she not being known to be betrothed to him might only be liable to the punishment of Fornication viz. infamy not death And in his
making his soul a sacrifice 5 Hence it also follows that the obedience of Christ to the moral Law is not here spoken of namely not in Rom. 5. 18 19. and accordingly Mr. Wotton Mr. Forbs and divers other eminent Divines do expound ver 18 and 19. to relate onely to his positive righteousness in his death and sacrifice and not to his moral obedience no otherwise but as it made him to be a Lamb without spot or blemish fit for sacrifice And therefore Mr. Nortons proof of Heresie from Rom. 5. 19. in p 268. doth fail him as well as all his other proofs 6 My former Exposition of Gods righteousness to be his reconciliation in not imputing sin is further evident by the Rom. 3. 25. words of the Apostles in terminis in Rom. 3. 25. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past For the better understanding of the sense of these words I will propound these three Questions and Answers First Whose righteousness doth the Apostle say is here declared but God the Fathers Secondly Wherein is God the Fathers righteousness declared but by the remission of sins that are past Thirdly How else doth God declare this righteousness of his by remission but by setting forth Christ to be his propitiatory or his Mercy-Seat through faith in his blood And thus you see that this Text doth in terminis make Gods righteteousness consist in remission of sins as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5. 21. 7 Daniel doth make Gods righteousness whereby he makes sinners righteous to consist in his reconciliation by not imputing sin in Dan. 9. 24. he saith that Christ by his death was to Dan 9 24. finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in an everlasting righteousness Mark this his death and sacrifice was to procure Gods reconciliation for iniquity and this reconciliation he calls an everlasting righteousness to sinners And thus you see that Daniel doth make Gods reconciliation to be an everlasting righteousness to beleeving sinners as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5 21. 8 David doth also confirm this exposition of Gods righteousness in Psal 51. 14. Deliver me from blood guiltiness O God Psal 51. 14. then my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness First How else doth he mean that God should deliver him from his bloodguiltiness but by his reconciliation in not imputing that sin to his condemnation according to that desire and prayer in Deut. 21. 8. Secondly What righteousness of God doth he else mean that his tongue should sing aloud of but Gods Attonement in not imputing his blood-guiltiness to him for the sake of Christs Sin-Sacrifice Thus you see that the Exposition given of Gods righteousness in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and so consequently of the same term in Rom. 3. 21 22 25 26. and in Rom. 10. 3. and in Phil. 3. 9. is confirmed and strengthened by an eight-fold cord which I beleeve Mr. Norton will not be able to break But Mr. Norton in p. 260. stumbles at the Dialogue because it follows Mr. Wotton in making Justification and Adoption to be the two parts of Gods Attonement or Reconciliation And at last in p. 162. he opens himself thus But whether Justification precisely considered be a part of or a necessary antecedent or means of reconciliation it is freely left to the judgement of the Reader But saith he the Leiden Divines say it is rather a consequent and effect of Justification And then he concludes that the Analogy of Faith may as well bear an interpretation agreeable hereunto as any other thus God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself How By not imputing their trespasses to them so as the not imputation of sin saith he may seem to be an antecedent and means rather than a part of Attonement or Reconciliation Reply 1. It is now apparent why Mr. Norton did stumble at the Dialogue for giving two parts to Reconciliation according to Mr. Wotton It was to introduce his conjectures quite contrary to Mr. Wotton namely that Gods non-imputation of sin is an antecedent and means rather than a part of attonement or reconciliation But because he expresseth himself to be somewhat uncertain in his notions in this point therefore he cannot be thought to be a fit Judge to censure the Dialogue nor to determine this controversie But the Scriptures are most plain in this point if they be not intricated by such uncertain conjectures 1 The Scripture speaks plainly that when the Bullock for sin was offered by the Priest to make attonement for sins of ignorance then the promise annexed saith It shall be forgiven him Levit 4. 20. Any man from hence may see plainly that Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent but a true part of his attonement if it be not the whole The like is said of the Rulers sin in v. 26. and the like is said of the sins of any of the people in ver 31 35. namely that when Gods attonement is procured by their said Sin-Sacrifice then thereupon their sin is said to be forgiven them 2 The Burnt-offerings And Thirdly The Trespass-offerings were ordained to procure Gods gracious forgiveness as a part of his attonement as in Levit. 5. 10 13 16 18. and in Lev. 6. 7. and in Lev. 19. 22. and in Numb 15. 25 26 28. In all these places Gods promise of his forgiveness by his attonement did openly proclaim in the ears of all Israel and in the ears of all others that have ears to hear that when Gods attonement is obtained by sacrifice then and not till then sin is forgiven and then and not till then that person is actually justified either he is ceremonially justified as a person fit to stand before Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary or else in case they have Faith to look from the typicall attonement to the mystical they shall thereby have an eternal pardon from their moral sins and so an eternal justification in Gods sight Or thus Gods Reconciliation procured by an acceptable sacrifice is not like the Reconciliation of a Judge that doth but barely acquit a Malefactor and so leaves him but it is like the Reconciliation of a merciful Father that doth not only forgive his child but together with that forgiveness doth also receive him into favour and in this sense these two terms Gods Attonement and his gracious forgiveness for Christs sacrifice sake is the same thing And thus Gods forgiveness is the whole of his Reconciliation 3 This sense of Gods forgiveness as it is the whole of Reconciliation is evident by Gods promise in the New Covenant for in Jer. 31. 34. the promise runs thus I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more This promise is thus expounded in Heb. 8. 12. I will be merciful to their unrighteousnesse Heb. 8. 12. and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more the first expression I will be
in ver 10. as Mr. Dickson Mr. Trap and others have well observed from the Greek word Dicaiomata for it pleased God by his positive Laws Heb. 9. 1 10. to ordain that the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean should be of force to sanctifie them to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9. 13. namely to justifie them from their ceremonial sins and so to make them fit Heb 9. 13. for communion with God in his Sanctuary and in feasting with him on the holy flesh of Passeovers and Peace-offerings and it is yet the more manifest that this carnal cleansing did justifie them because the Temple as soon as it was ceremonially cleansed from the pollutions of Antiochus is said in the Septuagint to be cleansed but in the Hebrew text it is said to be justified Dan. 8. 14. now it was justified no otherwise but as it Dan. 8. 14. was ceremonially cleansed by carrying out the filthiness of dirt and of idols as in 2 Chron. 29. 5 15 16 17. and by the blood of the Sin-offering Ezek. 45. 18 19. Levit. 16. 16. and thus we see that when persons and things are legally cleansed from ceremonial defilements they are said to be justified and therefore the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean under the first Covenant to procure Gods attonement for their ceremonial justification did but typifie our moral justification by Gods attonement and forgiveness for the sake of the blood of Christs Sin-offering under the new Covenant for nothing but Gods attonement alone doth cleanse and justifie a sinner and so the Apostle doth argue the case in Heb. 9. 13 14. If saith he the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh for by this means onely they procured Gods attonement and forgiveness for their ceremonial defilements according to Gods appointment in the first Covenant of works for without Gods attonement procured by the use of the said legal Rites their flesh could not be sanctified in a fit manner for his holy presence in his Sanctuary and in this respect the Seventy do render the word Attonement by the word Sanctified as you see it observed by Ainsworth in Exod 29. 33 36. And secondly It is also further evident by the cleansing of the woman from her unclean issue for she was not fully cleansed untill she had obtained Gods Attonement by her Sin-Sacrifice Levit. 15. 30. but as soon as that was performed then she had Gods Attonement and then she is said in ver 31. to be sanctified or separated for her appearing before God in his Tabernacle and then she might come as a justified person without danger of Gods anger before his presence in his holy Sanctuary And thirdly The Hâ—brew Doctors do usually say as I find them cited in Ainsworth that such persons as were ceremonially cleansed by washing or by the sprinkling of their sin-water were sanctified that is to say they were legally justified as fit persons for Gods presence in his holy Sanctuary Fourthly The blood of Bulls and Goats did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh no otherwise but as they procured Gods attonement for blood materially considered doth not cleanse but defile the flesh but as it was ordained by the first Covenant to procure Gods attonement so it doth formally cleanse and justifie Fifthly It is further evident that these legal cleansings did justifie them by procuring Gods attonement for their ceremonial sins because Gods eternal attonement and forgiveness in relation to their legal justifications is called washing in Jer. 33. 8. and it is called sprinkling and cleansing in Ezek. 36. 25 29. And Sixthly Such as are truly converted to Christ in the New Testament and by that means have their sins forgiven them are said to be Washed Sanctified and Justified 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 6. 11. 6. 11. And it is worth the marking that these three figurative expressions are Synonimous and do all note the true nature of our justification And from these cleansings according to the first Covenant the Apostle in Hebr. 9. 14. doth inforce his Argument thus How much more shall the blood of Christ purge or sanctifie your consciences from dead works that is to say from moral sins for moral sins did as much defile the conscience as the touch of a dead person did defile the flesh ceremonially And saith he though the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heiser had power by Gods positive Covenant to cleanse to the sanctifying of the flesh yet they had not power to cleanse or justifie the conscience from moral sins Heb. 9. 9. and 10. 4. But that power was given to the blood of Christ alone and therefore he said Lo I come to do thy will O God by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all Heb. 10 10 14. In these words mark the conditions of the eternal Covenant for mans justification as it is expressed by Heb. 10. 10. the Apostle namely that it was the will of God to be attoned to sinners for the sake of Christs sacrifice and that attonement onely doth cleanse the conscience from all moral sins or it justifies the conscience And secondly much after this manner doth the Apostle reason touching our justification in Rom. 8. 3 4. What the Law could Rom 8. 3 4. not do in that it was weak through the flesh for the corruption and infirmity of the flesh was such that it could not keep it self pure neither from moral sins nor from ceremonial sins as it is disputed in Col 2. 14. and in Heb. 7 11 16 18 19. neither could the ceremonial justifications justifie the conscience from moral sins Heb. 9. 9. Heb. 10. 4. But God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh because he sent him to be our Combater with Satan and gave Satan power to use this seed of the woman as a sinful malefactor in Gen. 3. 15. in this sense he was in the likeness of sinful flesh because he suffered all kind of injuries from Satan as a sinner and for sin condemned sin in the flesh in these words is set down the ultimate end why God sent Christ in the similitude of sinful flesh to suffer as a Combater with Satan and that was to break Satans head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and in that obedience to be for sin that is to say to make himself a sacrifice for sin By which means he did first codemn sin that is to say the use of all the legal Sin-offerings because they could not justifie the conscience from moral sins because his was the perfection of them all and therefore it was perfectly able to procure his Fathers attonement and absolution to cleanse the conscience from all the dead works of moral sins Thus far of the Exposition of ver
consequently saith he he would have been in a perpetual fear before his fall But saith he in p. 220. The first Adam had not any naturall fear as the second Adam had because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before the eyes of Christ And saith Vinditiae Legis in p. 129. he needed no Mediator nor comfort because his soul could not be terrified with any sin And so saith Austin in his Enchyrid to Lawrence chap. 32. When Adam was made a right man he needed no Mediator but when sin did separate â—ioâ— from God then he must be brought into favor again by a Mediator c. God doth often dispence with his peremptory threatnings p. 157 Gods voluntary positive Laws were not ingraven in Adams nature as his moral Laws were no more than the time of the last Judgement was ingraven in the Humane nature of Christ Mark 13. 32. p. 159. 11 God doth sometimes alter from the Rule of his moral Commands to the Rule of his secret Decâ—ees p. 160 225 CHAP. XI CHrist bare our sicknesses and carried our sorrows from us not by bearing them upon his own body as a Porter bears a burden but he is said to bear them because he bare them from us by the power of his divine command p. 163 CHAP. XII MR. Norton doth most dangerously make all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be hell pains p. 165 169 Mr. Norton doth often wrong the sense of the Dialogue p. 167 296 The true nature of all Christs greatest bodily sufferings are described to be chastisements in Isa 53. 5. therefore they cannot be called the essential torments of Hell inflicted on him from Gods vindicative wrath as Mr. Norton calls them p. 169 178 266 311 344 Christs sufferings may justly be called punishments such as the godly suffer and yet not proceed from Gods wrath as their punishments do very often p. 171 None of Christs sufferings were inflicted on him from Gods immediate wrath as Mr. Norton holds most dangerously p. 172 Christs Humane nature was often purposely left of the Divine nature not onely in his natural and moral actions that so it might act according to physical causes but also in his Office because be was appointed to combate with Satan in his Humane nature that so he might be the more deeply touched with the sense of our infirmities p. 174. 383 The true nature of merit described namely how Christ did merit our redemption p. 176 130 146 308 256 The Judges imputation of any sin in the voluntary combate doth cause such a Combater to loose the prize p. 178 Punishments in the voluntary Combate may be suffered from the opposite Champion without any imputation of sin from Gods vindicative wrath p. 178 God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as he gave Satan leave to wound him and to do his worst unto him p. 178 311 All Christs greatest punishments were suffered without any imputation of sin from God or else God could not have accepted his death as a propitiatory sacrifice to bring us to God p. 182 Christ was eminently voluntary and active in complying with all his sufferings from his Combater Satan or else they had not been meritorious p. 183 CHAP. XIII THe word Sin is often used in a metaphorical sense for a sin-sacrifice because it was offered to procure Gods Attonement for sin p. 190 Christ attoned his Fathers wrath with the sacrifice of his body and blood p 191 It is evident by Isa 53. 6. and by Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from eternity for mans Redemption p 193 Christ put away sin as the phrase is in Heb. 9. 26. or condemned sin as the phrase is in Rom 8. 3. when he abolished the use of all sin offerings by his onely true sacrifice for our sins p. 196 The imposition of hands upon the head of the condemned person by the witnesses was to testifie their faith to the throwers of stones that the evidence they had given in against him was true p. 198 Christ doth still bear our sins in Heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them when he lived here upon earth p. 204 * Add this Note to p. 205. l. 20. All such as hold that Christ was our bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam must hold as Mr. Norton doth in p. 239. that Christ was delivered from his act of Surety-ship at his death But all such as hold him to be no other Surety but as he is our voluntary Priest to intercede for the pardon of sin must hold him to be an eternal Surety as they hold him to be an eternal priest and that he was not discharged of his Suretiship at his death but that he doth still continue to be our Mediatorial Surety for the procuring of Gods daily pardon as long as we live in this world p. 205 89. CHAP. XIV MR. Nortons palpable mistaking of the Righteousness of God to mean nothing else but the Righteousness of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is one main cause of his erroneous Interpretation p. 208 It is the righteousness of each person in Trinity to perform their Covenants to each other for the orderly working out of a sinners Reconciliation and Justification p. 211 No Scripture rightly interpreted doth make our sins to be formally imputed to Christ namely not by Gods legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds p. 212 Mans Law doth not allow Sureties for capital crimes p. 216 The imputation of our sins to Christ as it is asserted by Mr. Norton is a doctrine but of late daies p. 222 Christ did impute our sins to himself to make himself a guilty sinner as much as ever his father did ibid. SECT 4. Gods forgiveness is the formal cause of a sinners righteousness p. 228 * Add this Note to p. 231. at Rom. 3. 26. in line 15. And further saith P. Martyr on the Romant p. 318. as differentia maketh the nature or kind so the righteousness of God maketh our Justification for when we are by him absolved from sin we are justified And saith he in p. 367. B. God justifieth in absolving us from our sins and ascribing and imputing to us righteousness and saith he this word Hitsadik is a word taken of the Law and appertaineth to Judgement and so to justifie is by judgement And saith he forasmuch as there are two significations of this word Justifie namely either indeed or in account and estimation for God is the Author of either of them whether of these two shall we follow in the point of Justification proposed Forsooth saith he the latter namely that God doth justifie by account and estimation and this I suppose saith he is sufficient touching the declaration of this word Justification And saith he in answer to the Council of Trent in p. 388. b. The formal cause is the Justice of God not that Justice whereby himself is just but that which he communicateth
an act of obedience to the moral Law then Christs God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Fathers supreme Command doth That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience in page 192. The Arians will be much beholding to him for this Tenent for if his Incarnation which was an act of his God-head was an act of his obedience to the moral Law then it follows that the God-head of Christ was in an absolute subjection and so in an absolute inferiority to his Father for the moral Law is supreme compulsory Law given to inferiors But Mr. Norton labours to prove That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience in page 192. by Gal. 4. 4. and in page 196. saith he Christ was subject to the Law not as man only but as God-man Mediator Gal. 4. 4 5. And saith he in the same page The Law whereto he was subject is the Law whereunto wee are subject Reply His proof from Gal. 4. 4. I will now examine because he doth cite it to prove that the moral Law was given to the Mediator as the Law of his Mediatorship as in page 103. 192 196 197 200 240 267. The sense of this Text must bee sought out by comparing it with the Context the third verse runs thus Even so we when we were children were in bondage under the Elements or Rudiments of the world Hence the Apostle infers in vers 4. 5. That when the fulnesse of the time was come God sent forth his Son made of a woman made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law Any man that hath but half an eye may see that the Apostle in this place speaks only of the ceremonial Law by which it appears that Mr. Norton took but little heed to the Context and therefore it is sufficient to answer him in the words of Mr. Gataker to the seventh Reason of Wigelin his 15. Thesis This place to the Galatians saith he speaks of the Law of Rites therefore it comes not here to bee handled namely not in Mr. Nortons sense for Mr. Norton saith That the Law here whereunto Christ was made subject is the Law whereunto wee are made subject But Mr. Gataker according to the Context doth call it the Law of Rites and Dr. Hammond doth Analyze the Text to that sense onely And so doth Mr. Ball on the Covenant page 141. and 166. But for the better clearing of this sense I will expound the several branches of Gal. 4. 4. 1 When the fulnesse of time was come This fulnesse of time must be understood chiefly of the time of Christs death though it doth also comprehend the time of his Incarnation namely in order to his death for untill that full time of Christs death the Jews were under ceremonial Types as under Tutors and Governors And the exact period of this full time was foretold unto Daniel by the Angel Gabriel just four hundred and ninety years before-hand for saith Daniel in Chap. 9. 21. The Dan 9. 24 27. Angel Gabriel came flying swiftly and touched me as I was at prayers about the time of the Evening Oblation and in vers 22. he said O Daniel I am come forth to give thee skill and understanding namely or the fulnesse of time appointed of the Father therefore understand the matter and consider the Vision for seventy weeks are determined Dan. 9. 24. upon thy people and upon thy holy City to finish trespass namely to finish Trespasse-offerings and to end Sins See Broughtous Translation printed at Hanaw namely to end Sin-offerings and to make reconciliation for Vnrighteousnesse and to bring in everlasting Righteousnesse instead of Ceremonial Righteousnesse by legal purifications and by legal Reconciliations and Attonements by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9. 13. this kind of Righteousnesse was but a figure for the present time that could not make holy concerning the conscience him that did the service Heb. 9. 9. For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away moral sins Heb. 10 4. But the Sacrifice of Christ which was typified by these Rites being made in the fulnesse of that time that was fore-appointed of the Father had a true vertue and efficacie by vertue of Gods Covenant with the Mediator to cleanse the conscience from the guilt of moral sins and to bring in a moral Righteousnesse and so then the ceremonial Righteousnesse must cease and thus the Angel Gabriel told Daniel that the Messiah by his death should make reconciliation for unrighteousnesse and so bring in an Everlasting Righteousnesse and then saith the Angel Gabriel in vers 27. He shall confirm the Testament for the many the last Seven when in half that Seven he shall end Sacrifice and Oblation The words are thus opened by Paul in Heb. 9. 26. But now Heb. 9. 26. once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin namely to put away the Ceremonial use of Sin-offerings by the sacrifice of himself and in Rom. 8. 3. God sending his own Son in Rom 8. 3. the likenesse of sinful flesh and for his sacrifice for sin in the flesh Hee condemned sin that is to say the use of Sin-offerings because his Sin-offering was of efficacy sufficient to make an Everlasting Reconciliation and Redemption and to bring in an Everlasting Purifying from sin which Daniel calls an Everlasting Righteousnesse And thus in the fulnesse of time God sent his Son to fulfill the Ceremonial Law of Types and then it follows that all Ceremonial Types must cease c. And thus Christ hath redeemed us for our moral sins and from the moral curse and this is worth the noting that the Levitical Ordinances are in Greek called Justifications in Heb. 9. 1. and Carnal Dan 8. 14. Heb. 9. 1. 10. Legal justification was a type of our moral justification Justifications in verse 10. because they represented our Justification saith Dickson namely such Justifications as were made by Ceremonial Cleansings such as I have formerly named in Heb. 9. 13. and also the cleansing of the Temple Dan. 8. 14. is called Tzedek justified and such Ceremonial Purifyings did typifie Gods moral justification by his being reconciled or attoned to sinners for the sake of Christs sin-offering and therefore when the Jews were cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary they said to the Porters of the Temple in Psal 118. 19. Open to me the gates of Righteousnesse I will go in to praise the Psal 118. 19. Lord called the gates of Justice saith Ains because only the just clean might enter into them And in verse 20. This is the gate of the Lord into which the righteous shall enter namely such as are legally righteous by being purified from their Ceremonial sins which was a type of the true nature of our moral jâ—stification And in this
Christ to suffer Luke 24. 46. according to the Decree and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that so his obedience being made perfect he might bee fully consecrated to the execution of his Priestly office in making his Soul an acceptable Sacrifice to make Reconciliation for the sins of Gods people and thus hee became obedient to the death Phi. 2. 8. And thus it became God to consecrate and Christ to be consecrated through afflictions and therefore presently after the Fall God said to Sathan Thou shalt pierce him in the foot-soals and accordingly God is said not to spare his own Son but to deliver him up into the hands of Sathan for us all to try the combate Rom. 8. 32. So David said The Lord bade Shemei to curse David For saith Dr Preston in Gods All-Sufficiency There is no creature in heaven or earth that stirreth without a command and without a warrant from the Master of the house God sent Sathan to bee a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs false Prophets God is without all causes and the cause of all things no creature stirs but at his command and by his providence Eccles 3. 14. And thus Herod and Pontius Pilate the Devils Agents did unto Christ whatsoever God had before determined to be done Act. 4. and thus God declared his will to Sathan Thou shalt pierce the seed of the deceived Woman in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor but yet for all this he shall continue obedient and at last break thy Head-plot by his sacrifice of Reconciliation flesh and blood could not effect this way of consecration The Father delivered Christ to death saith P. Mart. not that the Father is bitter or cruel hee delighted not in evil as it is evil But I may adde he delighted to see him combate with Sathan not for the evil sake that fel upon Christ but for the good of his obedience in his consecration to his death and sacrifice And all this was done not from the row of causes as in Courts of justice from the imputation of the guilt of our sins but from the voluntary Cause and Covenant only But saith Mr. Norton in Page 130. The soul that sinneth shall dye Ezek. 18. 20. Good saith he man sinned ergo man dyed Christ was a sinner imputatively though not inherently And the soul that sinneth whether inherently or imputatively shall dye Reply 7. It is a plain evidence that the Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ as our legal Surety is a very unsound Doctrine because it hath no better supports hitherto than Scripture mis-interpreted The sense of this Text is this The soul that sins i. e. the very soul that sins namely the very same numerical and individual person that sins formaly and inherently shall die for the text speaks plainly of sin committed and it argues that Mr. Norton took little heed to the circumstances of the Text that did not mark that and the Text sheweth the effect that sin hath upon a sinner that repents noâ— namely he shall dye Now to this Exposition compare Mr. Nortons Answer Man sinned saith he mark his evasion for he doth not speak this of man numerically taken as the Text doth but he speaks it of man generally or of all mankind in Adam Ergo man died saith he here he takes the word man not for the particular individual sinner as the Text doth but for the individual person of Christ and so his meaning amounts to this Mankind sinned and Christ died By this the Reader may see that his Exposition agrees with the Text no better than Harp and Harrow Therefore unless Mr. Norton do affirm that Christ was a sinner formally and inherently he cannot from this place of Ezekiel gather that Christ was to suffer the second death neither can he gather it from Gen. 2. 17. because both these places speak of sin as it is formally committed and not alone of the effects of sin as guilt Neither of these Scriptures do admit of dying by a Surety neither doth the Law any where else admit of dying such a death as the second death is by a Surety to deliver other sinners from that death as these Scriptures do testifie Ps 49. 7 8 9. Job 36. 18 19. The Apostle saith the sting of death is sin but his meaning is plainly of sin inherent and not of such an imputation of sin as Mr. Norton makes to be the ground of Christs suffering the second death Adams first sin saith Bucanus was common to all mens nature but his other sins saith he were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. the soul that sinneth shall die But I wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Austin for the spiritual death of Christs soul from Gods imputing our sins to him Austin saith he in p. 130. calleth it a death not of condition but of crime it is as evident as the sun that Austins meaning is this Christ was not necessitated to die through any sinful condition of nature as fallen man is but that he was put to death as a criminal person by the Jews sinful imputations and that Austin in fers it was therefore just that seeing the devil had slain him who owed nothing the debtors whom he held in durance beleeving in him that was slain without cause should be set at liberty See Austins sense more at large in Wotton de Recon cpec par 2. l. 1. c. 21. Austins sense is no more like Mr. Nortons sense than an Apple is like an Oyster But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 41. If Christ had suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 8. If Mr. Norton from the Voluntary cause and covenant should undertake to strive with his opposite Champion for the All Christs sufferings were from the voluntary Covenant and not from Gods judicial imputation of our sins to him mastery according to the Rules of the said voluntary Law I beleeve that he should by experience find that he must bear many a four stroak and brush and it may be shed much blood which I think would be accounted a true punishment though it be not a vindictive punishment from the sense of an angry Judge and yet all this without any imputation of sin from the Superiors in the voluntary Covenant unless he should disobey their Laws in the manner of trial in like sort God told the Decree in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put enmity between Christ Gen 3. 1. and the Devil and that the Devil should drive hard at him all the time that he executed his Office and that at last the Devil should preâ—ail so far as to pierce him in the foot-soals as a sinful Malefactor and it pleased the Lord thus to bruise him and put him to grief Is 53. 10. even at the same time when he should make his soul a sin The Lord took much delight and pleasure to behold the knowledge and skil the valor and wisdom of this his
righteous servant in this conflict continuing obedient to the death according to all the Articles of the Covenant untill he had triumphed over all Principalities and Powers on his cross and so he won the prize namely the salvation of all the Elect. According to this way of punishment Christ suffered our punishments no punishment was due to him from the imputation of sin and therefore no punishment was inflicted on him from Gods anger as our punishments are We indeed do justly suffer according to that Court-language which Mr. Norton hath expressed but Christs punishments though they were as true punishments in sense and feeling as ours are and more sensible to his nature than to us yet they were not inflicted on him from the same compulsory ground and Law as ours are on us but all his were from the voluntary Law and Covenant as I have before declared And in chap. 12. at Conclus 1. I have shewed that any imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 96. Christ is expresly said to be made a curse Gal. 3. 12. It will thence unavoydably follow saith he that sin was some way judicially upon Christ for we read of no curse inflicted according to the determinate and revealed way of proceeding with the reasonable creature but it presupposeth sin wherefore he could neither have been made a curse nor die since the onely cause of the curse and death is sin from which he was free but because he had taken upon him our sins Reply 9. Sin saith Mr. Norton was some way judicially upon Christ Why then is it not proved and made manifest by Scripture I find no other proof of it but Scripture mis-interpreted as I have shewed already and as for Gal. 3. 13. it doth clearly faile him as the Reader may see in my examination of his Conclusions from the Text. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 55. God charged Christ with sin as the supreme Law-giver and Judge Christ accepts the charge as a Surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of Justice which is the part of a Surety And in the said page God cannot be just without a judicial imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety And in pag. 34 28 and 136. he saith It was requisite that Christ should be made sin i. e. that the guilt of sin should be legally imputed to him 2 Cor. 5. 21. Reply 10. These speeches and others do imply that God could not impute our sins to Christ unless he had been first a legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam but that hath been all along denied and disproved and therefore now except Mr. Norton can more clearly prove than hitherto that Christ was a true legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam All that he hath said hitherto about Gods imputing our sins to Christ will come to nothing As for his great proof that Christ was such a legal Surety from Heb. 7. 22. it shall have a full examination and reply in my Reply to his third Argument and touching his many proofs of imputation from 2 Cor. 5. 21. See more there But saith Mr. Norton pag. 70. Through anguish of soul he had clods rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body a thing which was neither seen nor heard before nor since The true reason thereof is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Reply 11. Touching his sweating clods of blood I have replyed in Luk. 22. 44. if it were clods of blood doubtless it was miraculous and if it were miraculous how is that a proof that it was caused from the pressure of the sense of Gods wrath But I beleeve his Agony was from natural causes namely because his pure nature did so much abhor that ignominious and painful death which he did grapple withall in the garden and I beleeve if Mr. Norton had made his Agony to proceed from the voluntary cause conflicting in his earnest prayers with Satans temptations and with the natural fear of death untill he had overcome that natural fear that so he might perform his oblation in all exact obedience according to Gods positive Covenant he had come far nearer to the true cause of Christs Agony than by making his Agony to proceed from the compulsory cause Being pressed under the wrath of God it seems his word pressing doth allude to that violent constraint that is used to press out the blood of grapes but yet it is also beyond it because he makes the wrath of God to press out clods of blood in Christ it makes me tremble at such expressions of violence from Gods immediate wrath against Christ But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 219. As Christ was guilty of our sin so also he was sensible of an accusing conscience and a little after saith he the question is not whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently but whether he may not be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively Reply 12. In words Mr. Norton saith Christ was not guilty of our sins inherently but his arguing doth prove him a sinner inherently for his whole drift is to prove that Christ suffered the essential torments of hell and the second death and none can possible suffer the second death until they be first inherently guilty of the first death of sin 2 If he was polluted with our sin by Gods imputation as Mr. Norton holds then his death and sacrifice must needs be abominable in the sight of God But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 123. The Divine Nature was angry not onely with the Humane Nature but with the person of the Mediator because â—of sin imputed to him Reply 13. Mark the dangerousness of this Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ for here Mr. Norton makes God to be angry with Christ because of sin imputed to him as to our Mediator in both his Natures and so all along he makes Christ as God Man to be our Surety and so sin to be imputed to him in both his Natures But Mr. Burges on Justific p. 176. saith That Christ as God Man was not bound by any imputation of our guilt And he cites Zanchy for this The fore-quoted Author saith he makes this objection to himself How Christ could be said to be freed from the guilt of sin who had no sin He answereth the person of Christ is considered two waies 1. In it self as God Man and so Christ was not bound by any guilt 2. as appointed Head and so representing our persons in this respect God laid our iniquities upon him Isa 53. My drift in citing this is to shew That such learned Divines as Zanchy and Mr. Burges is do deny that the guilt of our sins were imputed to Christ as God Man contradicting Mr. Norton therein Christ in his obeying saith P. Martyr in his Ser. on Phi. 2. became not less than his Father
sin that so he may suffer the curse of his disobedience for his sinful act in eating of the tree of Knowledge of good and evill If Mr. Norton will say that these things could not be done and suffered by Christ thence I infer that Christ then was not a Surety in the same obligation with Adam to pay his proper debt of obedience and to suffer his proper curse in kind Secondly I deny the minor namely that Christ was such a Surety that place cited to prove it in Heb. 7. 22. is miserably abused to his sense and yet he doth often cite it to prove his sense of the word Surety and he puts very great weight on the word Surety in his sense and therefore he doth repeat it above twenty or thirty times and his proof is still from Heb. 7. 22. as in pag. 85. 149 c. Therefore I will now examine the sense of the word Surety in Heb. 7. 22. and then it will appear to have a differing sense Heb. 7. 22. from Mr. Nortons sense The Text speaks thus By so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better Testament namely by so much as Gods oath is a more infallible assurance of the perpetual Priesthood of Christ above the temporary Priest-hood of Aaron and his Sons by so much is the Priesthood of Christ to intercede for us more certain than theirs For when the Covenant of the Priesthood was conferred and See Ains in Lev. 8. 36. confirmed unto the Tribe of Levi in Aaron and his Sons Lev. 8 which Covenant was life and peace Mal. 2. 5. called also Gods Covenant of peace Numb 25. 13. for God gave the office and maintenance to the Priests by Covenant Numb 18. 7 8. 1 Sam. 2. 27 35. they were made Priests without an oath because God would be at liberty to alter that Covenant also they were many Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death These Priests served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things offering gifts and sacrifices which could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscienceâ— for they were carnal Ordinances imposed on them till the time of Reformation that is until the coming of Christ who is now sprung out of the Tribe of Judah and was made a Priest of God with an oath and a Surety of a better Testamental-Covenant established upon better promises and because he continueth for ever he hath a Priesthood that passeth not from him to another Secondly Dr. Hammon doth thus paraphrase upon Heb. 7. 20. 21 22. God sware and will not repent which saith he is an argument of the immutability and weightiness of the matter and of the ternal continuance of this Priesthood of Christ and so of the preheminence of it beyond the Aaronical which was not established by God with an Oath and so much as a durable immutable and eternal Priesthood is better than a transitory mutable and final Priesthood such as the Levitical being fixt in mortal persons one succeeding the other and as was it self mortal not to last any longer than till the coming of Christ so much better was that Covenant wherein Christ was Sponsor and Surety for God that it should be made good to us on Gods part confirmed to us by Christ in the Gospel a better Covenant than that of the Law wherein Moses undertook for God to us This Scripture thus expounded is so far from confirming Mr. Nortons sense of the word Surety that it utterly over-turnes it For this Exposition makes Christ to be Gods Priest and Gods Surety to us but Mr. Norton makes this Surety to be our Surety to God in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant The Priests in the Law were ordained by God to make attonement for the people for their ceremonial sins by sprinkling the blood of their sacrifices on the Altar for their attonement but Christ was ordained by an oath first made to David Psa 110. That he would raise a Priest out of his loyns after the order of Melchisedech and that by his own blood he should make attonement to assure their conscience of the pardon of all their moral sins and so he should be Gods Surety of a better Testamental-Covenant as Mr. Ainsworth translates it for the greek signifies both a Covenant and a Testament It is called a Covenant saith Mr. Ball in respect of the manner of agreement and a Testament in respect of the manner of Ball on the Coven p. 196 confirming a Covenant in respect of God a Testament in respect of Christ who dyed as a Testator and confirmed by his death the testamentary promise made before of God for the obtaining of the eternal inheritance by the remission of sins Hence I conclude that this word Surety in Heb. 7. 22. cannot be understood of Gods making Christ to be our Surety in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant Secondly For his proof of the consequence of his Argument by Rom 3. 31. I refer the Reader to my Reply to his eighth Argument Thirdly He confirms his Argument by this Reason We are to know saith he that the Covenant of Grace it self obligeth us to fulfill the Covenant of Works in our Surety Thirdly I grant that the Covenant of Grace doth oblige â—â— to observe the moral Law as a Rule of our sanctified walking as I have shewed at large in my exposition of Lev. 18. 5. in cha 2. sect 2 But the Covenant of Grace doth not obligue us to fulfill the first Covenant of Works given to Adam for the Covenant was about things indifferent in their own nature and it was but temporary to last no longer than till the trial of Adams obedience or disobedience was made by one act as I have shewed in Chap. 2. 2 In case the first Covenant had been made in relation to the De Reconc pec p. 2. l. 1. c. 3. n. 4. c. 5. n. 7. moral Law of Nature yet in that sense Mr. Norton doth answer such an Argument as this gathered from Illyricus and Hemingius drawn from Rom. 3. 31. and I beleeve a judicious Reader will find more satisfaction in his reasoning than in Mr. Nortons But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 11. The word Better is not to be referred to either Covenant it self but to the manner of the despensation of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel Reply It is evident that the word Better is to be referred to the Covenant of Grace which is better than the outward legal ceremonial Covenant But it seems to me that Mr. Norton doth not understand the Apostles comparative Argument how Christ was made a Surety of a better Covenant but for the Readers information I will open my understanding of the word better Covenant First Consider that God made two Covenants with his people Israel at Mount Sinai First An outward typical Covenant Secondly an inward spiritual Covenant namely a Covenant of Works and
a Covenant of Grace and both these are comprehended in the ten Commandements The Ceremonial outward worship is called the first Covenant and to it did belong Dicaiomata Ordinances of Divine Service Heb. 1. 9. which in Ver. 10. are called carnal Ordinances or Decrees as M. Ainsworth expresseth it in Ps 2. 7. Some translate Dicaiomata Justifications as I noted before on Gal. 4. 4. And in Dan. 8. 14. when the Temple was ceremonially cleansed it is said to be Tzedek justified and so likewise all such as were legally cleansed were justified as to their personal appearing in Gods Sanctuary but Mr. Ainsworth doth translate it just Ordinances or Righteous Statutes in Numb 31. 21. The same word saith he Paul useth in Rom. 2. 26. If the uncircumcision keep the Ordinances or righteous Statutes of the Law namely in the spiritual signification and in Rom. 8. 4. That the Ordinance or righteous Statute of Note that Ro. 8. 4. is no proof that Christ kept the moral Law for our righteousnes by Gods imputation because it alludes to the Ordinances of the Ceremonial Law as Ains the Dialogue do carry it the Law might be fulfilled in us And so in Deut. 4. 1. the word Ordinances doth there denote the ceremonial Ordinances as Circumcision the Tabernacle and all the other outward services of the Sanctuary these are called the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. and the outward performances of these Services though they wanted faith to make a spiritual application did ex opere operato justifie their persons in respect of their coming into Gods presence in his Sanctuary but this first Covenant was ordained but for their present Tutorship and therefore at the coming of Christ they are said to wax old and to be ready to vanish away Heb. â— 13. And by three things all Israel did enter first into this Covenant of Works 1. By Circumcision Exod. 12. 48. 2. By Baptism Exod. 19. 10. 3. By Sacrifice Exod. 24. 5. See Ains in Gen. 17. 12. This first Covenant was confirmed with the blood of Beasts to assure them that if they did carefully observe the Ordinances of it they should be justified and cleansed from their ceremonial sins and then they might freely come unto Gods presence in his Sanctuary or else they might not under the penalty of being cut off as I noted before on Gal. 4 4. The Ordinances of this Covenant were written in a Book which is called the book of the Covenant 2 King 23. 2. Deut. 24. 4 7. See Ains in Psa 25. 10. But this Covenant of Works did not disanull the Covenant of Grace that was confirmed 430 years afore of God in respect of Christ Gal. 3. 17. This Covenant was also confirmed by the blood and death of beasts Heb. 9. 18 19. and the people entred into an oath and a curse if they kept not this Covenant Deut. 29. 12. Nehem. 10. 29. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said behold the blood of the Covenant that Jehovah hath stricken with you concerning all these words Exod 24. 7 8. and thus the first Covenant or Testament was not dedicated without blood Heb. 9. 18 23. and this sprinkling of blood was done with scarlet-wool and Hysop Heb. 9. 19 20. according to the manner prescribed in the Law Lev. 14. 6 7. But all these ceremonial cleansings though they were effectual by Gods Ordinance ex opere operato to justifie the outward man for their coming into Gods presence in his Sanctuary yet without Faith in Christ they had no power to cleanse the Conscience ftom their moral sins and therefore as soon as Paul was brought home to Christ he renounced all his former righteousness of the Law wherein he formerly trusted Phil. 3. 9. And saith the Apostle If the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh and if the blood of Birds and water and hysop and scarlet sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh How much more saith the Apostle shall the blood of Christ purge the Conscience from dead works Heb. 9. 13 14. Levit. 14. 7. Psal 51. 9. Numb 8. 7. Levit. 14. 8. Levit. 15. 5 18. 13. 22. with Heb. 10. 22. These ceremonial Laws did not command that which was good nor forbid that which was evil in it self and therefore saith Weems in his second volume p. 4. the ceremonial Laws are called Statutes that were not good Ezek. 20. 25. Now the Priests that did mediate between God and his people for the forgiveness of their ceremonial sins by the blood of beasts were made Priests after the Law of a carnal Commandement and therefore their office must be disanulled for the weakness and unprofitableness of it and therefore those Priests were made without an Oath because they should be changed but Christ was made a Priest by an oath after the order of Melchisedech And by so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better Testament because God by his oath made him a Surety and an unchangeable Priest for our Moral Reconciliation according to the promises of the better Testament And thus have I opened the word â—etter Covenant Mr. Norton makes the first Covenant with Adam to be the old Covenant but that is not suitable to the Apostles Argument and therfore I make the Ceremonial Covenant at Mount Sinai to be the first Covenant in the Apostles sense in this place and to be old and to be done away by the Mediator of the better new Testament by his death Heb. 9. 15. His Fourth Argument examined is this in p. 12. Either Christ suffered the punishment due to the Elect for sin or the Law remaineth for ever unsatisfied for it is as true as Salvation it self that the Elect satisfie it not in themselves Reply 1. It is as true as Salvation it self that all the Elect do in themselves suffer that dreadful death in sin that was denounced to mans nature in general in case Adam as their head in the first Covenant did eat of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil and that death is the essential curse that is there threatned as I have shewed in chap. 2. sect 3. 2. In that the Elect do escape eternal death which God ordained The Law is satisfied either by payment in kind or by that which is equivalent afterwards as a consequent of that death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. it is from Christs satisfaction It is not required by the Rules of Equity whether Divine or Humane that satisfaction for wrongs done should alwaies be made in kind or by way of counter-passion as for example in case a man in his rage should beat his Neighbor or butcher his Cattel were it as good and as just satisfaction for the supreme Magistrate to command the party wronged to exercise the like rage and cruelty on his person or live goods as it is to award him satisfaction
the exchange in Zach. 13. 1. and that most fitly because the sin namely the Sin-offering doth cause a true change in the sinner from unclean to clean and from enmity to Reconciliation These and such like phrases given to sin by the figure Metonymia shews the word to have a differing sense but not a contrary sense as Mr. Norton affirms to amuse his Reader the like happily may be said to his other Instances But for further light See what I have replied to the signification of Azab in Psal 22. 1. 4 I will now return to speak further of the Hebrew word Pagah take it without the conjugation Hiphil and then it signifies only to meet but the particular occasions of every meeting must bee sought out by the circumstances of each place where the word is used As for example 1 It signifies the meeting of the bounds of the Tribes in this or that place 2 It may signifie the meeting of time as when the Forenoon doth meet with the Afternoon or the meeting of words or the meeting of persons for this or that end either in mercy or in wrath 3 Pagah to meet is applied to Gods meeting with man or to mans meeting with God in his worship Moses and Aaron said unto Pharaoh The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us and commanded us to go into the wildernesse to offer sacrifices to him therefore wee pray thee let us go three dayes journey to sacrifice to the Lord our God lest hee meet us with Pestilence c. Exod. 3. 18. and Exod. 5. 3. So also in Numb 23. 3 4 5 15. 16. Balaam did meet the Lord with sacrifice and the Lord was pleased to meet him with words of advice what he should say to Balack In these places Pagah is put for Gods meeting with man and mans meeting with God And in Gen. 23. 8. Abraham said to the people of the land If it bee your mind that I should bury my dead meet with Ephron for mee namely meet him by way of intreaty the Seventy say Speak for mee And so Ruth said to Naomi Meet mee not to leave thee that is to say Meet me not by thy earnest intreaties to leave thee Ruth 1. 16. So Jacob met Esau namely with an acceptable present to cover his face that is to appease his anger Gen. 32. 20. as we see it did in Gen. 33. 8 10. These Instances shew that Pagah is used for a meeting in divers respects And after this manner God ordained Christ to bee our High Priest to meet the Lord with that most acceptable gift of himself Christ attoned his Fathers wrath with the Sacrifice of his body blood in a Sacrifice for it is of necessity that every Priest that meets with God to mediate his reconciliation to sinners must have such an excellent thing to offer unto God as hee will accept and therefore it must bee that which is constituted by a mutual Covenant Heb. 8. 3. and the thing appointed was the best thing that Christ had to meet God withal and that was his vital soul with his body and blood offered in perfect obedience to Gods will notwithstanding Sathan endeavoured to disturb his obedience with this present Christ did meet his offended Father that was most justly provoked by Adams sin and by our sins and so according to Covenant God accepted this Priest and Sacrifice for the attoning and the appeasing of his wrath as the word Attonement doth signifie Of which word see more in Chap. 14. pag. 142 143. In this sense I say the Father made or caused the Mediator to meet him for the iniquities of us all 1 He met his Father in his eternal Council and Contract And 2 In the execution of it Pagnin renders this verse two wayes indifferently 1 Occurrere fecit ei poenam 2 Vel rogere fecit eum pro iniquitate And both these readings may well agree to the same sense 1 He made the iniquities of us all to meet upon him namely hee made him to undertake our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice to make Attonement for them and in this sense the Dialogue hath expounded this verse 2 The Lord made him to meet for the iniquities of us all or caused him to meet him as our Priestly Mediator with the Sacrifice of his body for the iniquities of us all And thus both readings do agree to the same sense but because the last is more exact according to the Hebrew therefore now I follow that The Chaldy Paraphrase of this verse speaks thus And the So Mr. Clendou in Justification justified p. 11. Eternal is well pleased to remit the sins of us all for his sake And Tindal translates it thus But through him the Lord pardoneth all our sins From these Translations and Expositions it follows 1 That the Doctrine of Gods imputing our sins to Christ in Mr. Nortons sense was not held forth by these Translators neither can it be proved from this verse nor from any other when the right interpretation is given and Mr. Norton himself confesseth thus much in general That the guilt of our sins could not bee imputed to Christ unlesse he did first become our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam in Gen. 2. 17. But I have shewed in Chap. 2. and elsewhere with the concurrence of sundry eminent Divines that Christ was not our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam and therefore by his own confession untill hee prove that Christ was Adams Surety Gen. 2. 17. his Doctrine of Imputation is without a foundation and thence it follows that it must needs bee an unsound Assertion to hold that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his death and sufferings But yet though I deny Christ to bee our legal Surety I do notwithstanding freely grant that he undertook our cause as our voluntary Surety according to the voluntary Covenant and that he took our sins on him thus far namely to make expiation for them and to enter the Lists with Sathan and to suffer the punishments of our sins before hee made his Sacrifice as I have instanced in the punishments that men do voluntarily undergo when they strive for the Mastery with their opposite Champion 2 Hence it follows by the right Translation and Exposition of Isa 53. 6. and Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant made between the Trinity for mans Redemption by the sufferings It is evident by Isa 53. 6. by Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity for mans Redemption and by the death and sacrifice of Christ Mr. Rutherford of the Covenant proves by eleven Arguments in page 290. and by a twelfth Argument in page 307. and by a thirteenth Argument in page 316. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity The Dialogue saith thus in page 28. The true manner how the Lord laid all our sins upon Christ in Isa
a Sacrifice for sin unto salvation which is thus opened by the coherence of the Chapter in vers 12. Neither by the blood of Goats Bucks and Bulls but by his own blood hee went once for all into the holy place having found eternal Redemption for us and therefore hee comes not the second time to bee offered in sacrifice for sins but hee shall come without 〈◊〉 Sin-sacrifice unto eternal salvation as I have shewed in Ch. 3. in expounding Gal. 4. 4. But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. The person that brought his sacrifice was to put his hand upon the head thereof yet living Lev. 1. 4. as confessing his guilt and putting or imputing it upon the Beast to bee sacrifised Compare Exod. 29. 10. Lev. 4. 4 29. and 5. 5 6. and 16. 21. By the like Ceremony of Imposition of hands sin was charged both for the testifying of the accusation and the stoning of the offender Deut. 17. 7. Guilt thus typically imputed to the beast it was slain and laid upon the Altar Reply 6. The Dialogue hath cleerly shewed in page 33. That the act of imposing hands on the head of the sacrifice did typifie Prov 2â— 13. the owners faith of dependance on the true Sacrifice that hee confessing and forsaking his sins should have Gods mercy namely through the true Sacrifice he should have Gods merciful Attonement and Reconciliation But saith Mr. Norton in page 234. It is disproved that their laying on of hands did typifie their relying upon the Sacrifice of Christ for such Attonement Reply 7. I cannot as yet find it disproved and I have shewed in the Dialogue That the laying on of hands did typifie their faith of dependance in relying on the Sacrifice of Christ as the meritorious procuring cause of Gods Attonement If so then it did not signifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ and therefore that inference is a false inference and no disproving of the Dialogue But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. By the like Ceremony of Imposition of hands sin was charged both for the testifying of the accusation and the stoning of the offender Deut. 17. 7. Reply 8. This is another false inference for the accusation The Imposition of hands upon the head of the condemned person by the witnesses was to testifie their saith that the evidence they had given in against him was true Deut. 17. 7. was testified before his condemnation or else he could not have been condemned and that was done without any imposition of hands therefore this act of the witnesses in laying on their hands on the head of the condemned person was rather to testifie their own personal faith and confidence to the Throwers of stones that the testimony they had formerly given was true And thus Mr. Nortons Instance is a strong confutation of his kind of legal imputation as to the point of condemnation for this Imposition was not ordained to signifie the imputation of his sin before his sentence of condemnation 2 As for the Imposition of handâ— upon the Beast to bee slain in Sacrifice together with confession of sin It is cleer by that confession that sin was imputed to him that confessed it and not to the Beast and in that respect he presented his clean Beast to be sacrificed to reconcile God to him for his sin which he had confessed and his imposition of hands testified his faith of dependance on his typical sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement for his Ceremonial sins and typified his faith of dependance on Christ the true Sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement for his moral sins But I will not inlarge further here because the Dialogue is full in this point where the impartial Reader may find satisfaction The Dialogue saith thus If you will build the common Doctrine of Imputation upon this phrase The Lord hath 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 all our sins to himself because the Father is said to bear our sins as well as Christ in Psal 32. 1. and Psal 25. 18. Mr. Norton doth thus answer in page 46. This is but one place of very many whereupon the doctrine of Imputation is builded Reply 9. The Reader may please to take notice of this confession but why then doth himself make so much use of this Scripture to prove his kind of Imputation seeing now at last he grants it to be no sure proof for saith he This is but one place of very many whereon the doctrine of Imputation is builded and yet I find it as much used for that purpose as any Scripture except 2 Cor. 5. 21. 2 The Dialogue doth not deny but affirm that Christ bare our sins both as a Porter bears a burden in his conflict with Sathan according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. and also as our Priestly Mediator in procuring Gods Attonement for our sins by his propitiatory Sacrifice The Dialogue also affirmeth that God the Father bears or bears away our sins as a reconciled supreme by acquitting us of our sins upon satisfaction received by the said propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ But Mr. Norton makes a wrong sense of the Dialogue in this point as if the Dialogue held that the Creditor paid the debt because he is said to discharge the Debtor But I refer the Reader for satisfaction to my Reply to what Reconciliation is in Chap. 14. c. But saith Mr. Norton in page 46. Sure you mistake your self in arguing out of this Text from the word Nasa for Nasa iâ— not in the Text. Reply 10. I never said that Nasa was in this Text of Isa 53. 6. I cited Nasa only from Psal 32. 1. and from Psal 25. 18. where the Father is said to bear our sins and from thence the Dialogue doth reason to our translated term in Isa 53. 6. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all And hence the Dialogue doth reason thus If this phrase of laying upâ—â— and so consequently of bearing in Isa 53. 6. doth imply that Christ did bear the guilt of our sins by Gods imputation then by that phrase the Father must bear the guilt of our sins also for he is said to bear our sins in Ps 32. 1. and in Ps 25. 18. This Argument is unavoidably true by building the doctrine of Imputation upon that phrase 2 By this nimble catch of Mr. Nortons hee would â—ave thâ—â— Reader to beleeve that the Dialogue holds that which it holds not but I have more fully answered to this cavil in Chap. 12. Sect. 1. and there I have shewed how Mr. Norton hath wronged the sense of the Dialogue in other places also But saith Mr. Norton in page 49. There is a difference between an act typifying Gods imputation of sin unto Christ and an act testifying our faith concerning Gods imputation of sin unto Christ And saith he You should have produced your Expositors
and by 4 Mr. John Goodwin in his Elaborate Treatise of Justification doth shew from the judgement of the orthodox that nothing in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is there spoken touching the imputation In Vindiciae fidei part 2. pag. 165. of our sins to Christ and saith he of all the Scriptures that men take up for the plea of the imputation opposed Mr. Gataker hath well observed that this Text is most cleer and pregnant against themselves But saith Mr. Norton in page 54. The Sin offering is so called because sin was typically imputed to it and it is said saith he to be for sin because it was offered for the expiation of sin Reply 2. Mr. Norton affirms it was called sin because sin was typically imputed to it but he brings no Scripture to prove it and therefore it must passe for no better than a fiction 2 The Dialogue shews in page 41. that Psal 40. 6. doth call the Sin-offering by no other addition but Sin but the Dialogue saith that the Apostle in Greek doth expound it for sin in Heb. 10. 6. the Apostle doth joyn the particle For to the word Sin by which means hee doth teach us that the Sin-offering was not typically made sin by confession of sin and by imposition of hands upon the head of it the particle For is not suitable to that sense and so the Hebrew Text doth sometimes explain it self by joying the word For to the word Sin The Sin shall be killed before the Lord it is most holy Lev. 6. 25. and then it is explained in verse 26. The Priest shall offer it for Sin hence I reason thus if it had been made sin typically by Gods imputation it Lev. 6. 26. could not have been called Most holy neither had it been accepted as a sacrifice for Sin Lev. 6. 26. and so also the word For is annexed in Lev. 9. 15. Lev. 4. 14. But saith Mr. Norton in page 54. If Christ be made sin for us in the same sense that the water of Purification and the Trespass mony is called Sin then Christ was made sin only figuratively consequently suffered for sin figuratively not properly Reply 3. A byassed spirit is apt to pick an exception against the cleerest expressions the Dialogue speaks plainly that the water of Purification was called Sin Numb 19. 9. not in respect of any sin that was typically imputed to it nor was it called Sin because it was imployed to any sinful use but because it was ordained in the prescript use of it to cleanse the sinner ex opere operato from all such ceremonial sins as he was defiled with See Ains in Num. 19. 9 12. c. it was called Sin-water as the Sin-offering was called Sin because it was the water of Purification from sin and because it sanctified the unclean to the purifying of the flesh Num. 8. 7 21. and because it figured the blood of Christ which only purgeth the conscience from dead works that is to say from moral sins Heb. 9. 13 14. Now the Heb. 9 13 14. Argument of the Dialogue is plain namely that as the water of purification was called Sin because it did truly cleanse the sinner from the outward contagion of his sins whether moral sins that were done unadvisedly or ceremonial sins for which chiefly the Sin-water was ordained that being cleansed therby they might then approach to Gods presence in his Sanctuary or else not upon pain of cutting off Num. 19. 20. The like Reply I might also make for the Levitical phrase taken from the Redemption-mony that was imployed or part of it at least to buy the publick Sin-offerings and Trespasse-offerings it was called Sin-mony and Trespasse-mony 2 King 12. 16. Neh. 10. 32 33. not because any sin or trespasse was imputed to the mony as if it had been sinfully gotten or sinfully imployed but because it was imployed to buy the said Sin-offerings and Trespasse-offerings and in this sense God made Christ to be sin and to be a trespasse not by imputing the sins of the Elect to him in a judicial way but by ordaining and constituting him to be the true Sin-offering and to end all Sin-offerings and to finish Trespasse offerings and to make Reconciliation for iniquity by the Sacrifice of himself and so by this means to bring in an eternal Righteousnesse or Reconciliation Dan. 9. 24. instead of the Ceremonial Secondly saith Mr. Norton Then Christ was only made sin figuratively and suffered for sin figuratively not properly Reply 4. Christ suffered for sin properly according to Gods declared Counsel Covenant and Decree in Gen. 3. 15. in entring the Lists with Sathan but at last hee was the only Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice and in this Sin-offering he bare our sins not really by Gods judicial imputation but figuratively only he bare them from us by procuring Gods Reconciliation No Scripture faith Reverend Mr. Wotton doth make Christ to be a sinner properly But saith Mr. Norton in page 131. Wee distinguish between an inherent judicial guilt and an extrinsecal judicial guilt If Thomas saith he be judicially guilty of a capital crime inherently though Peter be guiltlesse thereof inherently yet if he be guilty thereof extrinsecally it seemeth to be no injustice for the Magistrate in case of Suretiship to put Peter to death for Thomas his crime And after these words Mr. Norton doth cite sundry instances to this purpose and at last he concludes thus in page 133. I dare almost say saith Grotius a man excelling in this kind of learning That where there is consent there is not any of those whom we call Pagans who would esteem it unjust that one should bee punished with the delinquencie of another Reply 5. By this last testimony of Grotius Mr. Norton thinks that he hath knocked the nayl home on the head and therefore he saith that Grotius was a man excelling in this kind of learning and truly so hee was though I find him to be very much out of the way in some things But in vain doth Mr. Norton labour to make Grotius his abettor for surely there is no greater opposite to Mr. Nortons imputation than he is For Grotius saith thus Some evil is sometimes imposed upon one or In his War Peace l. 2. c. 112 p. 398. some good is taken away By occasion indeed of some fault yet not so that the fault is the immediate cause of that action as to the right of doing He saith he who by occasion of anothers debt hath ingaged himself suffers evil Sponde Nâ—xâ— praesto est But the immediate cause of his obligation is his promise as hee who is become surety for a buyer is not properly bound by the bargain but by his promise So also hee who is bound for a Delinquent is not held by the delinquency but by his ingagement And hence it is that the evil to bee born by him receives its measure not from the fault of the
even the Redemption of all the Elect and thus hee broke the Devils Head-plot as our voluntary Surety but this kind of voluntary Surety is as far distant from Mr. Nortons legal Surety as a free Redeemer is from a delinquent Surety 8 Hence it follows also that in Grotius judgement there is a very wide difference between a Surety for mony-matters and a Surety in criminal cases but these kinds of Sureties are confounded by Mr. Norton without distinction or else hee would never have brought the instance of Pauls ingaging to Philemon verse 18. to exemplifie Christs obligation to his Philemon v. 11 punishments 9 Hence it follows That though a man may lay down his life for others as voluntary Sureties in divers cases as Mr. Weams shews in his four Degenerations page 358. yet not as legal bounden Sureties But saith Mr. Norton in page 223. The Doctrine of Imputation is not a doctrine of late dayes only The Reader that pleaseth may bee fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius who at the end of his defence of the Catholick Faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ against Socinus hath gathered together the Testimonies of many of the Ancients still extant to this purpose from Irenaeus Anno Christ 180. untill Bernard who lived 1120. Reply 6. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Grotius and the Testimonies of the Ancient Divines for the defence of his kind of legal imputation seeing they differ from him as much as truth doth from error Mr. Anthony Wotton doth learnedly dispute against that De Recon pec part 2. l. 1. c. 18. Sect. 10. kind of imputation which Mr. Norton holds and yet hee doth approve of that kind of imputation which the Ancient Divines held If saith he any man say That by accounting Christ a sinner they mean no more but that God deals with him as if he did account him to be a sinner this though it be true would not avail them for thereby they overthrow the foundation that they laid That Christ could not be a sacrifice for sin except hee were first made guilty of our sins such an imputation of our sins to Christ I think no Divine will deny I am sure saith hee it hath warrant enough from the Fathers And in Sect. 11. he cites some of the Fathers speaking thus He suffered him to be condemned as a sinner and to dye as one accursed For cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree Chrysost in Homil. 11. on 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Theophilact on 2 Cor. 5. 21. saith He made him subject to death for us and to dye as if hee had been a notorious offender And saith he in Sect. 12. Other imputation than this I find none in the Scripture for whereas it is said in Isa 53. 12. Isa 53. 12. Hee was numbred with the Transgressors This doth Mark expound of his bodily death at the time of his crucifying and it sheweth mens dealing with him and not Gods opinion of him And with him they crucified two Theeves the one on his right hand and the other on his left and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith And he was numbred with the Transgressors Mark. 15. 27 28. Mar. 15. 27 28 And saith he in Sect. 13. Neither can any man find any other imputation in the writings of the Ancient Divines than that hee took on him to expiate for our sins by his blood and sacrifice according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. Heb. 10. 10. Therefore wee may conclude that our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ might bee a sacrifice for sin or dye as a sinner although our sins were not so imputed to him that God accounted him to be guilty of them And saith he in Sect. 14. This also may yet further appear because his sacrifice was such as might bee without such imputation for it was the price of our Redemption as I shewed in part 1. lib. 2. cap. 10. n. 5 6. But there may well be and ordinarily is Redemption by a price without any kind of imputation And you may also see what hee speaks further to this point in Sect. 7. In these words of Mr. Wotton the Judicious may please to take notice that Mr. Wotton doth confidently affirm these two things 1 That there is no other imputation of sin to Christ in all the Scripture than such as he hath cited out of Chrysostome and Theophilact 2 That no man can find any other imputation in the wrirings of the Ancient Fathers 3 Let me adde this Testimony of Mr. Wotton both from my own knowledge and from the testimony of other eminent Christians that Mr. Wotton was a man of approved integrity one that suffered much for Christ through the iniquity of the times a man of great reading in all kind of Writers both Ancient and Modern and a man of deep judgement And his book of Reconciliation was printed in his old age after much debate and study and revising and therefore what hee saith in this point of imputation ought not and will not bee slighted of the Judicious The wise will understand 4 Hence it follows That the Reader that pleaseth may yet bee more fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius that this affirmation of Mr. Wottons is a manifest truth namely That our sins were no otherwise imputed to Christ but as hee bare our punishments in his body on the Tree according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. 5 Hence it follows That Grotius had good reason to produce such testimonies from the Ancient Divines against Socinus because as I perceive by several Writers Socinus denied Christs sufferings to belong to the meritorious cause of Christs satisfaction 6 On the other hand I do also beleeve that Grotius did as much oppose Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as hee did Socinus Tenent for I have shewed in my former Reply that Grotius held the obligation to legal punishments to arise from merit and that merit is personal Secondly It is further evident that Grotius did oppose Mr. Nortons kind of imputation because hee doth oppose the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the formal cause of our justification for thus hee saith The righteousnesse Grotius in his Appendix to God and his Providence p. 83. 96. and in his War Peace part 1. ch 36. which they call imputative the meer devices of men are thrust upon us instead of divine Dictates And saith hee in his War and Peace The death of Christ was not determined by any Law but by a special Covenant But Mr. Norton holds that both the Incarnation and the Death of Christ was legal obedience quite contrary to Grotius These things considered I cannot but stand and wonder what Mr. Norton will now say to Grotius surely if he will still hold to Grotius then hee must first renounce his own Tenents for Grotius doth fully overthrow both Mr. Nortons comparative Arguments cited in the beginning of this Chapter 7 Hence also it followeth that the imputation of our sins to
in Rom. 3. 21. but not so clearly as here these meditations on Rom. 10. 3. were his last meditations on that phrase and therefore his best for by this time he had the advantage of more â—eading and meditation to clear up his full mind and meaning And see what he saith further of Gods Righteousness which I have cited in the Exposition of Rom. 3. 26. Secondly Mr. Norton de Reconc pec par 2. l. 1. c. 20. saith at Sect. 4. That 2 Cor. 5 21 doth comprehend the same Righteousness which the Apostle may well say is the end or effect of the oblation of Christ The Righteousness of God And saith he it comprehends the righteousness which may be required to the justification of a sinner And in Sect. 5. saith he in the second place I answer That the righteousness of God in the places alleged may fitly rightly enough be expounded of remission of sins for it is plain enough saith he that in all these places is handled the formal cause of Justification which saith he I have taught is contained in Remâ—ssion of sins in par 1. l. 2. c. 17. But remission of sins may well be called the righteousness of God because it is a righteousness approved by God And indeed Calv. Iâ—sti l. 3. c. 11. n. 9. doth so interpret the righteousness of God to be a righteousness that is approved of God Thirdly Mr. Bale on the Covenant in p. 72. calls the righteousness of God in Phil 3. 9. and in 1 Cor. 5. 21. the remission of sins By the Righteousness of God saith he understand remission of sins and regeneration and consider what he saith in the place immediately cited Fourthly Sedulius in Râ—m 3. 21. calls the Righteousness of God there the remission of sins Fifthly Tindal doth thus open the Righteousness of God in Rom. 10. 3. The Jews saith he were not obedient to the Justice or Righteousness that commeth of God which is the Rom. 10. 3. See Tindals works p. 381. forgiveness of sin in Christs blood to all that repent and beleeve And saith he in p. 30. By reason of which false righteousness they were disobedent to the Righteousnesse of God which saith he is the forgiveness of sin in Christs blood And Tindal in his Prologue to the Romans shews first How we are justified by the Righteousness of God the Father Secondly How we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ Thirdly How we are justified by Faith And in all these he speaks just according to the sense expressed in the Dialogue 1 Saith he When I say God justifieth us understand thereby that for Christ his sake merit and deservings onely he receiveth us unto his Mercy Favor and Grace and forgiveth us our sins 2 Saith he When I say Christ justifieth understand thereby that Christ onely hath redeemed us and brought and delivered us out of the wrath of God and damnation and with his works onely hath purchased us the favor of God and the forgiveness of sins 3 When I say that Faith justifieth understand thereby that faith and trust in the Truth of God and in the Mercy promised us for Christs sake and for his deservings onely doth quiet the conscience and certifie her that our sins are forgiven and we in full favor of God And in p. 187. he abreviates the speeches thus In his works p. 187. The faith saith he of true beleevers is First That God justifieth or forgiveth Secondly That Christ deserveth it Thirdly That Faith and trust in Christs blood receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof And in p. 225. he doth again repeat it thus God doth justifie actively that is to say forgiveth us for full righteous 2. Christs love deserveth it And 3. Faith in the Promises receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof Thus you see that Tindal doth fully express himself in the very sense of the Dialogue And this Doctrine hath been generally received of the godly in the days of King Henry the eighth and in the days of King Edward the Sixth by the generality of the learned and it hath been often printed not onely in his Books but also in his Bible in his Prologue to the Romans and it hath been transcribed and printed by Marbock in his Common places though now this antient received Truth is by Mr. Norton and some few others counted both for novelty and heresie And thus have I shewed from five eminent Orthodox Divines that the Righteousness of God the Father to sinners it nothing else but his reconciliation as it is defined by the Apostle by not imputing sin in v. 19. which is also called the Righteousness of God in ver 21. And therefore it follows necessarily that the true sense of the one and twentieth verse according to the context is this 1 That God the Father from the voluntary cause and Covenant made or constituted Christ to be a Sin Sacrifice for us namely to procure Gods Reconciliation for us 2 That the performance of the said Sin-Sacrifice is in Rom. 5. 18. called Dicaioma not Dicaiosune the righteousness of Rom. 5. 18. Christ because it was his obedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant and not because it was his moral obedience as Mr. Norton doth mis-interpret it in p. 230. 3 That God the Father did Covenant on his part to and with Christ that for his Sin-Sacrifice sake he would be reconciled to sinners as soon as they are in Christ by Faith by not imputing their sins to them and this performed on God the Fathers part is by the Apostle called the righteousness of God because he performs according to his positive Law and Covenant and by this righteousness of God he is reconciled to all beleeving sinners and so by this means they are thereby made fully righteous in his sight 4 From the said righteousness of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-Sacrifice it follows That as by one mans disobedience to Gods meer positive Law in eating Rom. 5. 19. the forbidden fruit the many as well as the Reprobates are made sinners by the meritorious cause of his disobedience So by the obedience of one namely of Christ to a meer positive Law in undertaking to combate with Satan and to continue obedient to the death of the cross and at last to make his Soul a Sacrifice the many are made righteous Rom. 5. 19. for by this obedience of his to the said positive Law and Covenant he hath merited not onely their conversion by the Holy Ghost but also the Fathers reconciliation for their justification by not imputing their sins to them So then the comparison that is made between the first Adam and the second lies in the meritorious cause for as the first Adam merited the death of sin to all his posterity by his disobedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant so the second Adam merited the life of Gods Spirit and of Gods forgiveness by his obedience to Gods positive Law in
merciful is as much as I will bee Reconciled or Attoned to their unrighteousness for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Septuagint to express the force of the Hebrew word Caphar in Deu. 21. 8. and it is there used for Deut. 21. 8. Gods Attonement or Expiation and therefore this expression I will be merciful may as well bee translated I will bee pacified or I will be reconciled or I will be attoned to their unrighteousness and will remember their sins no more And saith Nehemiah 9. 17. Thou art a God of pardons gracious and merciful And hence it is plain that Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent or a means of Gods Attonement but it is plainly a true part thereof if it bee not the whole 4 This is yet further evident because the Septuagint do also use this Greek word for the Hebrew word Nasa in Num. Num. 14. 19. 14. 19. where it is used to express Gods forgiveness by his bearing of sin away but the Septuagint express it by his being merciful or pacified or reconciled but yet in vers 18. there the Septuagint translate Nasa by bearing away 5 The Septuagint do also use this Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express Gods repentance towards sinners by forgiving and not punishing their sin as in Exod. 32. 12. Moses saith thus to God Repent of the evil to thy people but the Septuagint translate it be merciful or bee pacified or bee reconciled or bee propitious to the evill of thy people alluding in this expression to Gods Propitiatory or Mercy-seat where in type God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself by not imputing their sins to them as I have opened the Hebrew word Caphar more at large in Reply 9. 6 This kind of forgiveness for the sake of Christs sacrifice doth con-note a state of favour that the subject is put into by means thereof Psal 32. 1. as reconciliation and justification doth in 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. and therefore Gods forgiveness may well be called his merciful forgiveness or his reconciled forgiveness as Mr. Ainsworth doth open Gods forgiveness in Psal 25. 11. and therefore it is not an antecedent but a concurrent part of Gods Reconciliation or of Gods Righteousnesse for Psal 25. 11. they have but one and the same sense by the context in 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. though the terms be divers for I demand how else are wee made righteous by the Righteousness of God the Father but by his Righteousness in keeping Covenant with Christ which was to bee reconciled to beleeving sinners for the sake of his Sin-sacrifice in not imputing their sins to them And thus you see that these three terms Gods merciful forgiveness and his Reconciliation and his Righteousness in making sinners righteous by his said forgiveness do all con-note the same state of favour that the subject is put into by means thereof and so forgiveness is not antecedent but concurrent to Reconciliation and Justification 7 It is yet further evident that Christ was made sin to reconcile God withal and so to procure his forgiveness for a sinners justification by the Levitical terms given to the Sin-offering as the procuring cause of Gods reconciliation for it is often said in the Law that God ordained the Sin-offering to Lev. 6. 30. reconcile withal as in Lev. 6. 30. 2 Chr. 29. 24. Exod. 29. 36. Exod. 30. 10. Ezek. 45. 15 17. Num. 15. 30. 8 God ordained all sorts of sacrifices as well as the Sin-offering to procure Gods reconciliation by not imputing sin and therefore in this respect they are called sometimes Sacrifices of Attonement as in Exod. 30. 10. and sometimes sacrifices of righteousness as in Deut. 33. 19. Psal 4. 5. Psal 51. 19. Deut. 33. 19. Psal 51. 19. as I have shewed in Reply 7. And why else are sacrifices of Attonement called sacrifices of Righteousness but because in their legal use they did ex opere operato procure Gods reconciliation in not imputing their legal sins to them and that was their legal righteousness For the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh And hence the Apostle doth argue How much more shall the blood of Christ be of force to procure Gods reconciliation in not imputing sin and so to cleanse the conscience from moral sins for our eternal righteousness and therefore answerable to the types God ordained Christ by his positive Law and Covenant to bee our Burnt-offering our Peace-offering our Trespass-offering our Meat-offering and our Sin-offering as the perfection of all the rest For by his one offering once offered hee ended the use of all Trespass offerings and finished Sin offerings and made reconciliation for iniquity and so brought in or procured an everlasting Righteousness Dan. 9. 24. instead of their Dan. 9. 24. Ceremonial reconciliation which was their Ceremonial righteousness for Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary And to this full sense doth Daniel speak in his prayer Dan. 9. 7. O Lord Righteousness belongeth unto thee that is to say merciful forgiveness Dan. 9. 7 16. or reconciliation and in vers 16. O Lord according to all thy righteousness let thine anger be turned away But the Septuagint render it O Lord according to thy mercy let thine anger be turned away namely according to all thy accustomed types of making humbled and beleeving sinners righteous by thy merciful forgiveness and Attonement Let thine anger bee turned away and justifie us to bee thy people by not imputing our sins to us and in this sense the penitent Publican said O Lord be merciful to me a sinner and so hee went away justified by Gods merciful attonement and forgiveness which was the very thing he prayed for 9 Sin till it is forgiven doth cause an enmity between God and the sinner and till God is reconciled by the Sacrifice of Christ it continues the enmity but then and not till then sin is forgiven and then and not till then God is at rest and is pacified and quieted And for this cause all Sacrifices of Attonement were ordained to procure a savour of a rest unto Jehovah Exod. 22. 18 25 41. Levit. 1. 9. Numb 28. 6 8. Levit. 4. 31. Levit. 17. 6. Numb 15. 3. Ezek. 20. 40 41. But the Septuagint translate it A sweet savour of rest and their phrase the Apostle followeth saying Christ hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a smell of sweet savour Eph. 5. 2. But the smell of Sacrifices broyled in the fire materially considered was no sweet smell but formally considered as they were ordained by Gods positive Covenant to procure his Attonement and as they were types of Christs Sacrifice so only are they said to bee of a sweet-smelling savour because they procure his pardon and so they quiet Gods Spirit as sweet smels do quiet and rejoyce our senses therefore Gods forgiveness is not an
3. and then it follows in ver 4. That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us or Rom. 8 4. that the Justification of the Law may be fulfilled in us as Tremelius and the Syriack and the vulgar Latin do translate the Greek word Dicaioma that is here used But here it may be demanded what kind of Righteousness or Justification of the Law doth Dicaioma mean should be fulfilled in us The Answer is Not the righteousness of the moral Law as Mr. Norton doth mis-interpret this Text in p. 233. but the righteousness that was typified by the positive Ordinances of the ceremonial Law for the Greek word here used is not Dicaiosune which is the largest word for all kind of righteousness but Dicaioma which is more restrained to the positive Ordinances and which in proper English doth signifie the just Ordinance or the righteous estate of the Law namely either of the Ceremonial or Judicial Laws but especially of the Ceremonial Laws as Mr. Ainsworth sheweth in Numb 31. 21. in Gen. 26. 5. in Deut. 4. 1 14. and in Psal 2. 7. 2 This is the true interpretation of Dicaioma as it is further evident because the Apostle doth use this word to describe the nature of their legal justifications of divine Service in Heb. 9. 1. 10. which he calls carnal justifications in vers 10 as Mr. Dickson and others have well observed 3 This word is also used by the Septuagint for the righteous making of things as well as of persons that were ceremonially unclean for no dead things or unreasonable creatures are guilty of moral sins but by Gods positive Ordinance they may bee guilty of Ceremonial sins Numb 31. 19 20 21 22 23 24. 4 Hence it follows That this kind of positive ceremonial righteousness was typical to such as had faith in the observation of these Statutes to look from the typical ordinances of cleansing and righteous making to the positive sacrifice of Christ as the perfection of all the typical cleansings for that only was ordained to procure Gods eternal Reconciliation in not imputing sin for the cleansing of the conscience from moral sins therefore such as did thus keep the Statutes and Ordinances of Righteousness as Zachary and Elizabeth did Luke 1. 6. should obtain thereby an everlasting Righteousness in Gods sight instead of the Ceremonial And this Doctrine is cleerly taught and expressed in Deut. 6. 24 25. I say from these â—erses it is plain that their outward Deut. 6. 24 25. and legal observations of their positive Statutes did make them righteous or justifie their bodies as fit persons for Gods holy presence in his holy Sanctuary and for feasting with him as their attoned God in Covenant on the flesh of their Passovers and Peace-offerings and so it typifies true justification and therefore their careful doing of these typical Ordinances had an outward blessing promised as to persons that were outwardly justified as well as they which had faith in Christ had the promise of Gods Reconciliation for their eternal justification 5 This word Dicaioma is used by the Septuagint to express their outward righteousness or justification by their exact care in observing the positive judicial Laws of Moses And for this also see Ainsworth in Exod. 21. 1. Num. 15. 15. But as I said before it is chiefly applyed to the positive Statuâ—es that concerned Gods worship in his Sanctuary and so to the judicial positive Statutes as they did chiefly respect their judicial trials about their Ceremonial righteousness and their justification thereby in his Sanctuary as these places do evidence in all which the Septuagint use the word Dicaioma for that kind of righteousness chiefly as in Gen. 26. 5. Exod. 15. 25 26. Lev. 25. 18. Numb 27. 11. Numb 30. 16. Numb 31. 21. Deut. 4. 1 5 8 14 40 45. Deut. 5 1 37. Deut. 6. 1 2 17 20 24 25. 2 King 17. 13 34 37. Psal 18. 22. Psal 50. 16. Psal 98. 31. Psal 105. 45. Psal 119. 5 8 12 16 23 33 48 54 71 80 112 117 135 145 155 171. Psal 47. 19. and Ezek. 26. 37. 6 This word Dicaioma is by our Translators rendred Justification in Rom. 5. 16. and that most fitly because it doth in Rom. 5. 16. that place set out the true nature of our eternal justification in Gods sight by his gracious forgiveness as being the truth of their legal and typical justifications for the Apostle doth reason here about justification in the same manner as hee did in Heb. 9. for there hee reasons thus If saith hee the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean doth sanctifie to the purifying or justifying of the flesh namely by procuring Gods Attonement as I have explained the matter a little before then saith hee How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works namely by obtaining Gods Attonement for your moral sins as it is the truth of the typical justification And just after this sort doth the Apostle reason in Rom. 5. 16. The free gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness Rom. 5. 16. is of many offences to justification The tongue of Angels cannot express the true nature and form of our eternal justification plainer than in the words of this 16. verse but for further light I will cite Tindals Translation thus And the gift is not over one sin as death came through one sin of one that sinned For damnation came of one sin to condemnation but the gift came to justifie from many sins 7 This word Dicaioma is by our Translators rendred Righteousness in Rom. 5. 18. By the Rightoousness of one namely by the righteousness of Christ in obeying Gods positive Law and Covenant by making his soul a Sin-offering as soon as hee had finished his combate with Sathan according to his Covenant with his Father The free gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness of many offences as it is expressed in vers 16. came upon all men to righteousness or to the justification of life So called to distinguish it from the legal justification for our spiritual death in sin entred upon all men by Adams transgression of Gods positive Law verse 12. and here life from that death is procured by the obedence of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-sacrifice 8 This is also worth our observation that this word Dicaioma is used by the Apostle to express both the meritorious cause of our justification in verse 18. by the righteousness of Christ in his death and the formal cause of our justification in verse 16. by Gods Attonement or forgiveness procured thereby just according to the types in the Law For first there was the meritorious cause of their legal justification by washing by sprinkling and by the blood of Buls and Goats and then followed the formal cause of their legal justification by Gods attonement procured thereby And this
is worthy of all due observation That the platform of our moral justification in the meritorious and formal causes was exemplified by Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances and therefore the Holy Ghost doth most fitly express it by this peculiar term Dicaioma And 9 Daniel doth in this order compare the true justification with the ceremonial in Chap. 9. 24. Seventy weeks Dan. 9. 24. saith hee are determined for the death of the Messiah to finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make Reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in or procure an Everlasting Righteousness instead of the ceremonial here you see that the death of Christ is put for the end and perfection of all Trespass and Sin-offerings to make an eternal Reconciliation for iniquity instead of the legal and so to bring in or procure an eternal Righteousness by Gods eternal Reconciliation instead of the legal and in this very order of causes doth Paul argue in 2 Cor. 5. 21. 10 This word Dicaiomata is by our Translators rendred the Rom. 2. 26. righteousness of the Law in Rom. 2. 26. namely the Righteousness of the ceremonial Law If saith he the uncircumcised keep the Dicaiomata the righteousnesses of the Law in the plural number namely if the uncircumcision do instead of the outward observation of the Righteousnesses of the ceremonial Law by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean which procured Gods attonement for their legal sins do by faith look to the end of these things namely to the death of Christ as the true procuring cause of Gods eternal Attonement and Absolution for the purging of their conscience from the condemning power of their moral sins shall not their uncircumcision in this case bee counted or imputed to them for true circumcision and so consequently for true justification for he that doth thus keep the Law shall live thereby as I have expounded Lev. 18. 5. But the heathen spiritual Christians do thus keep the law by faith for it is Prophesied of them That in the dayes of the Messiah they shall offer sacrifices of a greater quantity than those that were offered by the Jews under the Law of Moses Ezek. 46. 5 11. and this they must do by faith by looking from the carnal types to the spiritual things that are typified thereby And in this respect it is the prayer of all the godly in all Nations that they may be sound in Gods Statutes Psal 119. 80 112. which cannot bee till they have faith to look to the end of those things which is typified by the righteousness of those Ordinances and Statutes 11 Dr. Hammond doth also fully concur with Mr. Ainsworths exposition in Rom. 8. 4. as I have formerly noted it in Chap. 8 though it is fit also to bee here again remembred 12 As the word Righteousness so the word Law in Rom. 8. 4. and the word Law in Rom. 10. 4. which I have expounded chiefly of the Law of Rites is made good and strenthened by Rom. 10 4. these considerations and by these learned Expositors namely That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness 1 I beleeve that I have already sufficiently put the matter out of controversie that the Jews legal justifications by their washings and sacrifices did relate to his Death and Sacrifice as the end of them all as I shewed from Dan. 9. 24. and it is further evident by Tit. 2. 14 there redeeming us from iniquity and purifying by Gods Attonement is put together as cause and effect and thus Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness And I find that the word Law in the New Testament as well as the Old is to be understood chiefly of the Ceremonial Laws it is used thirteen times in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in all those places except once it must bee understood of the Ceremonial Laws and so it is often used in the Epistle to the Galathians and most for the Law of Rites or for the whole Oeconomy of Moses having respect wholly to the Law of Rites 13 It is also worthy of all due observation that none of their legal justifications did justifie them by any actual kind of purity put upon their flesh that so it might bee imputed to them for their justification but their righteousness was conveyed to them by Gods positive Ordinance even by a passive purity only by washing and purging away their Ceremonial sins and so by the blood of Buls procuring Gods attonement thereby for their Ceremonial sins for blood doth not cleanse otherwise but by procuring Gods attonement and forgiveness Blood materially considered doth not wash but defile the flesh but formally considered as it was ordained by Gods positive Law to be a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Reconciliation so only it hath a cleansing quality and accordingly it pleased God by his voluntary positive Law and Covenant to ordain that the blood of Christ should much more cleanse our conscience from dead works because it was ordained to be the meritorious procuring cause of Gods Attonement and Absolution for it is Gods Attonement as I have often said to have it the better marked that doth formally cleanse purge and purifie our conscience from dead works And this is that righteousness of sinners that is so much spoken of and typified in the Law and therefore this kind of language touching a sinners righteousness though it may seem strange to some yet it needs not seem strange to any that are but meanly acquainted with the language of the Ceremonial Types whcih is our School-master to Christ But saith Mr. Norton in page 225. Most vain is the shift of the Dialogue endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place of Rom. 10. 4. by interpreting against Text Context and Scripture these words The Righteousness of the Law only of the Righeousness typified by the Ceremonial Law Reply 4. Most vain is the shift of Mr. Norton endeavoring to avoid the strength of this place by interpreting the word Law and the righteousnes thereof of the righteousness of the moral Law both against the Text Context and Scripture as it is evident by what I have already said and as it is further evident by the context For the third verse hath a close dependance on Rom. 9. 31 32. Where the Apostle doth blame the Jews for trusting to their outward ceremonial works chiefly though they trusted also to their outward observation of the whole Oeconomy of Moses Israel which followed after the Law of righteousness hath not attained to the Law of righteousness namely they have not attained to the true righteousness that was typified by their legal righteousness because with the works of the Law they did not couple Faith to the Sacrifice of Christ as being the end of the Law Tindal on the word Righteousness in Rom. 10. 3. saith thus in pag. 381. The Jews seek righteousness in their Ceremonies which God gave unto them not
for to justifie them but to describe and paint Christ unto them Mark That he makes the word Law and the righteousness thereof to relate to their Ceremonies Ibidem They go about to establish their own righteousness and are not obedient to the righteousness that commeth of God which is the forgiveness of sin in Christs blood to all that repent and beleeve This is the coherence between the third verse and Rom. 9. 31. And from this coherence it follows in this fourth verse That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness Secondly P. Martyr on Rom. 9. 31. saith of the former interpretation thus Rom. 9. 31. In his Com. pl par 2. p. 580. Indeed I dislike it not and in his Common places he doth expound the word Law and the righteousness thereof not as Mr. Norton doth of the moral Law but of the whole Oeconomy of Moses having respect chiefly to the ceremonial Law and And see Wotton de reconc peccat par l. 1. c. 19. Mr. Wotton treads in his steps and Vindiciae fidei cites several other Orthodox to that Opinion par 2. p. 160. Thirdly Grotius expounds the Law of works in Rom. 3. 27. Grotius in his war and peace p 24. Rom. 3. 27. of the Law of the carnal commandement quite contrary to Mr. Nortons exposition for Mr. Norton doth expound this word Law in p. 177. and 189. of the Law of Nature given to Adam in his innocency but according to Grotius and according to truth it must be expounded of the Law of Works given to the Jews for their legal justification from their ceremonial sins when they appeared in Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary for it is most evident that God made a Covenant of Works with the Jews for their outward Justification when they came into his holy Sanctuary as well as a Covenant of Grace in Christ for their moral justification in his presence both here and at the day of judgement But in time namely when the Prophets ceased the carnal Jews abused this Covenant of Works as they did the brazen Serpent by trusting to it as well for their moral as for their ceremonial justification in the sight of God And against this sort of justification by works doth the Apostle Paul dispute in his Epistle to the Romans and to the Galatians c. Behold say the Hebrew Doctors it is said in the Law ye shall keep my Statutes and all my Judgements and do them Our wise men have said That keeping and doing must be applied to the Statutes See Ains in Lev. 5. 15. as well as unto the Judgements c. Now the Judgements they are Commandements the reason or meaning whereof is manifest and the good that commeth by doing of them is known in this world as the forbidding to rob and to shed blood and the commandement to honor Father and Mother But the Statutes or Ordinances are commandements the reason whereof is not known c. And all the sacrifices every one generally are Statutes or Ordinances and our wise men have said that for the services of the Sacrifices the world doth continue for by doing the Statutes and the Judgements righteous men are made worthy of life in the world to come and the Law setteth the commandement of the statute first saying and yee shall keep my Statutes and my Judgements which if a man do he shall live in them Lev. 18. 5. By this and such like testimonies which might be cited from the Hebrew Doctors we may see as in a glass how the carnal Jews understood the word Law namely of all the Oeconomy of Moses but chiefly and principally of the ceremonial Statutes and Ordinances and in that respect they put their trust in their outward observation of the said Ordinances which were indeed given them for their outward justification and by this kind of righteousness Paul was made alive until God opened his eyes to see his sinful condition by the spiritual application of the Law to his conscience Phil. 3. 9. and then from the typical he saw his inward justification And secondly This is worth marking as I mentioned before that in their legal justification no actual holiness was put upon them but onely their ceremonial sins of uncleanness were purged from them and that was their justice or justification when they stood before him in his Sanctuary for it is said That the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh but that kind of sanctification was obtained by their ceremonial purifyings which did procure Gods attonement in forgiving sin and no other Sanctification was ordained for their legal Justification Natural Philosophers saith Peter Martyr cannot be perswaded that the absolution of God procured by sacrifice did make men righteous and therefore they did not call it our righteousness P. Martyr spake these words in his last explanation of Justification and therefore though his former expressions do somewhat differ it is not so much to be stood on as on what he saith here in his last meditations but you may see that Peter Martyr held according to the ceremonial types that the pacifying of God and the procuring of his attonement by the sacrifice of Christ is a sinners righteousness I say this way of justification God was pleased to ordaine by his voluntary positive Law and Covenant with Christ which was also typified by his positive Covenant of Works with the Jews 1 It was his voluntary Covenant with Christ that upon his undertaking to make his soul a sacrifice for sin he would be reconciled to beleeving sinners by not imputing their sins to them that is to say he would justifie them from their sins by his gracious forgiveness and therefore it is Gods Righteousness according to his Covenant with Christ not to impute their sins but to justifie them formally by his non-imputation I say it again to have it the better marked That this kind of righteousness God hath constituted to be a sinners righteousness from his voluntary Covenant with Christ where the rule in all natural causes positâ caulâ sequitur effectus is not to be observed for all voluntary Causes have voluntary Effects according to the liberty of will that is in the Covenanters they by their positive Ordinance and Covenant have constituted a righteousness for sinners by the meritorious cause of Christs Sacrifice and by the formal cause of Gods reconciliation as soon as the Holy Ghost hath united them to Christ by Faith But saith Mr. Norton in p. 211. c. Pardon of sin cannot compleat Righteousness for Righteousness doth not consist in being sinless but also in being just the Heavens are sinless yet they are not just the unreasonable creature is sinless saith he in p. 209. but not righteous Reply 5. Every mean person knows that the Heavens and such like unreasonable Creatures are a subject that is not capable of forgiveness because
just as Christ said The waves of death compassed me the floods of wickedness made me Ethambesan afraid and so said Christ to his Disciples I am rounded about with the fears of death Matth. 26. 38. and the floods of wickedness make me Ethambeisthai Mat. 26. 38. very heavy or afraid as the Seventy by that word do render the Hebrew word in 2 Sam. 22. 5. 5 The Seventy use the same Greek word for fear or terror as in Cant. 6. 4 10. and in Cant. 8. 7. Eccles 12. 5. Ezek. 7. 18. The thing I aim at by citing all these Translations is to shew that Mr. Nortons definition of the word Amazed in Mark 14. 33. is larger than these Translations above cited do make it to be and larger than the context will own I do not think therefore that Christ was ever under such a degree of amazement as Mr. Nortons definition holds forth 6 Neither is his comparison suitable to express that Christ was so amazed for Mr. Norton compares the universal cessation of the exercise of all the faculties of Christs immortal soul from their several functions in his amazement to the cessation of the intellectual faculties in the time of sound sleeping any man may see that this comparison is no way fit for though the Intellects cease from exercise during the time of sound sleeping By consequence Mr. Norton doth impute the sin of unmindfulness to Christ in the time of executing his Office yet that is but to refresh nature for the better performance of its office but by Mr. Nortons definition of Christs amazement he was dis-inabled thereby from doing the proper duties of his office in the very time that he was to exercise his office it was not now a time for all the faculties of his soul to cease from their proper functions as in the time of sleeping when there is no known danger at hand as there was now Doubtless to affirm that Christ was so amazed at this time is no less than to mak◠Christ a sinner formally as I have shewed in the opening of Joh. 19. 28 30. in Chap. 4. Sect. 8. He could not be any further amazed than his perfect rational Will thought most suitable to the conditions of his Covenant which was to be touched with a quick sense of our passions when he would and as much as he would The Devil indeed did labor to deprive him of his reasonable soul as it is evident by his plotting of his ignominious and violent death and he labored to bring him into such amaze as Mr. Norton speaks of and if he could have effected it he had won the victory but blessed be God this wise servant was never no otherwise amazed but as himself pleased to trouble himself Joh. 11. 33. I confess I find the same Doctrine in M. Weams portraiture p. 248. He makes Christ forgetful in his Office as M. Norton doth by reason of the Agony astonishing his senses and thus this corrupt tenent doth spread like leven but saith Dr. Williams in p. 447. the passion of fear could not divert him from his desire nor darken his understanding nor disturb his memory nor any way hinder him in the execution of his Office But saith Mr. Norton in p. 88. He began not meerly to be amazed but also to be very heavy the word notes expavefaction which was such a motion of his mind superadded to his consternation whereby for the time he was disinabled as concerning the minding of any thing else being wholly taken up with the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God as the eye intrinsecally fixed upon some object taketh no notice of any other object before it for the while Reply 17. As I said of the former word Amazed so I say of this word very heavy it must not be stretched beyond the context But I have shewed that he hath stretched the word Amazed beyond the context therefore seeing he doth stretch this word very heavy beyond the word amazed It follows that he doth also stretch the Greek word Ademonein beyond the context Mr. Norton stretches the word very heavy in Mark 14. 33 beyond the context Try it by some Translations Tremelius doth translate the Syriack signification of this word Tristitia And Tindal doth translate it Agony And the Geneva great heaviness and Mr. Broughton full of heaviness And the Seventy by this Greek word do translate the Hebrew word Shamam in Job 18. 20. which we translate Affrighted and the Geneva Fear and Mr. Broughton Horror All these words in these translations doe well agree to that great natural fear and heaviness that Christ assumed at the sudden approach of his ignominious and painful death and the thought of it was much in his mind as it appears by his manifold speeches of it to his Apostles in Matth. 16. 21. and 17. 22 23. and 20. 18 19 24. and 21. 38. Joh. 12. 27. and therefore his mind was not dis-inabled at this time from thinking of it and it was the main request of his prayers to get a confirmation against his natural fear of it But saith Mr. Norton in p. 88. His mind was wholly taken up with the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God Reply 18. These words do make it evident why hee doth stretch the exposition of the two Greek words beyond the context namely for this very end that hee may hook in the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God upon Christs soul But I have said enough I think to confound this assertion And other Divines give another sense of Christs soul-sorrows in the Garden Dr. Lightfoot in his harmony on the New Testament p. 65. saith thus In an Agony he sweats drops like blood All the powers of hell being let loose against Christ as it never was against person upon earth before or since and that from the pitching of the field of old Gen. 3. 15. thou shalt pierce him in the heel so that it was not so much for any pangs of hell that Christ felt within him as for the assaults of hell that he saw inlarged against him that he was so full of sorrow and anguish This testimony to the truth of Gods Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. doth fully accord with the Dialogue 2 Mr. Robert Wilmot in his manuscript on Haides saith thus on the word Alwaies in Act. 2. 25. Always saith he even in his forest agonies 1 Before the sweaty Agony his soul was troubled yet then he called God Father Joh. 12. 27. 2 When he was in the Agony he could still call God Father Luk. 22. 44. and in Joh. 11. 42. he saith he knew God heard him alwaies and therefore even then he must needs have comfort 3 When he began to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most grievously tormented and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abundantly sorrowful or rounded about with sorrow yet then he could still call God Father Matth. 26. 37 38 39 42. 4 When the betrayer was come
ignominious death than by his earnest sweating prayers in which he was heard because of his godly fear But saith Mr. Norton in page 87. The word Agony in Luke 22. 44. signifies the sorrows of Combaters A true description of Christs Agony Luk. 22. 44. entring the Lists with the sense of the utmost danger of life A metaphor taken from the Passion of conflicting affections in the greatest eminentest and most sensible perils and so holding forth the sharpest of the fears of men Reply 21. This description of the word Agony I do acknowledge to bee very true and good But in his explication of it to Christ he doth again spoyl it because hee makes the Agony of Christ to be his conflicting with his Fathers vindicative wrath and with eternal death whereas according to the true sense of Scripture It was his natural fear conflicting with his ignominious torturing death which by his own Covenant with his Father he was to suffer from his combater Satan and in that respect he also covenanted that his true humane nature which he would assume from the seed of the deceived sinful woman should be eminently touched with the dread of his cruel and ignominious usage according to the true purport of Gods first declaration in Gen. 3. 15. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 87. Luke expresseth the nature of his passion in general by an Agony in Luk. 22. 44. Reply 22. I grant it was an Agony in general but not from his sufferings from Gods immediate wrath as Mr. Norton holds but from his sufferings from the malice of his Combater Satan and for the better understanding of the true nature of his agony I will ranck it into two sorts First Into his active agony in the Garden Secondly Into his passive agony or rather into his active-passive agony from the time of his apprehension to his death on the cross 1 I will speak of his active agony and that was begun in some degree before his last Supper as it is evident by Joh. 12. 27. Joh. 12. 27. with Joh. 13. 1. Now is my soul troubled and what shall I say Father save me from this hour namely from the dread of this hour but not absolutely from the hour of his sufferings as the next words do evidence but saith he for this cause came I to this hour And though it is said by a * Sometimes the passive verb is put for the active See Ainsw in Deut. 31. 17. and in Pareus reconciling the Greek in Rom. 4 3. with the Hebrew in Gen. 15. 6. he saith these two are all one God imputed Faith and Faith by God was imputed so also he poured out his soul to death Isa 53. 12. is in the Seventy and in Rom. 4. 25. he was delivered to death And saith â—all on the Covenant p. 60. Active verbs are expounded passively among the Hebrews See also Ains in Psa 36 3. 109. 13. 40 15. 122. 5. Gen. 20. 6. Lev. 26. 1 11. passive verb my soul is troubled yet in Joh. 11. 33. he is said to trouble himself And hence it follows by these two Scriptures compared that his conflicting affections were active for his sensitive will was in an absolute subjection to his rational will in which he was the absolute Lord Commander of all his affections they did his will at his beck and this excellent property belongs onely to the humane nature of Christ it is his personal priviledge for our natural passions in him were above our natural power because nature in him did never go before his will as Damasen speaks in Reply 26. 2 The thought of his sufferings was much in his mind when he was at his last Supper and therefore while he was at Supper he bad Judas to do what he had to do quickly Joh. 13. 27. and when Judas was gone about his treachery he did manifest that he had very sad apprehensions of what evils he was to suffer for Supper being ended and Jesus knowing that the father had given all things into his hands Joh. 13. 3. namely knowing that the Father had given the management of the whole combate into the hands of his true humane nature as it was accompanied with true humane passions He knew it was his duty to stir up his true humane conflicting affections in a more eminent manner than other men at the approach of his ignominious and painful sufferings according to the most eminent and tender constitution of his nature above the nature of other men 3 It is also evident that the expressions of the two Evangelists Matthew and Mark do relate to the same agony that Luke doth and therefore Tindal doth translate Ademonein Mat. 26. 37. and in Mark 14. 33. which we translate very heavy by the word Agony in both places just as he doth Agon in Luk. 22. 44. But as soon as Christ had obtained a confirmation against his said natural fear by his earnest prayers in the Garden then his inward agony by his conflicting affections had an end I say after he had by his earnest prayers obtained a confirmation he never had any more conflicting affections in the consideration of those evils he was to suffer as he had before he had prayed as I have formerly noted it But as soon as he had obtained his request by his earnest prayers then he came to his Disciples and said to them as a resolved Champion Come the hour is come Behold the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners Rise up let us go Mark 14. 41 42. namely let us not Mar. 14. 41 42. rise up to run away through fear but let us go and meet those arch-Instruments of Satan the sons of Belial aâ— Ainsw calls them in Gen. 13. 13. or as Trap saith in Matth. 26. 46. Rise let us be going to meet that death which till he had prayed saith he he greatly feared Or let us go meet my Combater Satan He speaks these words after the manner of a couragious Champion that is going to strive with his Antagonist for the mastery and the sequel shows that from this time forwards he resisted his Combater Satan unto blood for it was counted a shame for such as undertook to be Combaters to yeeld before any blood was drawn and indeed such combate as were undertaken for the tryal of the mastery were seldom determined without blood And accordingly he that did overcome his Antagonist without transgressing the voluntary Laws of the Combat was reputed by the Masters of the game to be a lawful victor and he did thereby merit the prize and unto this custom the Apostle doth allude in Heb. 12. 1 2 3. Ye Heb. 12. 1 2 3. have not yet resisted unto blood striving against sin Look therefore unto the example of that Combater Jesus Christ who is the Captain and conservator as Ains renders the word in Lev. 8. 22. of our Faith Who for the joy that was set before him indured the cross and
therefore he commanded them to be thrown into the Lions Den and to be killed as the true murtherers of Daniel in Laws esteem Dan. 6. 22 23 24. Dan. 6. 22 23 24. 4 In case Mr. Norton will still deny this Priestly power to Christ in the formality of his death and sacrifice then why hath he not hitherto made it evident by Scripture rightly expounded how else Christ was the onely Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice seeing the Dialogue did give him just occasion to clear this point more fully than as yet he hath done I find that some eminent Divines do make his own submission to be put to death formally by the Devils Instruments to be his onely priestly act in his sacrifice But for the reasons fore-alledged from Joh. 10. 17 18. and from Heb. 7. and Heb. 9. 14 15 16. It is still evident to me that his act of submission to be put to death by the Devils Instruments is not sufficient to demonstrate his active priestly power and authority for the making of his death to be a mediatorial sacrifice for then the submission of Martyrs to be put to death by Tyrants might as well be called their Priestly power to make their lives a sacrifice But I have formerly shewed First That no other death can No other act of a Priest doth make a sacrifice but such an act as doth formally take away the life of the sacrifice properly be called a sacrifice but such a death onely as is formally made by a Priest namely by such a Priest as God hath designed for that work Secondly That no other act of that Priest can make it to bee a sacrifice formally but such an act as doth formally take away the life of the appointed sacrifice 5 Saith Mr. Trap on Heb. 2. 10. The Priest was first consecrated Heb. 2. 10 compared with Lev. 8. 30. with oyle and then with blood this I do the rather mention for the better consideration of the nature of Christs Consecration to his Priestly Office First He was annointed with the oyl of gladness when he was first extrinsecally installed into the Mediators Office at his Baptism by the apparition of the Holy Ghost in shape like a Dove Matth. 3. Secondly After this he was Consecrated with blood in all his bloody sufferings Heb. 2. 10 17. with Heb. 5. 9. 6 Every consecrated Priest must have some good thing to offer to the offended party for his reconciliation to the offender Heb. 8. 3. and none knows what good thing will be acceptable to our offended God but himself and therefore he onely must both ordain the Priest and the manner of his consecration and the good thing that he will accept and the manner of the offering it And therefore it pleased God in the first Covenant to ordain typical Priests that had sinful infirmities and typical cleansings by the ashes of an Heifer and by the blood of beasts for the cleansing and purifying of the flesh from Ceremonial sins And these beasts he appointed to be First of the gentle and harmless kinds and such as would continue patient under ill usage Secondly To be such as were without spot outwardly And thirdly To be such as were without blemish inwardly that so they might be types of the perfection of Christs humane nature and of his sacrifice 1 Pet. 1. 10. as the onely good things which he had ordained to be offered by his Priestly power to purge the conscience from all our moral sins and so to bring us again to God as the Dialogue hath shewed in p. 91 c. Therefore when he came into the world he said Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldest not have but a body hast thou prepared me God that was offended knew best what good thing would be most acceptable unto him for the procuring of his reconciliation prepared a body for Christ that so it might be that worthy thing that from eternity he had appointed to be offered in the fulness of time And therefore in the fulness of time Christ said Lo I come to do thy acceptable will O God and so he took away the first typical Priests and sacrifices that he might establish the second to stand for ever Heb. 10. 5 6 7 c. By which will of God thus performed by Christ in making his prepared body a sacrifice we are sanctified or made holy and righteous again Heb. 10. 10. namely set into a state of savour Heb. 10. 10. The woâ—d Sanctifie and make holy in the Law is often ascribed to Gods attonement and forgiveness procured by sacrifice and therefore sinners that are so made holy are justified and righteous persons in Gods sight as we were in our first creation for so we must understand the word sanctified and so the legal phrase in the word sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh in vers 13. doth teach us to carry the sense and how else did the offering of Christs body sanctifie or purge the conscience as the word is in ver 14. from dead works that is to say from original and actual sin But because God was pleased to ordain that offering to be the onely meritorious procuring cause of his reconciliation attonement pardon and forgiveness So then it is Gods Attonement so procured that did sanctifie the sinner or make him holy and righteous in Gods sight in respect of his state in relation to Gods favor even as Adam was in his first Creation and the reason is so plain that he that is but observant of the typical phrases may run and read it namely because originally God created the nature of all mankind in holiness and righteousness after his own image for in case Adam had but first eaten of the Tree of life all his children should have been holy but in case he did first eat of the forbidden fruit then he and all his posterity should with him forfeit their creative purity and instead thereof become dead in sin and so be in a state of enmity with God but by Gods reconciliation and attonement procured through the sacrifice of Christ all their sins should be forgiven and so they should be again restored into their former estate of holiness and righteousness namely into Gods gracious favour again as Adam was in his innocency And saith Baxter to Molivaeus p. 181. It is the same act of God that is called constitutive justification and pardon of sin so far as Justification is taken as comprehending onely the restoring of us to the happiness that we fell from But this I perceive is a Riddle to Mr. Norton for in p. 209. he saith to be sinless is not enough to make a sinner righteous but if he will but search better into the Ceremonial Types he may see that it is Gods forgiveness from his attonement procured by legal washings and by the blood of beasts by which all Israel were sanctified or made a holy people again as the legal Heb. 9
13 14. Lev. 11. 44. Pardon of sin by Gods Attonement and a sinners righteousness is the same thing contrary to M. Nortons long discourse in p. 209 210 211 212 c. phrase doth testifie in Heb. 9. 13. and in Lev. 11. 44. and so in Exod. 29. 36 37. to Purifie and Sanctifie are Sinonimous terms and from these legal phrases the Apostle doth reason thus If the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean doth sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh Heb 9. 13. then saith he in v. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works in these two verses he compares the force of the word purge wâ—th the word sanctifie and therefore these legal phrases do teach us the nature of a sinners Justification in Gods sight for as their legal washings and cleansings by the blood of beasts c. did sanctifie or make their bodies holy because it procured Gods Attonement for the expiation of their legal sins by which they were again made fit to have communion with God in his holy Sanctuary Lev. 11. 44. and 19. 2. Num. 15. 40. and 16. 3. and 5 1 2 3. Even so it must be understood in the typical sense and therefore as often as Gods holy people were legally defiled what did God require them to do to make them holy and righteous again but to observe the Laws of their legal washings and cleansings which God ordained on purpose for the procuring of his attonement pardon and forgiveness and then they were made holy again or then they were sanctified to the purifying of their flesh Heb 9. 13. Lev. 11. 44. Numb 6. 8 9 Deut. 14. 2. 21. and 26. 16 19 Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 17. and 20. 25 26. Even so it must bee understood in the typical sense But this is needful to be remembred that this kind of holiness and sanctity by Gods attonement procured by their legal washings and sacrifices must be distinguished from that kind of sanctity and holiness that is first wrought in us by Gods Spirit in our Regeneration For this kind of holiness which we obtain by Gods Reconciliation Attonement Pardon and forgiveness may more fitly be called The satisfaction of merit For first This satisfaction of merit sets sinners in statu quo prius namely it sets them by Gods gracious voluntary positive Law and Covenant into that state of holiness and righteousness which they lost both in the legal sense by their ceremonial sins and in the moral sense by Adams sin Secondly This is further evident because the Sin-offering of Attonements in Exod. 30. 10. is translated by the Seventy the blood of the purgation of sins because in their understanding Gods attonement procured by their sin-offerings and the purgation of sins by Gods attonement is all one and this very phrase of the Seventy doth Paul apply to the merit of Christs sin-offering saying by himself he made a purgation for our sins Heb. 1. 3. Thirdly On the day of Attonement the High Priest made Attonement for all Israel To cleanse them that they might be clean from all their sins before the Lord Lev. 16. 30. Mark the phrase Lev. 16. 30. He made Attonement for their cleansâ—ng and how did he make Attonement for their cleansing but by offering their publick Sacrifices by which he procured Gods Attonement which did formally cleanse them or sanctâ—fie them or make them holy from the defilement of all theiâ— legal sins for these legal terms are synonimous and this did typifie That it is Gods Reconciliation or Attonement procured by the death and sacrifice of Christ that doth formally cleanse us from all our moral sins and by which means onely we are sanctified Heb. 10. 10. or made holy just and righteous in Gods sight as I have opened the matter more at large in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Fourthly Saith the Apostle in Heb. 10. 4. It is not possible Heb. 10. 4. that the blood of beasts should procure Gods Attonement for the expiation of our moral sins which kind of arguing of his had not concluded any thing if â—he bloody combate of Christ in his sufferings and his sacrifice by his own Priestly power had not been established by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant as the onely means to cleanse and purifie the conscience by procuring Gods Attonement for all our moral sins by the which wil of God we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all v. 10. And here Mr. Norton may see that Gods attonement and forgiveness is called sanctity and holiness to justification For the self-same gracious will of God that gave efficacy to his first positive Law and Covenant at Horeb for the sanctifying of their polluted flesh by the blood of beasts Heb. 9. 13 gave efficacy to his eternal positive Law and Covenant by the death of Christ to sanctifie or purifie the polluted conscience from dead works and therefore in verse 14. the Apostle doth infer from verse 13. How much more shall the blood of Christ who offered himself by his eternal Spirit purge your conscience from dead works and here it must be noted that the word Purge in ver 14 is of the same force with the comparative word Sanctifie in ver 13. and with the word sanctifie in chap. 10. 10. and also from this act of Christ in offering himself by his eternal spirit in ver 14. namely both as Priest and sacrifice in one and the same person he proves in ver 15 16. That he was the Mediator of the New Testament in this kind of death and so by this kind of death he got the victory over Principalities and Powers that could not put him to death formally though they had liberty to do their worst and spoiled them as a Col. 2. 15. Mark 15. 39. victorious conqueror because they could not disturb his patience by all their ill usage triumphing over them in it namely in the priestly formality of his death on the cross Col. 2. 15. and the Roman Centurion confessed in Mark 15. 39. that the formality of his death was not after the manner of other malefactors of which he had seen many to die but that it was of a transcendent nature and therefore with great admiration he said Truly this man was the Son of God Col. 1. 21 22. What other death can the Apostle mean did God ordain to reconcile us to God but the death of his flesh and not the spiritual death of his immortal soul as Mr. Norton saith Fifthly It is also evident by the New Testament that Gods Reconciliation or Attonement procured by the death of Christ doth make beleeving sinners holy and righteous as in Col. 1. 21 22. You that were enemies he hath now reconciled in the body of his flâ—sh through death to present you holy and without blemish and spotless in his sight as Bro. reads it Hence it is evident that Gods