by Adams sin for by Adams sin all are alike sinners in the same degree of originall sin Therefore Gods Covenant with Adam was by ordaining a special positive Law unto which he annexed a special positive punishment for the transgression of that Law which was a spiritual death in sin affixed to the very time of sinning and for the breach of other positive Ceremonial Laws after this a bodily death only is often expresly threatned Bucanus propounds this Question If Adam had stood in his Bucanus in his 10. Com. placâ— original Righteousnesse should it have been derived to all his posterity It should saith he First because it was the righteousnesse of mans nature and not the righteousnesse of a private person Secondly saith he because the contrary to it namely original sin was derived by Adam means to all his posterity Christ only excepted Thirdly saith he because every like begets his like in nature and kind And saith Bucanus in his fifteenth Common place The first sin was not so much personal and proper to Adam as natural The first Covenant was made in relation to mans nature in general and not with Adam as a siâ—gle person Wille in Rom. 5. Q 19. that is saith he common to all mans nature which originally and naturally was in his loyns but saith he Thâ— othâ—â— sins of Adam were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. The son shall not bear the iniquity of his father but the soul that sinneth shall dye And Perereus cited by Dr. Willet saith thus As the sins of Parents are not now transmitted to their children so neither were all Adams sins propagated to posterity but only the first between which and his other sins there was this difference That by the first the goodnesse of mans nature was lost And by the other the goodnesse of Adams grace was taken away 1 Hence it follows that seeing Adams sin was not so much against his person as it was against mans nature in general for it was against the Covenant that God made with him touching mans nature in general he being the head of mans nature therefore the death threatned was such a kind of death as was to be formally executed on mans nature in general at the very instant of Adams sinning and that was no other but a spiritual death in sin only and this death takes hold of all flesh as soon as ever they have life in the womb none excepted of them that are born by the ordinary way of generation so then the punishment of death which God first threatned and inslicted on Adams nature for his sinfull act against the first Covenant by eating of the forbidden fruit was a spiritual death in sin which is now become nature to us because the Covenant being broken the punishment must fall on ouâ— nature as soon as we have any being in nature but bodily death was not then formally executed neither is formally executed on our nature in the womb as death in sin is but after some distance of time neither shall it be executed formally on all flesh as death in sin is for many shall escape a bodily death at the day of Judgement and therefore no other death was threatned and formally executed on mans nature in general at the instant of Adams eating but a spiritual death in sin only Yea Mr. Norton himself in page 116. doth exempt many from bodily death at the day of Judgement Such as are alive saith he at the day of Judgement shall not formally dye by the separation of their soul from their body So then it follows by good consequence that neither a bodily death nor eternal death in hell was threatned to be formally executed on mans nature in general at the instant of Adams sinning but a spiritual death in sin onely And Dr. Willet saith That the death threatned seems to be an actual death which they should then suffer and not a potential only not that Adams soul saith Mr. Perkins was now utterly abolished but because it was as though it were not and because it ceased to be in respect of righteousnesse and fellowship with God and indeed saith he This is the Death In the right way of dying well p. 490. of all deaths when the creature hath subsisting and being and yet is deprived of all comfortable fellowship with God The second Circumstance that proves this death threatned to be meant only of death in sin is the Antithesis of the kind of life promised to the death here threatned Now the life promised to Adam by Gods Covenant was the confirmation and the continuance of his created natural perfections The life promised to Adam and so to mans nature in general was a perpetual life in this world in his câ—eated perfections to him and to all his posterity for ever in case he did first eat of the Tree of life once eating should have merited the blessing as once eating did merit the curse and this was signified by the name that was given to that Tree it was a name that did define the Covenant-quality of that Tree and in that respect God commended it to Adam as a symbolical sign of his Covenant And saith Christopher Carlisle where you have this Hebrew word Cajim in the duall number it signifieth immortality as genetes Cajim the Tree of Lives of which saith he if Adam had tasted it would have brought immortality and very many other Writers do agree that the life promised was the continuance and the confirmation of his natural perfections in See Ball on the Covenant p. 6. 10. and Vindiciae legis p. 139. And Crotius Camero Bre. in Eccl. the Hebrew Drs. cited by Ains in Gen. 2. 17. And saith Austin Adam had the Tree of life in Paradise that age should not consume and end his life Cited by Marbeck in his Com pl p. 791 this world this I beleeve is the truth and thence it follows by way of opposition thereto that the death threatned must be understood of the continuance of a spiritual death in this world only and not of any other death till another death was threatned after this for the first spiritual death might have continued to Adam and to his posterity for ever in this world and that in the highest degree of all misery according to the justice of Gods threatning without any bodily death for any thing that was at this present revealed to the contrary and we know that hereafter a bodily life shall be continued for ever to the damned after the Resurrection without any bodily death notwithstanding their spiritual death for as bodily death is now ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin so at the general Resurrection eternall death in hell is ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin without any bodily death And we know also that notwithstanding God did at the instant of Adams sinful eating execute on him this spiritual death of sin yet it pleased God also in a short time after to Relax the rigor and outrage of this spiritual death to all mankind in general in this life
That therefore the Law in Deut. 21. 23. was peculiar to the Commonwealth of the Jews and not common to other Nations it might have been granted to him And the like may be said of divers other political Laws of Moses that they were in force onely in the land of Canaan and that neither before Moses time nor after Christs death they were in force c. I grant also that there were many Judicial Laws that were partly civil and partly ceremonial and so it may be granted that the Law in Deu. 21. 23. had some ceremonial considerations about the burial of the dead body for it defiled all that touched it But yet it will not thence follow that it defiled the whole land in case it continued unburied till after sun-set and therefore it did not typifie that Christ should bear the moral and eternal curse on the tree for our redemption which is the very point that Mr. Norton hath undertaken to make good from Deut. 21. 23. This Exposition saith Mr. Norton in p. 95. 96. in making the man that was hanged on a tree a ceremonial curse And Christ hanged on a tree a moral curse is both generally received and every way agreeing to the analogy of Faith which is a rule of interpreting Scripture Reply 9. It is not so generally received as Mr. Norton would perswade his Reader it is well enough known that there were and are many godly and judicious ones that dare not hold that Christ suffered the moral and eternal curse for our redemption First I doe not finde that Peter Martyr held that Christ suffered Hell torments or the second death It is objected saith Peter Martyr that Christ for our sake In Rom. 9. 1 〈◊〉 in p. 240. did not onely give his life upon the cross but also that he was made a curse and was also after a sort forsaken of the Father when he cryed My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee And after a short Answer to another Objection he Answers thuâ— The second doubt faith he is concerning Christ for although he for our sakes suffered death yet was he not in very deed separated from God but his humanity was holpen when he suffered on the cross all extream pains he was also made a curse as touching the punishment of the Law which punishment he suffered for our salvation sake and he was counted as a blasphemer c and being as it were convicted of these crimes he was condemned But yet was he not by eternal damnation separated from God In this Answer Peter Martyr hath left his judgement upon record how Christ was forsaken on the cross and how he was made a curse by hanging on the tree he was made a curse saith he as touching the punishment of the Law in Deut. 21. 23. and saith he he was counted as a Blasphemer and an ungodly person and being as it were convicted of these crimes he was condemned but yet was he not by eternal damnation namely by suffering that which to the creature is eternal damnation separated from God By this answer it is evident That he held that Christ suffered no other curse but the outward curse of hanging on a tree just as Chrisostom and Theephilact spake as I have cited them in the former Chap. in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Mr. Norton said ere while that his exposition was generally received but here he may see two of the antient Divineâ— and Peter Martyr cited against him and Peter Martyrs Answer is to an Objection that was raised from such as held as Mr. Norton doth Fourthly Bucer makes Christ to suffer no other penal hel or inâ—ernum but his bodily death as I have cited him in Chap 7. Sect. 2. Fifthly I have also diligently perused all Tindals works and the works of Jo. Frith and of Dr. Barns being three godly Martyrs and they do all oppose the popish satisfaction and by occasion thereof they speak often of the true satisfaction that was made by Christ and I find not a word in any of them that concurs with Mr. Nortons sense of Hell torments but with the Dialogue sense of satisfaction by his bodily death and sacrifice Sixthly I find that others do cite Bullenger and Zanchy as not cleaving to Mr. Nortons Tenent of Hell Torments But I have not throughly searched them but in a great part I have and can find no such thing in them Let them that please search them fully Seventhly Mr. Broughton and his followers which to this day are many that are both pious and learned and they do reject the Tenent of Hell Torments on the cross as no Article of their faith I will cite onely two passages out of Mr. Broughton besides what I have cited in the Dialogue 1 Saith he That assertion that our Lord suffered Hell Torments In his positions on Hadâ—s p. 13. appeareth not true by any Scripture true modesty saith he would look to Scripture phrases in the handling of our redemption 2 Saith he to say that our Lords soul tasted the second death is the highest degree of blasphemy against our Lord and In his short Reply to Bilson p. 22 25. saith he in p. 25. The term second death used twice in the Apocalips is taken from the Thalmudistes and therefore by them it must be expounded And in their sense saith he it is The second death is a misery to the soul in the perpetual hatred of God ever taken for a misery to the Soul in the perpetual hatred of God and agreeable to this I have shewed in chapter 5. that Hell Torments and the second Death is always inflicted from the hatred of God Onkelos hath it in Deut. 33. and Jonathan in Isa 22. and Rabbins infinitely But saith Mr. Norton to avoid manifest blasphemy Christ was never in Gods hatred Therefore he might as well conclude that he never suffered the essential torments of Hell nor the second Death seeing they are not inflicted without Gods hatred And saith Bro. in Revâ—l p. 301. N. N. missed most Atheanly more than ever any since the Devil deceived Adam to say that our Lord was in the second Death 2 Mr. Ainsworth on Deut. 33. 6. saith the Chalde doth thus expound it Let Ruben not die the second death And saith he Jonathan in his Targum paraphraseth thus Let Ruben live in this world and not die with the death wherewith the wicked shall dye in the world to come And saith he in Psal 49. 11. The Chalde saith That wicked wise men die the second death and are adjudged to Gehenna And saith he in his preface to Genisis p. 6. The second death in Rev. 20. 8. is used by Jonathan in Isa 65. 6. 15. and saith he in Gen. 17. 14. Mamony in Treat of Repentance c. 8. Sect. 1. Speaking of eternal death saith And this is the cutting off written in the Law as it is said in Numb 15. 31. That soul shall be cut off he shall be cut off which we
from him in his life-time about this controversie whereby I know that his judgement was not throughly established one way or other and I know by some expressions of his that he could not hold that Christ suffered Hell-torments though he did hold that Christ suffered the wrath of God in some degree and I find that other learned Divines do hold as he did namely That Christ suffered the wrath of God in some degree and yet they deny that he suffered Hell-torments and the Second-death which is also directly contrary to Mr. Nortons fundamentals for hee holds just satisfaction by a just suffering of the essential Curse of Hell-torments Dr. Preston saith That the curse of God doth consist in four things 1 When God doth separate a man from grace goodness and In his Treâ—tise of Love p. 176. holiness 2 When he is separated from the presence of the Lord from the joy from the influence and from the protection of God 3 When he is cursed in outward things 4 When he shall suffer the eternal curse at the day of judgement But now was Christ thus cursed of God Methinks it should make a godly man tremble to say so and yet Mr. Norton approves of Luther for saying so in page 92 93. who durst alledge this place saith Luther Accursed is every one that hangâ— on a Tree and apply it to Christ Like as Paul then applied this sentence to Christ even so may we apply unto Christ not only the whole 27. Chapter of Deuteronomy but also may gather up all the Curses of Moses Law together and expound the same of Christ for as Christ is innocent in this general Law touching his person so it healso in all the rest and as he is guilty in this general Law in that he is made a curse for us and hanged upon the Cross as a wicked man a blasphemer a murderer and a traitor even so is he guilty also in all others for all the Curses of the Law are heaped together and laid upon him Hence it follows from Luthers words approved by Mr. Norton that the said Curses mentioned by Dr. Preston were laid upon Christ or else Mr. Norton must not approve of this speech of Luther Mr. Rutherfurd propounds this Question How could Christ In Christs dying p. 560 561. be a Curse There is saith he a thing intrinsecally and fundamentally cursed and there is a thing extrinsecally and effectively cursed Now saith he none but he that sinneth is intrinsecally and fundamentally cursed for in this regard it is a personal evil Christ was not intrinsecally abominable and execrable to God c. This distinction of extrinsecally and effectively cursed was contrived only for the sake of Christ or else doubtless hee would have given some other instance of his assertion I grant That Mr. Rutherfurd did hold that Christ did suffer the moral Curse as Mr. Norton dâ—â—h But yet he held it arbytrary to the Lawgiver to execute the curse on Christ rather in the equivalency than in the proper kind of it and therefore he saith That some punishments may well bee changed the one for the other as Gods hating and abominating the sinner was changed into Gods forsaking of Christ when he complained My God my God c. And secondly saith he Christ was not intrinsecally cursed as the sinner who sinneth in person is and then he concludes that the kind of punishment which Christ suffered was arbytrary to the Lawgiver But Mr. Norton denies it to be arbytrary for saith he in page 10. The Omnipotent had so limited himself by his Law Mr. Nerton holds satisfaction by Christs suffering the essential curse in kind and yet he holds alteration to equivalency in Gen. 2. 17. that he could not alter and saith hee in page 146. 143. though in many typical redemptions God accepted a price and spared life yet not so in the Antitype No price saith he can dispence in the case of the Antitype And saith he in page 122. Christ was tormented without any forgiveness God spared him nothing of the due debt he had not the least drop of water to ease him of the least particle of suffering that was due according to justice And saith he in page 23. he suffered the whole essential properly penal death of the Curse that is the whole essential punishment thereof was executed upon Christ By these fundamental Propositions he must reject any alteration to the way of equivalency and yet he is sometimes forced to flye to equivalency as I have noted it in Chap. 4. I confess I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth keep no more exactly to his principles of payment in kind but that he is forced to flye sometimes to equivalency The rest that follows in Mr. Norton on Gal. 3. 13. is but the same in true substance that hath already been examined and confounded And that which follows about the Priest-hood and Sacrifice of Christ I have examined at the end of my Examination of Psal 22. 1. and Mat. 27. 46. CHAP. XVI SECT I. Mr. Norton propounds this Question in p. 56. How do you prove this sorrow and complaint of Christ to have proceeded from the fear of a bodily death Reply 1. THe Dialogue doth prove it by two Reasons First Saith the Dialogue do but consider what a horrid thing to true humane nature the death of the body is and then consider that Christ had a true humane nature like to all other men except in the point of sin and therefore why should not he be troubled with the fear of death as much as his humane nature could bear without sin Mr. Norton doth Answer thus Because regular affections such as Christs were moved according to the nature of the object so much therefore as bodily death is a less evill than eternal death so much the regular trouble of humane nature conflicting therewithall is less than that trouble which it is capable of suffering in case of conflicting with eternal death Reply 2. He saith That Christ conflicted with eternal death and that the regular trouble of his humane nature was in relation to that death They may beleeve his bare word that please and he knows that the Dialogue doth all along deny it and I have also taken away his proof in other places therefore the reason of the Dialogue doth stand good and firm still The second Reason of the Dialogue is this Do but consider that all mankind ought to desire and endeavor to preserve their natural lives as much as in them lies in the use of means in obedience to the sixt command and therefore seeing Christ as he was true man could not prevent his death by the use of means he was bound to be troubled with the fear of death as much as any other man Mr. Norton in p. 57. doth answer thus It is more than manifest that his trouble exceeded the trouble of any other man as concerning meer natural death Reply 3. It is more then
lay it down and power to take it up again This Commandement have I received of my Father Joh. 10. 17 18. Joh. 10. 17 18. And hence I reason thus If Christ received this Commandement from his Father then doubtless his Father had covenanted that he should be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice and that he would accept it as the full price of mans Redemption 3 I have often shewed that Christs humane nature was so perfect that it was priviledged from our natural death and sufferings and that his death and sufferings was undertaken only by his voluntary Covenant and that Covenant made it upon performance according to the Articles to be the full price of mans Redemption These two wayes the blessed Scriptures do often speak of the death of Christ First Of his passive death And secondly Of his active death But because his passive death from his malignant Combater Satan was accompanied with very many ignominous punishments and reproachful Tortures which he was permitted to use as thinking thereby to provoke his patience and so to spoil his obedience that so he might not make his soul a sacrifice Therefore much Scripture is taken up to record the long story of his passive death and in that long and sharp trial his perfect patience and obedience through all his ignominious sufferings is much to be admired especially from the time that he was apprehended to the end of the time of his crucifying which was twelve full hours and hee aboad under the pains of a violent death for three hours together and all the actions that fell in about his sufferings in all this time were many and therefore the story thereof must needs bee long and his sensible feeling of our infirmities in all his sufferings doth not only prove the truth of his humane nature but the perfection of his patience and obedience and in that respect his sufferings were ordained to be for the perfection of his Priestly Consecration to his sacrifice Heb. 2. 10. And therefore as soon as he had finished his Priestly Consecration by suffering the utmost of Satans temptations Heb. 2. 10. Christs Priestly Consecration Christs Sacrifice and trials he presently after without delay made his vital soul a sacrifice by his Priestly power in both his natures as the formality of all satisfaction for mans Redemption But because this short singular act of his sacrifice was done as it were but in a moment of time and because it was done in the middest of his sensible torments on the Cross therefore it comes to pass that this short singular act of his sacrifice is not so much marked as it ought to bee But most an end the long obvious story of his sufferings from his Combater Satan which indeed doth belong to his sacrifice as much as the consecration of the Priest doth to the Sacrifice is named instead of full satisfaction and so it may be justly called by the figure Synecdoche provided his sacrifice in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power be not neglected but a real distinction ought to be observed when the parts of Christs Priesthood are to be explained though this distinction is often sleighted and divided by Mr. Norton So then from the long passive action Christ may bee truly said to be killed and slain for he was crucified with the sores of death even as truly as it is said that Christ was the Son of Joseph for indeed he was the Son of Joseph in a true legal sense because he was born of Josephs wife after Manage and in that respect he was truly and properly in Laws esteem the Son of Joseph and accordingly he was every where esteemed and called the Son of Joseph yea his mother Mary that best knew the truth told her Son Jesus that his Father Joseph sought after him Luke 2. 48. yea and Jesus himself did also acknowledge Joseph to be his true Father according to Laws esteem and therefore he was subject to him as to his proper Father for nine and twenty years together namely until he was extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office and then he had the business of another Father to do and the world in general some few excepted knew no other but that he was the true natural Son of Joseph and herefore no man did contradict that usual talk and speech and yet notwithstanding all this plain and downright speaking Christ was not the true natural Son of Joseph hee was legally but not formally the Son of Joseph So in like sort it may be as truly said That Christ was killed and slain by the sores of death on the Cross by the Jews because they did as much to kill him as they did to kill their own Prophets 1 Thes 1. 15. yea Christ himself foretold his Disciples that he should be killed by the Jews Mark 8. 31. Mark 12. 8. and all the Prophets said It should be so Gen. 3. 15. Psol 22. Isa 53. and the Evangelists said It was so Luke 24. 20. Act. 2. 23. and the Martyrs in Rev. 5. 9 12. said It was so and yet in verse 6. they say also that he stood there as though hee had been killed both speeches are true and both are truly affirmed For first He was truly killed and slain both by the Jews and by the Roman powers in Laws esteem and yet the Martyrs said It was but as though it were so legally they killed him but formally they did not kill him though they did what they could to kill him formally and they thought they had killed him formally because he died formally whiles he was under the sores of death but indeed they could not kill him formally because God had given power to Christ to lay down his life formally of himself and that no other created power should take away his life from him as I have formerly expounded Job 10. 17 18. Himself was ordained to be the only Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice as soon as he had fulfilled al the tortures of the Cross from his Combater Satan but that act of separating his soul from his body was not so sensible to the beholders as his external tortures of death were and therefore they thought nothing less was the true cause of his death They could not by the power of their natural reason discern how God did interpose his power between the tortures of death and their ordinary killing effect neither could they discern the difference that was between his sinless nature and their own corrupt nature nor yet how he was God and man in personal union and therefore they could not know as they ought to have known how he must be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice and that he must offer himself by his eternal Spirit that so he might be the Mediator of the New Testament through that kind of Mediatorial death Heb. 9. 14 15. And yet
reconciled to the Elect and receive them again into special favor as Sons by Adoption A learned Divine saith thus The fundamental grounds of Christianity do inforce us to grant That in the Divine nature though most indivisibly one there is an eminent Ideal pattern of such a distinction as we call between party and party a capacity to give and a capacity to receive a capacity to demand and a capacity to satisfie c. 5 From this eternal Decree and Covenant between the Father and the Son doth result the New Covenant with the Elect For it pleased them to agree That all the Articles of the New Covenant should be ratified and confirmed to the Elect by the death of Christ and from that confirmation by his death It is now stiled the New Testament Heb. 9. 15 16. 6 Presently after the Declaration of the said Enmity and Combate in Gen. 3. 15. namely in verse 19. It pleased God further to declare the Council of his will to fallen but now also converted Adam That he should return to the dust whence he was taken Gen. 3. 19. And this is also further to be noted That God denounced this judicial sentence of a bodily death on him as a just punishment for his original spiritual death in sin and this is also further evident by Rom. 5. 12. And secondly The Apostle doth also further tell us That when God appointed a bodily death to Adams sinful nature that he also did at the very same time appoint a judgement for each departed soul Heb. 9. 27. namely First That such as dyed in the faith of their Redemption by the seed of the woman should bee judged to everlasting life and so the sentence of their bodily death should at the last bee turned into a blessing to them But secondly That such as beleeved nor their Redemption by this seed of the woman the sentence of their bodily death should bring a greater judgement to them because it should be an inlet to their eternal death in hell Ioh. 3. 36. 7 Hence it also follows by necessary consequence That when God proclaimed this Combate and victory he did exemplifie the manner of the victory to Adam by the death of some Lamb which God commanded Adam to offer in Sacrifice as I have shewed it more at large in my Treatise of the Institution of the Sabbath and ever after God did exemplifie the same to the Fathers both before and after the Flood 1 Before the Flood it is said That Abel did offer a better sacrifice than Cain because he offered it in faith Gen. 4. Heb. 11. 4. 2 Immediately after the Flood Noah is said to offer sacrifice for a sweet savor of rest unto God Gen. 8. 21. because such Sacrifices were ordained to typifie Gods full rest and sweet content in the perfect obedience of Christ first in his Combate and at last in his Sacrifice as it is opened in Eph. 5. 2. 3 After this God is said to preach the Gospel unto Abraham Gal. 3. 8 16. and how else did he preach the Gospel but by declaring in what manner the Seed of the woman should break the Serpents Head plot and therefore when God renewed his Promise and Covenant of blessedness to Abraham by telling him that this Seed of the woman should come out of his loyns He gave this Testimony of Abraham That he did obey his voyce and keep his charge his Commandements his Statutes and his Laws Gen. 26. 5. And that he would teach his children and his houshold after him as all the godly Fathers did to keep the way of the Lord Gen. 18. 19. namely to keep the way of true Religion or the way of Redemption by the Seed of the woman that was promised to come out of his loyns 4 After this it pleased the Lord to separate Israel to be his peculiar people in Covenant And then at Mount Sinai he gave them the ten Commandements as a Covenant of Grace as many learned Divines do of late rightly call it for the regulating of their faith and obedience in the course of their lives together with certain other voluntary ceremonial and typical Laws and with certain Judicial Laws many of which were also typical and these Laws in their outward bodily use were called the first Covenant of works in respect of their lawful and legal appearing before Gods presence in his Sanctuary but the same Laws in their mystical and spiritual use were given as a Covenant of grace and as the Law of faith though after a while the Jews under the New Testament did mistake Gods end in giving them for they did relye upon their outward obedience to them as Idolaters do for their eternal justification and salvation 5 Besides these typical ceremonial Laws It pleased God to ordain some other voluntary positive ceremonial Laws which were no way typical in relation to our redemption by Christ as the former were but were ordained only for the trial of some particular mans obedience in some one particular act and such was the command of God to Saul to destroy the Amalekites utterly without sparing any thing 1 Sam. 15. And such also was the command of God to David to hang up seven of Sauls sons to pacifie his wrath though some of them if not all of them might be innocent of Sauls sin 2 Sam. 21. And such also was the command of God to the young Prophet not to eat any bread in that place nor to return the same way that he came 1 King 13. 9. c. This insuing controversie hath relation often to some one or other of these Laws and Covenants as also to the Law of Suretiship for life in the case of capital crimes In all which Laws and Covenants your Lordship cannot but have a deep inspection and therefore I have the rather been bold to dedicate this insuing Controversie to your Honours judgement And now my humble Request to your Honour is 1 That where you find any thing that doth not accord to the truth in your judgement that you will bee pleased either to vouchsafe me your Animadversions or else to lay it aside in silence as you do other mens Tenents that you like not 2 That where you find any thing that doth accord to the truth which my soul loveth and longeth after that you will be pleased to vouchsafe it so much grace in your sight as to protect and defend it according to God whereof I nothing doubt as being verily perswaded that your Lordship doth account it your greatest honour to be every way serviceable to God and his truth as it is in Jesus And that you may be still guided in the wayes of truth and life until you obtain the end of your faith even the salvation of your soul It is the hearty prayer of Your Honours most humble servant WILLIAM PYNCHON TO THE Considerate and Judicious Reader IN this insuing Reply both to Mr. Nortons Foundation-principles and also to his several Answers to the
that did support it 3 Therefore it was but a connexed appendix which the God of Nature con-joynec ' to his soul and body in his creation as he con-joyned an admirable beauty to the body of Moses at his birth Exod. 2. 2. which might either continue or it might be lost by eating some prohibited meat that might cause a distemper that might cause his beauty to consume as a moth without the annihilating of his body and soul 4 The image of God in Adam was con-natural to his body because it should have been transmitted to his posterity by natural generation if he had but first eaten of the Tree of Life for the confirmation of his created perfections The death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. is limitted by two circumstances to our spiritual death in sin onely Therefore first That death must needs be the Essential curse that is there threatned Secondly therefore it must needs be no less than Blasphemy to affirm as Mr. Norton doth that Christ was Adams legal surety in the first Covenant to suffer that cursed death in his room and place for his Redemption p. 24. chap. 16. Rep. 22. at Sixthly * Add this marginal Note to p. 31. Bodily death was not threatned to be the immediate effect of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit in Gen. 2. 17. neither was a bodily death threatned till after Adams fall in Gen. 3. 19. which was not until four verses after that God had declared that Christ should be the seed of the woman c. as the proper punishment of Adams spiritual death in original sin * Add this Note to the Text in p. 33. at line 23. and in cha 16. at Reply 22. ult If it be granted that God denounced a bodily death as the immediate effect of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit then the Pelagians cannot be convinced that Original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for then the Pelagians might reply That seeing it is granted that bodily death is the immediate effect of Adams first sin it cannot be the immediate effect of Original sin But seeing it is evident by Rom. 5. 12. that it is the punishment of Original sin in Infants therefore no other death bue a spiritual death in sin was at the first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. Original sin is the essential death that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as the proper passion of Adams first sin though in the issue the Elect are redeemed from it by Christs undertaking to be the seed of the conquered woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities to conquer Satan by his constant obedience to the Laws of the Combate notwithstanding Satans unlimited power to provoke and disturb his passions and because at last in the perfection of his said obedience he made his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation by breathing out his immortal Spirit by his own Priestly power p 34 63 65 Eternal death in Hell is but an accidental punishment to the first spiritual death in sin p. 36 Gods First Covenant with Adam was not made with Adam as a single person but it was made with him as he was the head of mans nature in general p. 25 The kind of life promised to Adam and so to all his natural Posterity was the perpetuity of his life in this world in his created perfections p. 27 All the glory of Gods Creation had been confounded at the very instant of Adams fall if God in his eternal Counsel and Providence had not ordained Christ to be ready at that instant to take on him the Government of the whole Creation p. 28 Gods secret and not his revealed will is the inviolable Rule of Gods relative Justice p. 37 35 and ch 15. CHAP. III. The quality or kind of Christs obedience ex officio as Mediator was not to the moral Law of Nature as Mr. Norton affirms but it was to the voluntary positive Laws of a peculiar voluntary and reciprocal Covenant that was made between the persons in Trinity from Eternity Secondly Though Mr. Norton doth one while affirm That the quality or kind of Christ obedience was legal the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto yet another while he doth contradict that and saith it was more also p 42 Christs obedience to the moral Law is by eminent Divines rightly called Justitiâ personae But his obedience in his death and sufferings they do rightly call Justitiâ meriti p. 44 Christs obedience in his incarnation and in his death was not his obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms but it was a special kind of obedience to the voluntary positive Laws of his Mediatorship onely p. 45 * Add this Note to p. 45. Dr. Willet in Dan. 9. p. 291. saith That Christs Descention Conception Incarnation and his Miracles are not imputed to us because they were no part of fulfilling the Law In these words he doth plainly contradict Mr. Norton for he denies that Christs incarnation was any part of Christs obedience to the moral Law If the Incarnation of Christ which was an act of his God-head had been an act of obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms then his God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Father because the moral Law was given by God as a supream which Tenent doth fully maintain the Arrian Heresie p. 47 * Add this Note to p. 99. and to p. 101. Mr. Norton saith in p. 123. That the Divine nature was angry not onely with the Humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him And in p. 55. he saith That God charged Christ with sin as the supream Law-giver and Judge c. In these words he maketh the God-head of the Mediator to be in an absolute inferiority to his Father which doth also maintain the Arrian Heresie * Add this Note to p. 47. and to p. 51. at 5. Christ as he was true man was under the obligation of the moral Law and as he was a Jew he was under the obligation of the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws but as he was Mediator and as he acted as Mediator ex officio he was above the moral Law for he said he was the Lord of the Sabbath even as he was the Son of man And secondly he shewed himself to be above the Ceremonial Law in that he said A greater than the Temple is here Matth. 12. 6 8. The Jews legal justifications under the first Covenant by their outward observation of the works of the Ceremonial Law was a true type of our moral justification by the blood of Christ p. 49 51 235 and p. 259 CHAP IV. THe order of mens legal proceedings in Courts of Judicature is no way suitable to be alledged for an exemplification of the order of Gods proceedings in Christs sufferings as Mr. Nortons way is because it appears by Gods Declaration of the Combate in Gen
was vouchsafed but a qualification in the subject capable or a consequent of such great mercy conferred Secondly I do further reply thus That the doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant of works as Mr. Norton affirms 1 Because it speaks only of the manner of obedience in the Covenant of grace 2 It is not the same with the moral Law of nature in respect of duties for the moral Law of nature is not a compleat rule for duties to us with out some supply from the Gospel for the Law of nature doth not command us to worship God in Christ as the Decalogue doth the moral Law of nature doth not command us to beleeve to repent â—and to yeeld subjection to Christ as the Decalogue doth as Mr. Burges hath largely observed in Vindiciae legis neither doth the Law of nature forbid sins against the Gospel as unbeleef impenitency and contempt of grace as the Decalogue doth neither doth the Law of nature command us to sanctifie every seventh day as the Decalogue doth All these things are added by the Covenant of grace to the Decalogue more then was in the moral Law of nature Therefore the Doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant neither in respect of justification nor in respect of sanctified walking Conclusion touching Lev. 18. 5. From all these Premises it follows that Lev. 18. 5. is not meant of doing by way of merit as doing the Command in eating of the Tree of life would have been a meritorious act according to Gods free grace in the first Covenant and therefore the moral Law of nature and the Decalogue which comprehends the Covenant of grace is not the same for substance 2 Hence it follows that the doing of the moral Law by Adam and the doing of it by Christ was con-natural to them and therefore it was not ordained as the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice for mans justification and life as Mr. Norton doth propound it SECT 3. The Examination of Gen. 2. 17. THis Scripture is alleged by Mr. Norton to prove that the most principal death there threatned for the breach of the first Covenant of works was eternal death in hell and saith he in his first Proposition Christ as the Surety of the Elect suffered the Essential punishment of this curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant In his second Proposition he saith That God in the first Covenant proceeded with man in away of Justice In his third Proposition he calls it Relative Justice In his sixth Proposition he calls it The Rule of Gods proceeding between God and man In his eighth Proposition he saith That God having constituted that inviolable rule of Relative Justice in Gen. 2. 17. could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely first According to the recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience or secondly according to the punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience We have already seen how much Mr. Norton is mistaken in the first part of the Covenant First by opening the true nature of the Covenant in Sect. 1. And secondly by overturning his first proof in Lev. 18 5. Now it remains to expound Now the true nature of that death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. shall be explained And then we shall see whether it be the inviolable Rule of Gods Justice for Christ suffering in a way of satisfaction for mans Redemption 1 Reply Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof Thou shalt dye the death The true nature of this death I make to be a spiritual death in sin only This is evident by two Circumstances in the Text. 1 By the adjunct of time In the day or at what time soever The death in Gen. 2. 17. is limited by two Circumstances to our spiritual death in sin only and therefore that death is the essential curse there threatned and therefore 2. Christ was not a Surety with Adam in the first Covenant to bear that death that is there threatned 2 By the Antithesis of his death threatned to the kind of life that was promised First No other death according to this adjunct of time was threatned to be formally executed but a spiritual death in sin only And therefore first no other death was properly threatned in this Text. And therefore secondly it was a foul mistake in Ambrose to hold that bodily death only was threatned in this Text because said he There was no day nor hour wherein our first Parents were not morti â—bnoxii subject to death But Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Q. 21. doth thus answer him The words of the Text in Dying thou shalt dye seem to imply an actuall death which they should then suffer and not a potential only Secondly I answer further that if a bodily death were there only meant or chiefly meant as others say then where shall we find any other Text besides this wherein our spiritual death in sin is threatned surely there is no other Scripture that threatens our spiritual death in sin but this Text only neither was spiritual death executed at any other time but at this time only It was but once threatned nor but once executed and that was done in the day or time of Adams eating therefore that death only is the death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. 2 The true nature of this death may the better be discerned by considering the true nature of Adams sin whether it was a sin against the moral Law or against a positive Law only 1 I have already shewed That it was not a sin against the moral Law of nature and therefore Adam was not under the obligation to punishment by that Law 2 Neither was his sin the sin of a single person for then Adam himself only had been under the obligation to the punishment threatned 3 Therefore it was a sin against a supreme positive Law only made concerning outward things that were indifferent in their own nature and I never heard that eternal death was ever directly threatned for the breach of â—ny outward positive Law but at first a spiritual death in sin and ever after a bodily death only but yet for want of faith in Christ eternal death will follow after a bodily death 4 It was a sin against the good of mans nature in general because it was a sin against that Covenant which God had made with Adam concerning the condition of mans nature as he was the head of mans nature in general as I have shewed in Sect. 1. If his sin had been a moral sin only then he had been obliged to the punishment of the moral Law but I never heard that the moral Law did oblige sinners to the punishment of death in sin to make their nature in themselves and in their posterity more sinful then it was
from that death in Gen. 2. 17. must all the Scriptures have reference that speak of a bodily death 7 Hence it is evident that bodily death was not at first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as the immediate effect of Adams first sin but as an immediate effect and punishment of original sin and this Rom. 5. 12. 1â— is further evident by Rom. 5. 12. As by one man namely by one mans disobedience as it is explained in verse 19. sin entred into the world namely original sin and death by sin namely a bodily death by original sin And the matter is yet more plain by vers 14. Neverthelesse death reigned from Adam to Moses over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams trangression that is to say Death reigned over Infants from Adam to Moses for their original sin before ever they had sinned actually after the similitude of Adams Transgression and saith Paul in vers 21. Sin namely original sin reigned unto death Hence it follows that the wages of Adams first sin was death in sin and the wages of hiâ— original sin was a bodily death only to beleevers and eternal death to all unbeleevers Rom. 6. 23. And it is evident that this is an ancient orthodox Tenet that bodily death did first enter into the world by original sin Fulgentius de incar gratia Christi ch 12. saith Except the death of the soul had gone before by sin the death of the body had never followed after as a punishment and saith he in Chap. 13. Our flesh is born with the punishment of death and the pollution of sin and of young children he saith By what justice is an infant subjected to the wages of sin if there be no uncleannesse of sin in him And saith Prosper de promiss praedict part 1. c. 5. The punishment of sin which Adam the root of mankind received by Gods sentence saying Earth thou art and to earth thou shalt return Gen. 3. 19. and transmitted to his posterity as to his branches the Apostle saith entred into the world by one mans sin and so ranged over all men And Origen as I find him cited by Dr. Willet saith You may call the corporal death a shadow of the other namely a shadow See Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Quest 21. of our spiritual death in sin that wheresoever that invadeth the other doth also necessarily follow And Theophiluâ— Reason doth conclude as much By the sin of Adam saith he sin and death invaded the world namely by Adams first sin original sin invaded the world and then bodily death invaded the world by means of original sin And saith Peter Martyr It is much to be marvelled at how P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 12. the Pelagians can deny original sin in Infants seeing they see they daily dye And saith Maxentius in libello fidei c. 3. We beleeve that not onely the death of the body which is the punishment of sin but also that the sting of death which is sin entred into the world and the Apostle testifieth that sin and death went over all men And saith Bullenger in Decad. 3. Ser. 3. By disobedience sin entred into the world and by sin death diseases and all the mischiefes in the world Many other Orthodox Writers do confirm this for a cleer truth That God inflicted bodily death on mans nature in general as a punishment of original sin now if it were inflicted on man as a punishment of original sin then it was not threatned as the immediate effect of Adams first sin in Gen. 2. 17. And the Hebrew Doctors as well as Christian Writers understand the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. of death in sin and they make bodily death to be the immediate effect of it 1 By the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. Rabby Moses Ben Mamony understandeth a spiritual death that is to say the See Duplessis in the Truenesse of Religion ch 27. death of the soul wounded with sin and so forsaken of her life which is God And other Hebrew Doctors say that bodily death is the effect of original sin Unto this world say the Hebrew Rabbins cited by Ains in Gen. 3. 19. there cleaveth the secret filthinesse of the Serpent which came upon Eve and because of that filthinesse death is come upon Adam and his seed And saith Ainsworth in Gen. 3. 15. The mystery of original sin and thereby death over all and of deliverance by Christ Rab. Menachem on Lev. 25. noteth from the profound Cabalists in these words So long as the spirit of uncleannesse is not taken away out of the world the souls that come down into this world must needs dye for to root out the power of uncleannesse out of the world and to consume the same and all this is because of the Decree which was decreed for the uncleannesse and filthinesse which the Serpent brought upon Eve From these Testimonies it is evident that the ancient Hebrew Doctors held bodily death to be the immediate effect of original sin and they held original sin to be a spiritual death and to be the immediate effect of Adams first sin Chrysostome also saith We dye a double death therefore we must look for a double resurrection Christ dyed but one kind Châ—ys against Drunkards and of the Resurrection of death therefore he rose but one kind of resurrection Adam saith he dyed body and soul First he dyed to sin And secondly to nature In what day soever ye eat of the Tree said God ye shall dye the death that very day did not Adam dye in which he did eat but he then dyed to sin and long after to nature The first is the death of the soul the other the death of the body for the death of the soul is sin or everlasting punishment 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 In these words we see that Chrysostome held that Adam first dyed to sin according to Gen. 2. 17. And secondly to nature long after his death in sin This Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. I have laid down in true substance in the Dialogue in page 10. c. and from that Exposition I inferred that Christ could not possible suffer that kind of death in our place and stead for our redemption and if this Exposition which I have now inlarged be sound and according to the Context as I beleeve it is then the inference that I made is right and good But I confesse that upon the receit of some observations from a Reverend Divine against that Exposition I was much staggered for as I remember he demanded this question By whose means was it that Adam dyed this spiritual death was it inflicted on him by god or
rather did he not pull it upon himself This speech in Gen. 2. 17. said he is no other then if it were said whensoever thou dost wickedly thou shalt become wicked for what is it else to be spiritually dead but to be devoid of goodnesse or whensoever thou killest thy self thou shalt be dead besides saith he it is against the nature of God to deprive a creature of Holinesse and Righteousnesse and so to make it unholy unrighteous wicked evill These considerations I confesse did amuse me at the present my conscience I blesse God being tender of truth and not being able to satisfie my self at the present to the contrary I durst not oppose it and therefore I did at that present manifest my self to be convinced But since then I blesse God I find sufficient light to satisfie me that my first Exposition in the Dialogue was right Though I confesse I have found it a point of great difficulty to find out the true nature of that death in Gen. 2. 17. and to distinguish it from bodily death and I see that Mr. Baxter doth also make it a Query Whether Adam cast away Gods Image or whether God took it away from him in his Aphorismes page 75. but in page 34. he seems to hold that after Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit he dyed spiritually by being forsaken of God in regard of holinesse as well as in regard of comfort and so he was deprived of the chief part of Gods Image but so was not Christ saith he And I was the more inlightned and supported in my Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. by P. Martyrs Answer to Pigghius See P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 18. Original sin is the essential punishment of Adams first sin though in the issue the Elect according to Gods eternal counsel are redeemed from it by Christ Pigghius makes the corruption of our nature to be the natural effect of Adams sin P. Martyr doth answer thus The ground and reason thereof is rather taken from the justice of God whereby the grace of the Spirit and heavenly giâ—â— wherewith man was endowed before his fall were removed from him when he had sinned and this withdrawing of grace came of the justice of God Although the blame saith he be ascribed to the Transgression of the first man lest a man should straitway say that God is the cause of sin for when he had once withdrawn his gift wherewith Adam was adorned straitway vices and corruptions followed of their own accord Tindal also saith in page 382. The Spirit was taken away in the fall of Adam This of Peter Martyr and sundry others to the same purpose did much sway with me then also I considered that Adams perfections were created to be but mutable untill he should take a course for the confirmation of them by eating of the Tree of life and therefore they were but lent him for a triall for in case he should first eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evill he should dye the death and so lose his created perfections and therefore as soon as he had sinned by eating that forbidden fruit God in justice took them away But it hath pleased God by his free promise to make himself a debtor to the Elect for the confirmation and continuance of their faith and grace because it was purchased for them by the blood of Christ to be of a lasting and permanent nature but God made no such promise to Adam when he created him after his own Image for he created him to be but of a mutable condition and therefore his graces were to be continued no otherwise but upon condition only of his obedience in eating of the Tree of life in the first place so that when the condition was broken on his part by eating the forbidden fruit it was just with God to take away those gifts and graces wherewith he had endowed his nature at first In like sort at the first God gave unto Saul the Spirit of Government as a new qualification added to his former education 1 Sam. 10. 6. 9. But afterwards it pleased God to take away this Spirit of Government from him because he gave it no otherwise but upon condition that he should use it for the doing of his will and command And had he continued to use it for that end and purpose he should still have enjoyed it but when he abused the same to the fulfilling of his own will in sparing of Agag then God took away this spirit of Government from him and then Saul grew wicked 1 Sam. 16. 14. And why might not God as well take away his created qualifications from Adams nature for his disobedience against his positive command as well as from Saul for disobedience to his positive command Conclusions 1 Hence it follows that in case this Exposition of the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. be sound and good as I conceive it is Then Mr. Nortons second Proposition and all his other Propositions that affirm that the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. is the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice do fall to the ground 2 Hence it follows that the bodily death of the Elect and Eternal death in hel is but an accidental punishment to the first plritual death both the bodily and eternal death of the Reprobate are but accidental punishments to the first spiritual death of mans nature in sin and therefore that the first spiritual death in sin was the essential and substantial curse that was first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. or thus Adams disobedience was the meritorious cause of the death of mans nature in sin the spiritual death of mans nature in sin was afterwards the meritorious cause of bodily death though God was pleased to sanctifie that punishment to all that do beleeve in the Promised Seed and now through faith they have hope in their death to change for the better but the said bodily death was ordained for a further degree of misery to all that beleeve not in the Promised Seed for when God ordained death he ordained judgement to succeed it Heb. 9. 27. and this is the distribution of his judgement He that beleeveth on the Son bath everlasting life and he that beleeveth not the Son shall not see life But the wrath of God abideth on him Joh. 3. 36. 3 Hence it follows that the inviolable rule of Gods relative Justice for mans Redemption is not to be fetched from Gen. 2. 17. but from the voluntary cause of Gods secret will not yet revealed to Adam till after his fall and that secret will but now revealed was that the formality of Christs death in seperating his soul from his body by his own Priestly power should be a sacrifice and the formality of all satisfaction as it is explained in Heb. 9. 15 16. and Heb. 10. 4 I desire the Reader to take notice that I defer my Examination of Mr. Norton Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. to Chap. 10. His fifth
Proposition is this Merit is either absolute so God cannot be a debtor to the creature no not to Christ himself or by way of free Covenant so God in case hath made himself a debtor to man Justice then consisting in rendring to every one their due and Gods will being the rule of Justice it followeth that and onely that to be the due desert merit or demerit of man which God hath willed concerning him Reply He saith Gods will being the rule of justice this is true if it be taken for his secret will for it is his secret and not his revealed will that is the inviolable rule of his relative justice God may and often doth free a sinner from his revealed threatned punishments upon such account as himself pleased to decree in the counsel of his own will and yet he is just in so doing though his revealed will be contrary and the reason is plain because he hath ordained his secret will to be the absolute rule of his inviolable relative justice for God is often said to repent of his revealed threatned plagues as I have shewed in Chap. 10. Sect. 4. and in Chap. 15. Sect. 2. at Eightly His sixth Proposition is this The demerit or desert of man by reason of sin being death according to relative justice the rule of proceeding between God and him Justice now requireth that man should dye as God with reverence be it spoken of him who cannot be unjust in case man had continued in obedience had been unjust if he had denied him life so in case of disobedience be should be unjust in case be should not inflict death Reply Take this Proposition in relation to Adams mutable condition wherein he was created unto which the promise and threatning of the first Covenant hath immediate relation and then experience tells us that the threatning in case of Adams disobedience was executed and so in case he had first eaten of the Tree of life God should have been unjust if he had not confirmed him in his present created perfections But Mr. Norton it seems takes this promise and threatning chiefly to intend either eternal life in heaven or eternal death in hell as if Adam had been immediately under the threatning of hell torments and that there is no other way to redeem him from them unlesse Christ stood as his Surety in the same obligation with him to bear them But the Reader may please to see my Reply to his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. In Chap. 10. and in other places I have often Replied to Gen. 2. 17. as you may see by the Table to that Scripture But as touching Gods promises of salvation and his threatning of damnation there is not the same reason of Gods performing promises and threatnings for mans happinesse is contained in the promises and therefore man performing the condition God cannot but will the reward the same will that wills the making of the promise must necessarily will the giving of the reward promised the condition being performed otherwise it would be vain and of no use for God to make promises to man But as for threatnings which concern mans destruction there is no such tye upon God unlesse his threatnings be delivered with an oath and therefore man will not and cannot complain if they be not executed and if God will rather glorifie his mercy in remitting the punishment upon what account he thought best in the Counsel of his own Will who can say he is unjust mercy herein rejoyceth against judgement See also my note on Psal 94. 15. His seventh Proposition is this The Elect then having sinned the Elect must dye if they dye in their own persons election is frustrate God is unfaithful if they dye not at all God is unjust the commination is untrue If elect men dye in their own person the Gospel is void if man doth not dye the Law is void they dye therefore in the man Christ Jesus who satisfied justice as their Surety and so fulfilled both Law and Gospel c. Reply My former Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in Sect. 3. is a sufficient confutation of this Proposition But Mr. Norton goes another way in his opening of that text and of that threatning and yet he doth not prove but beg the question and then he makes his inferences The Elect then having sinned must dye he takes not this death for death in sin as the truth is but he takes it principally for eternal death in hell I say in that sense his Proposition is not true for God never willed that the Elect should dye an eternal death in his fifth Proposition he said Gods will was the rule of his relative justice and yet he willed that the Reprobate should consequently dy an eternal death in the same threatning in case they did not imbrace the mercy offered by the promised Seed What God intended by that threatning is now evident to us by experience namely that the Reprobate should dye a spiritual death in sin and after that a corporal and after that an eternal death and that the Elect should dye a spiritual death in sin as well as the Reprobate and that after that they should have a new nature by the promised Seed and after that should dye a corporal death but yet that the Elect should be freed from eternal death upon such terms as were mutually agreed on betwixt the Trinity and that the remains of their spiritual death and also that their corporal death and all other punishments that should be inflicted on them for sin should by Gods Infinite mercy and wisdome be turned to their good for the glorifying of his free grace and rich mercy And it was just with God to do according to this his wil and therefore Mr. Nortons conclusion of this Proposition confutes his former part as Gods will is the rule of righteousnesse So Gods will is the rule of the temperature of righteousnesse The plain English of it must needs be this That in as much as it was the will of God not to execute the threatning of eternal death strictly upon the Elect but to moderate it and to suffer Sathan to inflict something only contained in it upon their Mediator by piercing him in the foot-soals at the same time when the seed of the Woman should break his Head-plot by making his soul a sacrifice for sin as the price of their Redemption for the glory of his grace This being the will of God it must needs be just as well as it was just for him to execute all that was contained in the threatning upon the Reprobates His eighth Proposition Though God by his absolute power might have saved man without a Surety yet having constituted that inviolable rule of relative justice In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Gen. 2. 17. he could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this rule But man having sinned man must dye and satisfie the Law that man
hell in this life without Gods extraordinary â—â—spensation page 120. The dispensation of God saith he is either extraordinary or ordinary According to the ordinary dispensation of God saith he the paints of Hell cannot be suffered in this life but according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not only could but did suffer the pains of Hell in this life Reply 5. Ere while he said that the pain of losse was onely the losse of the sense of the favour of God for a time if his sufferings were no more then so then it is evident that God in the course of his ordinary dispensation doth suffer many of his children in this life to bee wholly bereft of the sense of his favour for a time Therefore in this case what need is there that Mr. Norton should flye to Gods extraordinary dispensation except hee think that the pain of sense over and above the pain of losse could not bee suffered without an extraordinary dispensation According to Gods ordinary dispensation hee grants that Christ could not suffer Hell-torments in this life But saith he he suffered them by an extraordinary dispensation and yet according to Gods ordinary dispensation the Saints have suffered the pains of Sheol Now let the Reader judge what a refuge hee is forced to flye unto to support his grand Maxim and how far he yeelds the case unto the Dialogue seeing hee cannot maintain what hee would maintain but by Gods extraordinary dispensation It is a poor peece of Divinity to maintain that for the only truth and to condemn the contrary for damnable Heresie and yet have no better proof to flye unto for the support of it than Gods extraordinary dispensation Out of all doubt Purgatory and the Miracles that are in the legend of Saints may passe for current truth if they may but flye to Gods extraordinary dispensation without demonstration of Scripture SECT 4. Mr. Norton goes on to explain his first distinction in page 8. in these words The Accidental part of the punishment of the Curse is all the rest of the penall evill thereof and befals the Reprobate not from that Curse simply but from the disposition of the Patient under that Curse Of these accidental parts of punishment which if you please may well passe under the name of penal adjuncts are final and total separation from God total and final despair final death in sin duration of punishment for ever the place of punishment c. Reply 1 THe Reader may please to take notice that except Mr. Norton intend more under this unlimited word c. here is instanced only such penal evils as are competible to a sinner under damnation executed But the precedent parts of punishment that flow upon sinners from the curse in this life the Death in sin is the essential Curse in Gen. 2. 17. doth not mention and whether he hold any of them to be essential parts of the curse or no he hath not expressed his meaning but in his vindication of Gen. 2. 17. hee placeth death in sin as wel as death for sin within the compasse of the term Death equally flowing from the curse there mentioned some particulars of that death in sin may bee thus instanced 1 The losse of Gods Image 2 Corruption of nature 3 Servitude under sin and Satan 4 Gods punishing one sin with another These and the like are In mar l. r. c. 12. Thes 45 46 47. reckoned up by Dr. Ames and hee doth shew four wayes how they have the respect of punishment Now if Christ bare all the essentials of the Curse then hee must bear this of death in sin as I have more at large opened the true sense of Gen. 2. 17. in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. But fear of manifest blasphemy will deny that Christ bare this essential punishment of the Curse and thence it will also follow that either Christ bare not all the essentials or that death in sin is not essential though it flow essentially from the said Curse 2 If Mr. Norton hold that the punishment of death in sin which doth befall all mankind in this life is not de jure by due desert as it is a rule of relative justice of its own nature an essential punishment flowing naturally and essentially from the said curse but rather by accident then let him shew how the said death in sin doth not proceed from that curse simply but only from the condition of the Patient under the curse but I beleeve it will trouble his patience to make a clear Answer to this In his first Argument in page 10. Hee saith this sentence In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death was universal given to Adam as a publick person and holds all his posterity Gen. 2. 17. whether Elect or Reprobate in case of sin guilty of death by death I suppose he means death in the latitude of it according to his exposition of Gen. 2. 17. and there namely in page 20. he saith that the death there spoken of is the wages of sin Rom. 5. 21. and Rom. 6. 23. That is all evill the evill of Adams sin excepted in one word therefore saith he equivalent to an universal comprehending all kinds of death Reply 2. From hence the Reader may take notice of these two expressions 1 That he makes that word Death to comprehend all kind of death 2 That the death there spoken of is the wages of sin To me this is a peece of strange Divinity that Mr. Norton should hold the wages of sin to bee either essential namely such as flows from sin as the proper wages thereof or else such as is accidental namely such as is not the proper wages and desert of sin but as it proceeds from the condition or disposition of the Patient under the said wages and due desert of sin SECT 5. Mr. Norton still proceeds to explain his first Distinction in page 8. in these words Absolute separation dis-union or dis-covenanting with God is a consequent of Reprobation not of the essence of Punishment because the Elect notwithstanding the commination stood in full force against them yet they continued elected and in Covenant with Christ The Elect were in Christ before they were in Adam Reply 1. I Suppose Mr. Nortons meaning is That the Elect were in Christ virtually before they were in Adam actually Hence I infer that in the same sense they were elected in Christ they were elected to be partakers of Christ and his Ransome if so then I cannot see how the commination could stand in Seeing the Elect were in Christ virtually before they were in Adam actually it proves that eternal death did not stand in full force against them but a spiritual death only full force against them seeing according to that Election they were by him redeemed from the curse of the Law Gal. 3. 13. Enmity slain Eph. 2. 16. no condemnation to them Rom. 8. 1. and the hand-writing that was against them
with Adam in the first Covenant In Chap. 2. Sect. 3. and Chap. 6. c. 2 I say also that his minor is unsound for it affirms that God could not dispence with the execution of the essential Curse without the violation of his Justice What was sometimes spoken saith he of the Laws of the Medes and Persians holds true at all times concerning the Law of God that it altereth not Reply 6. 1 Take the death threatned for a spiritual death in sin and then we see by experience that it was formally executed on all mankind from that instant to every one that hath life in the womb even to the end of world though yet it hath pleased God to mitigate the violent outrage of that death not onely to the Elect but also to the Reprobate while they live in this world 2 Take the death there threatned for bodily death and then we see by experience that it was not formally executed at that present neither shall it bee formally executed on such as are alive at the day of judgement We shall not all dye saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. 3 Take the death there threatned for eternal death in hell and then we also see by experience that it was not formally executed God doth often dispence with hâ—s peremptory threatnings on Adam but this is certain that what God hath threatned against man for sin he may justly inflict but he is not alwayes bound to it except his threatnings be delivered with an oath Threatnings declare what punishments are due to man for sin but not what shall infallibly be inflicted as I have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 4. 2 We see also by experience that God did often repent of his Threatnings and thereupon did alter them from what hee had expressed in his revealed will but not from what he had decreed in his secret will As for example God sent his Prophet Isaiab to Hezekiah saying Set thy house in order for to dye thou shalt dye and not live This threatning hath an addition to it more than is expressed in that threatning of Gen. 2. 17. for here the threatning is delivered first Affirmatively to dye Thou shalt dye that is Thou shalt 2 King 20. 1â— surely dye And secondly It is delivered Negatively Thou shalt not live And yet Hezekiah did perswade himself that this threatning was alterable and therefore he went to God to wrestle it out by prayer that God would spare his life and give him a son to sit upon his Throne and God heard his prayer and altered his threatning and yet this sentence seems to be a doubled definitive sentence more than that in Gen. 2. 17. and hence wee see that God doth allow his people to pray for the alteration of his revealed will and for the removal of threatned evils 2 King 20. 1. Jam. 5. 13. Ps 50. 15. 2 Gods resolution is often hypothetical or conditional and therefore we may pray for those things that seem contrary to his revealed will Ezek. 3. 17. 21. Amos 4. 12. 3 God doth often change his Comminations for our prayers Gen. 19. 21. Job 3. 10. Es 38. 25. and therefore David prayed for the childs life after the Prophet had told him positively that the child should dye 2 Sam. 12. and so Moses did the like Exod. 32. 14. 4 God doth often seem to will those things that indeed hee willeth not only to prove us Mat. 15. 23 24 26. Luke 24. 28. Exod. 32. 10. Numb 14 10. 5 Though God doth threaten all flesh with a bodily death yet the Apostle saith also That we shall not all dye 1 Cor. 15. Therefore God we see doth often alter his peremptory threatnings 2 Take another Instance God told Abimelek in Gen. 20. 3. Gen. 20. 3. saying Thou art but a dead man that is saith Ainsworth Thou shalt sarely dye This threatning saith Traheron on Rev. 4 seemeth to bee as absolute a threatning as that to Adam and yet indeed saith he it had a secret condition which is after expressed in verse 7 Restore her now to her husband if thou restore her not see the condition now expressed which at first was reserved know thou shalt surely dye But take notice of this that when God told Adam If thou eat of the Tree of knowledge thou shalt surely dye there could be no such condition on mans part to alter the sentence of death in sin for till Christ was revealed no repentance was ordained to alter Gods threatning neither is he tyed to execute his threatnings except they bee delivered with an oath God hath left that liberty to Parents and Masters when they have threatned a child or servant that in case they commit such a fault they shall be so and so punished yet when the fault is committed they may remit the punishment when they see that thereby more advantage will accrue to themselves or the party offending or to both than if the punishment had been inflicted then who can deny that liberty to God himself who is a most absolute Supreme 3 Take another Instance Jonah said Yet forty dayes and Niniveh shall be destroyed Jon. 3. 4. this threatning is absolute saith Traberon not declaring Gods secret determination what Jon. 3. 4. should fall upon them yet upon their repentance God altered this threatning 4 Take another Instance in Lev. 15. 31. Thus shall yee separate the children of Israel from their uncleannesse that in dying they dye not in Lev. 15. 31. their uncleannesse when they desile my Tabernacle that is among them This threatning God did sometimes execute and sometimes he did not execute it but did alter it at his pleasure as we may see in the example of such unclean persons as came to the Passeover in the dayes of Hezekiab 2 Chron. 30. 19 20. Some 2 Chr. 30. 19 20. of them were sick and weak and dyed and others of them at the prayer of Hezekiab were healed and restored to health And so death is threatned in Num 18. 22. None of the children of Israel shall henceforth come nigh the Tabernacle of the Congregation lest they bear sin and dye yet God dispenced with death to King Vzziah and smote him with leprosie and Saul dyed not though God was angry with him for medling with the office of sacrificing But I intreat the judicious Reader to take notice that I produce these instances in opposition to Mr. Nortons Tenent in his Assumption where he affirms That God might not dispence with the execution of the essential death and curse but that it must be born either by Adam or else by Adams Surety In reference to that I have given four Instances that this phrase In dying Thou shalt dye is alterable even to men that are not in Christ upon their temporary repentance as in Niniveh and Abab SECT V. But saith Mr. Norton This threatning was in relation to the breach of the moral Law for be makes Adams sin in eating the
wills because we are tyed to the debt of induring punishment by the condition of our sin but he that was intangled with no fault could not bee bound to any penalty by necessity yet because he subdued our sin by reigning over it in mercy and pity to us hee undertook our punishment as himself saith I have power to lay down my soul no man taketh it from me I have power to lay it down of my self In these words hee contradicts Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as if he had purposely directed his speech against him 12 Of our two deaths saith Bernard whereof one was the Ad milites Templi c. 11. desert of sin namely our spiritual death in sin the other the due punishment namely bodily death as the punishment of original sin Christ taking our punishment but clear from sin whiles hee dyed willingly and only in body hee meriteth for us life and righteousnesse Hee writes against Mr. Nortons imputation of guilt as the obligation to Christs suffering Hell-torments as if hee had seen his book Ibidem Had not Christ dyed voluntarily his death saith he had not been meritorious how much more unworthily hee dyed that had not deserved death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wile ask is this That an Innocent should dye for a Malefactor It is no justice it is mercy if it were justice then should hee not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed hee should dye but the other for whom hee dyed should not live yet though it bee not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not bee both just and merciful If the Reader please but to review the several speeches of Mr. Norton about the imputation of our sins to Christ as I have set them down in the sixth Chapter and compare them with these words of Bernard he may see as direct an opposition as is possible Hence I conclude That the ancient Divines from Irenaeus to Bernard which is neer a thousand yeers space were unacquainted with Mr. Nortons kind of imputing our sins to Christ to make him guilty of his death and sufferings and therefore his kind of imputation is a doctrine but of late dayes SECT V. The second thing to bee examined in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is touching the word Righteousnesse which Mr. Norton in his comparative Argument doth make to be the Righteousnesse of Christ BUt I have already shewed that this word Righteousnesse is not meant of Christs Righteousnesse but of God the Fathers Righteousnesse for God the Father is righteous in keeping Covenant with Christ the Mediator for the reconciliation of sinners as well as Christ was righteous in performing the Covenant on his part which was to make his soul a sacrifice for their reconciliation The Covenant between the Trinity was to redeem the Elect from Sathans Head-plot Christ undertook the office of a Mediatorial Pâ—iest First to combaâ—e with Sathan Gods forgivenesse is the formal cause of a sinners righteousnesse And secondly to make his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation and the performance of this is called his Righteousnesse in Rom. 5. 18. And secondly God the Father covenanted to bee reconciled and so to pardon the sins of the Elect as soon as they are in Christ and his performance of this is here called The Righteousnesse of God the Father And thirdly The Holy Ghost covenanted to unite the Elect unto Christ that so they might bee the fit subjects of the said Righteousnesse 2 I grant that the righteousnesse of God may bee distinguished into many other senses as Mr. Wotton hath shewed de Reconcil pec part 2. l. 1. c. 20. n. 3. which several senses must bee considered according to the context in each place where it is used but in this place Gods reconciling the world to himself by not imputing their sins to them as it is expressed in verse 19. is called the righteousnesse of God in this 21. verse because it is the performance of his condition with the Mediator for the compleating of a sinners righeousnesse that is in Christ The Reconciliation mentioned saith Mr. Ball in 2 Cor. 5. 19. is explained by the non-imputation or remission of sins at Ball on the Covenant p. 219. least saith he it is one part or branch of Reconciliation which is a transient act conferred in time and inferreth a change of state and condition in the party justified or reconciled and of other reconciliation betwixt God and man the Scripture speaketh not In these words the Reader may please to take notice that Mr. Ball doth make the non-imputation of sin to be all one with justification in the party justified or reconciled and so hee makes justification to bee the first part or branch of reconciliation as Mr. Wotton doth And saith Mr. Ball in page 219. The Apostle in Rom. 5. 9 10. puts reconciliation by the death of the Son of God and justification Rom. 5. 9 10. by Christs blood for the same thing merited by Christs sacrifice These observations out of Mr. Ball may advise us that Gods righteousnesse procured by the Sin sacrifice of Christ in v. 21. is the same or at least a branch of the same reconciliation of God which the Apostle hath defined in verse 19. by his not imputing sin and the performance of that reconciliation or non-imputation of sin on Gods part for the sake of Christs Sin-sacrifice is called the righteousnesse of God the Father in this 21. verse and this exposition of the righteousnesse of God any indifferent Reader may see to be cleerly meant by the context though I should say no more But I will yet further evievidence that this exposition of Gods righteousnesse is no new upstart exposition but that it hath the concurrence and countenance of other eminent orthodox Divines 1 Peter Martyr in Rom. 10. 3. saith thus Now resteth to see what is the righteousnesse of God and it may thus be defined It is an Absolution from sins by faith through Christ And saith he that we may the better understand the nature of this Absolution we must on the other side weigh the nature of sin Sin is a defect or falling away from the Law and Will of God And to this defect is necessarily annexed an obligation to eternal death and damnation Wherefore when by the mercy of God this obligation and guiltinesse is taken away A man is absolved from his sins Ibidem Now by these things saith he it is manifest what Absolution is It is an action of God the Father whereby he delivereth and acquitteth us from sins that is from guiltinesse and obligation to eternal death But saith he in the second place that we should not think that so great benefit cometh through our desert therefore it is added through Christ And saith he in the third place that wee should not bee ignorant how the sacrifice and redemption of Christ is applyed to every one of us it is added
the curse of it is laid more on the shame than on the pain for in all other kinds of death as soon as the life was taken away by the executioners the body was presently taken away out of sight and covered from further reproach but these kind of persons that were first stoned to death and after hanged on a tree were therefore hanged that they might be a spectacle of further shame and reproach Or in case they were hanged alive according to the Roman manner and left hanging a certain time after their death to be a gazing stock a by-word and a reproach then that made that kind of death to be an accursed death above all other kinds of death For to be under the shame and reproach of men is a great curse of God and therefore shame reproach taunts by-words and curses are all joyned together as terms Synonimas in Jer. 24. 9. in Jer. 42. 18. in Jer. 44. 8 12. And for an innocent to bear these ignominious curses it must needs be a very dreadful thing to the outward man though his innocency may bear up his inward man as it doth in Martyrs and as it did in Christ Heb. 12. 2. And seeing the Devil by Gods declared permission had power to put Christ to this ignominious and long lingring violent death as it is expressed in Gen. 3. 15. therefore it was Gods will that Christ should be sensible of it in the affections of his soul and in that respect his humane nature was often much troubled at the consideration of it as in Psal 69. 7. There Christ saith thus For thy sake have I born reproach shame hath covered my face It was thy declared will and command in Gen. 3. 15. that I should combate with Satan with mans true nature and affections and that he should have power to use me as a malefactor with the greatest ignominy that he could invent and at last peirce me in the foot-soals as a most ignominious malefactor on the tree and I must be sensible of all this as I am true man of the seed of the woman And therefore I say in ver 9. The reproaches of â—hem that reproached thee are fallen on me and therefore I say in vers 20. Reproach hath broken my heart and I am full of heaviness These expressions of his soul-sorrows do tell us the true cause of Christs fear sadness and agony in the Garden in Matth. 26. 37 38. Mark 14. 34 35. and saith he in Psa 22. 6. 〈◊〉 am a worm and no man a reproach of men and the despised of the people All that see me laugh me to scorn they shoot out the lip they shake the head saying he trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him let him deliver him seeing he delighted in him These words do directly relate to the shame of his death on the cross as Matthew doth open the sense in Matth. 27. 39 43. and therefore his kind of death is called The scandal of the cross Gal. 5. 11. And his suffering on the cross without the gate is called His reproach Heb. 13. 13. and reproach is a dreadful thing to the Saints and therefore they pray in Psal 119. 22. Remove far from me reproach and contempt and in vers 31. Put vie not to shame And in Psal 89 50 51. Remember Lord the reproach of thy servants wherewith thine enemies have reproached O Lord wherewith they have reproached the footsteps of thine annointed And therefore Christ in Psal 40. 16. doth imprecate this curse upon them that brought this curse of shame upon him Let them be desolate for a reward of their shame that say unto me aha aha For saith Christ in Psal 109. 25. I became a reproach unto them on the cross they loâ—ked upon me they shaked their heads And we see by experience that men do account the shame of death to be worse than the pains of death and therefore Saul desired his Armor-bearer rather to kill him than the Philistims should come and mock him at his death 1 Sam. 31. 4. and Abimeleck willed his Armor-bearer to kill him rather than men should say to his greater shame that a woman had killed him Judg. 5. 54. for the more shame the more curse of God is in any death And the custom among the Jews was not to put malefactors to death by hanging but they used to hang up the dead body after it was stoned to death for the greater infamy to the sin and sinner therefore hanging among them was not used to denote the curse in respect of the pains of death but onely to set forth the curse of shame and reproach and therefore hanging among them could not be a type of the pains of the eternal curse But secondly It was the custom of the Romans to put the basest sort of Malefactors to death by hanging and after death to let them hang for a time to be a spectacle of ignominy and repreach and therefore the pains of death was in that curse though chiefly the shame is intended by the Apostle in Gal. 3. 13. because it relates to the curse of hanging in Deut. 21. 23. mortis modus morte pejor And the Hebrew Doctors say they bewailed not him that went to be executed but onely mourned inwardly for him they bewailed him not that so say they his disgrace might be his expiation they it seems accounted that the more shame and punishment a condemned person suffered the more it tended to the expiation of his sin from the Land See Dr. Lightfoots Harmony on the New Testament p. 71. And Christ told his Disciples of the ignominiousness of his death by the Romans that the Priests and Scribes should deliver him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucifie him And the story of the Evangelists doth at large set forth the greatness of the curse that was in his death by mockings and revilings 1 They mocked his Prophetical Office saying Prophecy who it is that somte thee Mat. 26 68. 2 They scoffed his Priestly Office saying He saved others himself he cannot save Mat. 27. 42. 3 They mocked his Kingly Office saying Hail King of the Jews Mat. 27. 28. and said They had no King but Caesar Joh. 19. 15. These and such like expressions do set out the scandal of his cross and so the greatness of the curse which Satan with all his might did multiply in a transcendent manner upon him if by any means he could disturb his patience and so pervert him in the course of his obedience that so his death might not be a sacrifice and then Satan had got the victory but because Christ continued obedient to the death even to the death of the cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice by his own Priestly power therefore he broke the Devils head and got the victory and so he won the prize And thus have I given a sufficient reason why those that were hanged on a tree were infamed with a
his natural infirmities should not appear and therefore he said to Peter Shall I not drink it 4 I have shewed from Mr. Rutherfurd in Chap. 2. that Christs desire that the cup might pass from him was no sin because the command of God to lay down his life was not a moral command as Mr. Norton unadvisedly doth affirm for if his death had been required by a moral command then his desire that the cup might pass from him had been a sin and then his natural fear of death had been a sin also but Gods command was a meer positive command and that kind of command saith Mr. Rutherfurd did never root out his natural desire to preserve his own life seeing hee submitted his desire to Gods will The like instance hee gives of Abrahams desire when God commanded him to kill his only Son for a sacrifice And though Mr. Rutherfurd holds that Christ suffered Hell-torments Heb. 5. 7. yet he denies as the Dialogue doth that the word Fear in Heb. 5. 7. is to be understood of his fear of Hell-torments hee expounds it as the Dialogue doth on the Covenant page 362. But still I rather think as I said before that Christ did not desire simply at any time to be freed from death for that had been to desire to be freed from the performance of his Covenant but only from the cup of his natural fear from his present natural distrust of his ignominious usage by his ignominious and painful death and in this prayer and supplication of his he was heard and delivered Heb. 5. 7. and this request was of necessity to be obtained or else he could not have fulfilled his Covenant which was that he would lay down his life by his own free will desire and power even by the active power and joynt concurrence of both his natures Joh. 10. 17. 18. and this command he could not fulfil until he had obtained a confirmation by his earnest prayers in the Garden against his natural fear of death And hence it follows that seeing Christ could not prevent his decreed death he was bound by his Covenant to be troubled at least for a time with the fear of it and that in a transcendent manner as much as his humane tender natural constitution could bear without fin namely until he had by his earnest prayers obtained a confirmation 5 Saith Zanchy as touching Christs divine nature there was De Tribus Eloâ—im part 2. l. 3. c. 9. And see Weams in his Portraiture p. 191 192. alwayes one and the same will of the Father and the Son concerning his death and Possion yea as Christ was man hee was alwayes obedient to his Father and therefore hee said I alwayes do the things that please him What meaning then saith he hath this That he prayed to be freed from death and from the cup He answers Naturally as man Christ feared abhorred and shunned death and his natural horror of death he called his Will when he said Not my will be done to wit this natural Will which I have as man yet neither doth this Will of Christ resist his Fathers Will for the Father would have Christ to bee like us in all things except sin and to that end would have him made man Therefore when Christ did naturally shun and desire to escape death hee did not contradict his Fathers will because the Father would have this natural fear and horror to bee in Christ as a * So Weams in his Portraiture of the Image of God in man p. 1 48. saith Christs Passions were a punishment but not a sâ—n And saith Weams in p. 220. Christ had natural fear actually which the first Adam had not because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before Christ punishment of our sins wherefore it is altogether salse that Christs will in this was divers from his Fathers will But saith he if in respect of the same end the Father had been willing that Christ should dye and Christ had been unwilling or had never so little refused then their Wills indeed had been repugnant but in reference to the same end namely our salvation Christ alwayes had the same will that his Father had In these words Zanchy doth shew that it was absolutely necessary for Christ in regard of his true humane nature to bee inwardly touched with the natural fear of his bodily death and to evidence it out wardly but he makes no mention that Christ feared his spiritual and eternal death as Mr. Norton doth most unsoundly from the same Text. But saith Mr. Norton still in page 57. It hath oftentimes been the case of Martyrs to give up their lives with joy Reply 7. Hence he thinks it was not beseeming for Christ to bee so troubled as he was with the fear of his bodily death If there be any Martyrs to whom it is pleasant to die that they have from other where and not from the nature of death But saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 12. All the godly do affirm that in death there is a feeling of the wrath of God and therefore of its own nature it driveth men into a certain pain and horror which thing saith he both Christ himself when he prayed in the Garden and many other holy men have declared And saith he if there chance to be any to whom it is pleasant and delectable to dye and to be rid of their life that they have elsewhere and not from the nature of death In these words observe that P. Martyr doth make the bodily death of Christ to be the material cause of his pain and horror in the Garden quite contrary to Mr. Norton he doth never mention the Second death and Hell-torments to bee the cause of his horror in the Garden as Mr. Norton doth 2 Saith hee If there be any whether Martyrs or Christ to whom it is pleasant and delectable to dye and to be rid of their life that they have elsewhere and not from the nature of death 3 The Dialogue gives good reasons in page 52. why Christ should shew more fear of death then any Martyrs namely First For the cleerer manifestation of the truth of his humane nature And secondly For the accomplishment of the Predictions of his sufferings and therefore that mercy of his that made him to take our humane nature of the seed of the woman made him to take our natural infirmities and to manifest them to the uttermost in seasonable times as objects did present the occasion But saith Mr. Norton in page 69. You make Christ not only more afraid of natural death than many Martyrs but to shew more fear of death than any man And saith hee Your reasons are but deceptions Reply 8. If Christ had shewed no more natural fear of death than some men do it might well have been doubted whether hee had been true man or no seeing sundry Hereticks have called it into question notwithstanding hee gave such large
Christ covenanted to take upon him our nature of the seed of the deceived woman and in that nature to break the Devils Head-plot by continuing obedient in his combate notwithstanding Satan foul play to provoke him to some impatience and in that obedience he covenanted to make his soul a sacrifice which God covenanted to reward with the redemption of all the Elect and this was sully declared unto Adam by a typical sacrifice and God gave the Devil full liberty to do his worst to disturb his patience and so to spoyl his obedience and so to prevent his death from being a sacrifice and so to preserve his Head-plot from being broken and this is comprehended in that sentence Thou Satan shalt peirce him in the foot-soals but God could not have declared all this both to the Devil and unto Adam unless the second person had beforehand covenanted to undertake this conflict with the Devil and his instruments and unless God the Father had also covenanted that the obedience of the seed of the woman both in his conflict with Satan and in his death and sacrifice should break the Devils Head-plot and so should thereby merit the salvation of all the Elect. But thirdly Observe this that I do not say that the sufferings of Christ which hee indured from the malice of Satan and his instruments were full satisfaction without his sacrifice in the formality of his death but on the contrary I say that no sufferings though never so great can make satisfaction without his sacrifice in the formality of his death by the separation of his soul from his body by his own Priestly power and therefore if it could be supposed that Christ had born the moral curse of Hell-torments according to Mr. Nortons Tenent for a thousand yeers together on the Cross yet without this his last Priestly act of death and sacrifice it could not have been a sufficient price for our redemption and the reason thereof is most cleer and evident because God had ordained by his eternal Councel and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that nothing should be accepted for full satisfaction to break the Devils Head-plot without the true bodily death of the seed of the woman made a sacrifice in the formality of it by his own Priestly power he must be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice Heb. 7. 27. Heb. 9. 14 25 26 28. Heb. 10 9 10 12. Fourthly Yet I grant notwithstanding that all his sufferings from Satan and his instruments were ordained for the trial of All Christs sufferings were as necessary to his sacrifice as the consecration of the Priest was to his sacrifice his obedience and so for his consecration to his Priestly Sacrifice and in that respect it was as necessary to his sacrifice as the consecration of the Priest was to the making of a sacrifice under the Law I say that both his consecration by his ignominious usage and by his long lingring tortures on the Cross and the formality of his death and sacrifice by his own Priestly power must be considered as two distinct Articles of the eternal Covenant though they must also be conjoyned for the making of that sacrifice that God covenanted to accept for Heb 2. 10. Heb. 59. Ioh 19. 30. The sacrifice of Christ doth properly lye in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power See also further in Reply 13. mans redemption his sufferings as a Martyr from the malice of Satan was ordained for the trial of his perfect obedience and so consequently for the perfecting of his Priestly consecration as these Scriptures do witness Heb. 2. 10. Heb. 5. 8 9. Heb. 7. 28. And when Moses put the blood of consecration on Aarons right Ear Thumb and great Toe it figured saith Ains on Lev. 8. 24. the sufferings of Christ whose hands and feet were peirced and then as soon as his consecration was finished which was finished by finishing all the sufferings that were written of him then hee declared the same by saying It is finished Job 19. 30. And then at the same instant without any delay he first bowed his head and then he made his life a sacrifice by giving up the ghost and this was in a differing order from that death that comes by the course of nature for by the course of nature men do hold up the head as long as life is in the body and then as soon as the soul is departed the head falls but Christ while he was in the strength of nature did first bow his head and then hee gave up the ghost And thus he performed his death as the Mediator of the New Covenant by his own Priestly power in both his natures according to the eternal Covenant And in this last act by vertue of the said eternal Covenant lyes 1 The formality of his death 2 The formality of his sacrifice And 3 The formality of all satisfaction Heb. 9. 14 15 16. And therefore from hence it necessarily follows that till this last act was done no sufferings that went before though he be supposed by Mr. Norton to have suffered the essential torments of Hell though never so long and never so strong could bee accounted of God for satisfaction for mans Redemption Fifthly All this was made manifest to fallen Adam by Gods declared decree in Gen. 3. 15. as I have formerly noted and I think it needful to repeat it again with some inlargement 1 God proclaimed an utter enmity between Christ the seed of the Woman and the Devil in the Serpent and in all other instruments of his malice 2 Hee told the Devil that hee might arm himself as well as hee could that the seed of that deceived Woman should break his Head-plot by continuing obedient to all the positive Laws of the combate notwithstanding his foul play and his malicious stratagems to disturb him in the course of his obedience 3 Hee told the Devil that hee should have full liberty to use him as a vilde Malefactor and at last to peirce him in the foot-soals on the Cross to disturb his patience and so to spoyl his obedience and so to hinder his death from being a sacrifice of satisfaction if he could In this manner I say God declared the plotform of the eternal counsel and Covenant of the Trinity for mans redemption and therefore whatsoever is spoken after this of the Messiah and of the work of Redemption it must have reference to this first declaration for all that is spoken after this is but a comment upon this and all Christs sufferings are included in these two words 1. He shall be the seed of the woman and he shall be touched both inwardly with the feeling of our infirmities in all his voluntary passions Secondly Outwardly Thou Satan shalt peirce him in the foot-soals And hence it is plain that all his outward sufferings were to be from Satan and his instruments and all his inward sufferings from
is point blank against Mr. Norton Eleventhly Cyril de Rectafide 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 But the immortal righteous Son of God coming to die for us in whose flesh because there could be no sin he suffered the punishment of sin without the guilt thereof wherefore he admitted for us the second part of the first death that is to say the death of the body onely by which he took from us the dominion of sin and the pain of eternal punishment And saith he in Ser. 129. There is a first and a second death of the first death there are two parts one when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator and the other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods Justice The second death is the everlasting torment of body and soul This distinction of the first and second death Mr. Norton disputes against And in Epist 99. He saith Surely the soul of Christ was neither dead with any sin nor punished with damnation which are the two ways how the death of the soul may possibly be understood But Mr. Norton hath found out a third way for the death of Christs soul by his penal Hell in this world which he makes to have the same essential torments that are in fiery Gehenna 16. Beda in Homil. Feria 4. in Quadragesima saith Christ coming to us that were in death of Body and Spirit suffered onely one death that is the death of the flesh and freed us of both our deaths he applied his ONE DEATH to our double death and vanquished them both 17. Albinus in Quaest on Genesis saith What is meant by this Thou shalt die the death It meaneth a double death in man to wit Soul and Body the death of the Soul is when God for sin forsaketh it the death of the Body is when through any necessity the body is deprived of the soul This double death of ours Christ destroyed with his single death for he died onely in the flesh for a time but in soul he never died who never sinned 18. Bernard ad milites Templi c. 11. saith Of our two deaths whereof the one is the desert of sin the other the due punishment Christ taking our punishment but clear from sin whiles he dyed willingly and onely in body he meriteth for us life and righteousness Had Mr. Norton lived in their days durst he have condemned this Doctrine for Heresie as now he doth I trow not he might rather have expected a sharp censure from them 19. Bullenger on Isa 53. 10. Homil. 153. saith Whole Christ was the expiation of our sins though during that time neither his Divinity suffered nor his soul dyed but his flesh whereof the blessed Fathers Vigilius and Fulgentius have religiously discoursed against Hereticks 20. No other death but a bodily death was typified as I have shewed from Lev. 17. 11. and this also was typified by the death of the High Priest which was ordained by Gods positive Law and Covenant for the redemption of the exiled person that was exiled by the Law for unwitting murder for by the Law he was to continue an exile as long as the High Priest lived but as soon as the High Priest was dead be it longer or shorter in time then not till then the exiled person was thereby redeemed from the avenger of blood Num. 35. 25. and this makes the reason of the type to be the more eminent because in Numb 35. 25. all other Nations the unwitting Man-slayer is freed at the first Sessions of Justice but by Gods positive Ordinance in Israel he must continue an exile till the death of the High Priest hee could not be redeemed sooner nor by any other way from the danger of the avenger of blood but onely by the death of the High Priest this is an evident type of our redemption by the bodily death and sacrifice of our High Priest Christ Jesus 21. The Reader shall find in several other Chapters several other Divines that do accord with these Hence two Conclusions do follow First That Christs soul was not spiritually dead with the second death as Mr. Norton doth unadvisedly hold for an Orthodox Evangelical Tenet Secondly That his death was a true bodily death namely such a bodily death as in the formality of it was a Sacrifice But Mr. Norton in p. 70. saith It is a fiction to assert any divine prediction that Christ should onely suffer a bodily death And saith he in p. 59. It had been of none effect if he had suffered onely a bodily death and to this effect he speaks in p. 170 173 174. 160 162 c. 22. But for the better clearing of the true nature of Christs death I will out of Christopher Carlile describe the vital soul See Carlile in his descent p. 144 c. Nephes saith Carlile is never applied to the immortal soul in all the Bible 2 Saith he Nephes which the Greeks have translated Psyche A true description of the vital soul the Latines animam the English soul hath its name in Hebrew Chaldee Greek and Latine of breathing because it cooleth and refresheth with respiring and breathing page 145. 3 Nephes consisteth in blood breath life vital spirit affections and passions c. As for example 1 Nephes is the blood Lev. 17. 4 10 11. the life of every living creature is in the blood And this Nephes is mortal and therefore it is called Nephes Caja but the immortal spirit is called Neshama Cajim the spirit of lives This is immortal and dyes not as Nephes Caja doth 2 This Nephes is often put for the vital soul as in Gen. 35. 18. Gen. 44. 30. Exod. 4. 19. Jos 2. 13. Isa 53. 10 11 12. c. in page 149. 3 Nephes is put for the mind heart and inward parts Prov. 16. 24. Prov. 19. 18. Prov. 23. 6. Prov. 25. 12. 4 Nephes is put for the
took unto him not by any bond of necessity but by the good pleasure of his mercy as he did flesh and death it self Wherefore his death was truly free and not forced because he had power to lay down his soul and to take it up again From these words of Beda which accord with Damasen and other ancient Divines we may see that they held it to be an evident truth that Christ was often his own afflicter with soul-sorrows and to that end he voluntarily took unto him our infirmities of fear sorrow c. they were not pressed from him from the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton holds And saith Beda his death was truly free and not forced therefore especially in the last act of his death he was the onely active Priest in breathing out or sending out his soul from his body But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. And in this case Christ was his own Executioner which last saith he the Dialogue it self expresly rejecteth Reply 20. There is good reason to reject it for though God commanded Christ in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our infirmities to enter the Lists with his envious Combater Satan and also permitted Satan to enter the Lists with Christ and to assault him with a Band of Souldiers Christ was not his own executioner or self-murderer though he was the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice with staves and swords yet he did not command Christ to take any of these weapons from them and run them into his own body on purpose to kill himself that so he might be his own executioner as Saul was to prevent the ignominious usage of his Adversaries this kind of killing is Diabolical and Christ might not be his own executioner in any such like manner therefore the Dialogue had good reason to reject that kind of Tenent The Dialogue saith thus in p. 102. Though he did not break his own body and pour out his own blood with nails and spear as the Roman Souldiers did yet he brake his own body in peeces by separating his own soul from his body by his own Priestly power And thus Beza makes Christ to break his hody actively as well as passively But it is a prophane expression to compare the act of a Priest in killing a sacrifice to the act of an executioner that puts a malefactor to death and it is a like prophane expression to call such a death Self-murder or Homicide If Abraham had formally killed Isaack as he intended yet he had not been Isaacks murderer no nor yet his executioner according to the known use of the word neither was Isaack to be called a Self-murtherer or a Homicide being now thirty three years old and therfore able to have resisted his Father in submitting himself to be bound and to be laid on See Beza Annot on 1 Cor. 11. 24. And Haymo there also the Altar to be killed But in that act we see how God esteemed it for in that act Abraham should have been the Priest and Isaack the Sacrifice And so ought we to esteem of the act of Christ in his death in his Divine nature he was the Priest and in his humane nature he was the Sacrifice as the Dialogue saith or thus by the joynt concurrence of both his natures he was both Priest and Sacrifice But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. Though Haman according to the true sense of the Text Ester 8. 7. be said to lay his hand upon the Jews yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman Abraham is said to have offered up Isaack yet Isaack is said no where to be slain by Abraham as Abraham did sacrifice Isaack so was Isaack sacrificed that is to say interpretatively or vertually not actually Reply 21. Those instances in the Dialogue in p. 100. are more clearly expressed than they are related by Mr. Norton and the intent of those instances was no more but this namely to exemplifie that though the Jews are said to kill Christ yet that they did not formally separate his soul from his body though they did enough to make themselves true murderers of the Lord of life but the last act was done by himself as he was the Priest in his own death But saith Mr. Norton in p. 85. How oft do we read in Scripture that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews Act. 2. 37. and 4 10. 1 Cor. 2. 8. Reply 22. I grant the Scripture doth often say that the Jews did slay and murder the Lord of life but saith the Geneva note on Act. 2. 23. on the word you have slain The fact is said to be theirs by whose counsel and egging forward it was done By this note it appeareth that in their judgement Christ was not actually put to death by the Jews but vertually onely and so Isaack is said to have been offered up by Abraham in the Preter-tense so the new Translation in Jam. 2. 21. because he did really intend and endeavor to do it So then I hope the Dialogue saich true notwithstanding Mr. Nortons busling contradiction namely that the Jews did not put Christ to death formally But in case he was put to death formally by second causes then it follows that it was done by the Devil in the Roman powers for they had the power of life and death at this time and not the Jews as I have shewed at large in the Dialogue the Jews and Romans were true murtherers but not the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice This distinction of his death is contemned by Mr. Norton But it is a very harsh saying in mine ears to say That the Devil in the Roman powers was the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice as they must bee if they were the formal cause of Christs death and to me it is as hard a speech to say That the wrath of God the Father was the formal cause of Christs death as some say it was and as Mr. Norton saith also sometimes in true effect for in page 79 he saith That Christs death was joyned with the curse made up of the pain of sense and the pain of loss and in page 70 he saith It is a fiction to assert any divine prediction That Christ should only suffer a bodily death and presently after he saith Christ dyed as a sinner impuratively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Hence I reason thus If the wrath of God the Father did put Christ to death formally then the Father was the Priest in the death and sacrifice of Christ which is quite contrary to Gods own established order for by his oath hee made Christ an unchangeable Priest that so hee might bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice Heb. 7. 21. Christ was not by nature obnoxious to death nor to any other misery but by Covenant
Priest in his death and sacrifice which is quite contrary to his own established order for he hath established Christ to bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice by his oath which is an unalterable thing for his oath doth witness that he established Christ by his eternal Decree and Covenant to be the only Priest in his own death and sacrifice I beleeve it will make Mr. Norton sweat to get handsomely out of this Dilemma which hee hath brought himself into by his own contradictory principles But saith Mr. Norton in page 85 167 168. Wee read in Joh. 10. 18. that Christ laid down his life but not that he took it away by violence The same word that is used here concerning Christ Peter hath concerning himself I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13. 37. and John hath the same concerning Christ and the Saints because he laid down his life for us we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren 1 Joh. 3. 16. Reply 25. I grant that all the godly ought to say to Christ There is a transcendent difference between the manner of Peters laying down his life for Christ and Christs laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect. Joh 10. 11. as Peter said to him I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13 37. and they ought also to say as John said in 1 Job 3. 16. For it is the duty of all the godly to venture their lives as Martyrs for the defence of the truth and for the defence of the godly that stand for the truth if they be called thereto rather than to deny it But the death of Christ must be considered not only as hee was a Martyr from his Combater Satan but it must also bee considered as it was ordained to be a Sacrifice of satisfaction to Gods Justice for mans Redemption in the formality of it In the first sense Christ saith in Joh. 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd the good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheep that is to say Hee spares not to venture his life to incounter as a voluntary Combater with the proclaimed Enemy of his elect Sheep The old Serpent according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. to rescue as the good Shepherd David did the prey or the Lamb which was taken for a spoyl from the Lion and the Bear 1 Sam. 17. 35. Job 29. 17. And thus Christ gave his life as a Martyr 2 But in the second sense his death must be considered as it was to be made a sacrifice of Reconciliation in the formality of it and so it must be considered as it was effected by his own Priestly power and in that respect his death is set forth in divers other words in Joh. 10. 17 18. to be of a Joh. 10. 17 18. transcendent nature beyond that voluntary suffering that is expressed by Peter or by any other Martyr as it appears by these particulars First Saith Christ in v. 11. 15 I lay down my life for my sheep I am the good Shepherd I will not play the Coward to flye when the Wolf cometh to devour my sheep but I will readily and voluntarily undertake to combate with the Wolf for the redemption of my sheep I am ready to venture my life in the Combate with the old proclaimed Serpent for the rescuing of my sheep from Satans spoyl for though I know before hand by Gen. 3. 15. that Satan hath an unlimited power given him to do his worst against me and to use me as a sinful Malefactor for a time which time is truly called the hour and power of darkness in Luke 22. 53. yet like a good Shepherd I will readily enter the Lists with Satan and will so exactly manage the Combate by my humane nature for the trial of the Mastery according to the Laws of the Combate that my death at last shall not only bee a death of Martyrdome such as Peter speaks of but over and above I will make my death in the formality of it to bee a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to the eternal Covenant for the full redemption of all my captivated sheep I will divide the spoyl with the strong enemy Satan I will redeem the Elect though he keep the refuse and therefore Secondly Christ doth still amplifie the most excellent nature of his death saying in verse 18. I lay down my life of my self namely by my own will desire and power according to my voluntary Covenant for I am a voluntary and equal reciprocal Covenanter and therefore I must never bee over-ruled by any supreme power for that would destroy the nature of such a voluntary Covenant as mine is Thirdly Christ doth still amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying None takes my life from me and if none saith Chrysostome then surely not death that sentence of death that was denounced to sinful Adam in Gen. 3. 19. was denounced as a death to be co-acted by the justice of God for original sin this kind of death could not take away Christs life from him therefore the death of Christ must be considered as a death of Covenant only it was founded in the voluntary Cause and Covenant to be performed by himself as a Priest and to bee accepted as a sacrifice of Reconciliation as the full price of mans Redemption But on the contrary if Christ had been our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam then God might in justice have taken away his life from him volence nolence then God might in justice have said to death Let death seize upon him as upon a guilty Sinner or as on a guilty Surety and so death might have exacted his life from him as a true debtor to death by Gods justice and then his death had been no more but a co-acted natural death as Mr. Norton makes it to be But the blessed Scriptures do testifie that Christ in his death did overcome him that had the power of death Heb. 2. 14. and that he triumphed over Principalities and Powers in it Col. Heb. 2 14. Col. 2. 15. 2. 15. The Devil therefore could not put Christ to death formally by his tortures as he doth other men that are sinners by Gods legal imputation and therefore Christ said None takes my life from me Fourthly Christ doth still proceed to amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying I have power to lay it down namely of my self as he had expressed his meaning in the former sentence other men sometimes have a great desire to dye and to lay down their lives formally and yet they cannot dye according to their earnest desire because they want a power to effect it Jonah had a great desire to dye and yet he had not power to dye and therefore hee prayed unto the Lord saying O Lord take away my vital soul from me Jonah 4. 3. I have a great desire to dye but
Dialogue called The Meritorious price of mans Redemption I do often conclude my several Replies with this intreaty to the Judicious Reader to judge between us which of us doth give the righâ—est sense of the blessed Scriptures in these insuing Controversie Paul did much commend the Synagogue of the Bercans for their better more noble and more ingenuous disposition beyond the Synagogue of the Thessalonians because they searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so or no as Paul had taught in their Synagogue Act. 17. 11. For in two main points of Religion touching mans Redemption which Paul taught in their Synagogue he differed much from their common received opinion For first hee opened and alledged from the Scriptures That the Messiah must needs have suffered namely that by the necessity of the eternal Decree and Covenant he must needs take on him our true humane nature from the Seed of the woman and that in that nature as it was accompanied with our true humane affections and passions he must needs enter the Lists and Combate with Satan for the victory for God had proclaimed an utter enmity between them in Gen. 3. 15. and then he also told the Devil that he should have full liberty and power to peirce this Seed of the woman in the foot-soals as a sinful Malefactor on the Cross And secondly Hee opened and alledged from the Scriptures That the Messiah must also of necessity rise again from death to life on the third day Act. 17. 3. In these two main points Paul differed much from the common received opinion of the Jews for their common received opinion was That their Messiah should come into the world as a stately conquering Monarch to redeem them from the Tyranny of the Nations of the world and to restore them again into their own land in a more glorious manner than ever before And secondly it was their common opinion that their Messiah should not dye at all but that he should continue alive for ever in his stately monarchy This was their common received opinion of Redemption by the Messiah as it is evident by Joh. 12 23 32. 34. and by Jonathans Paraphrase and by their Thalmud which is cited by Maymony and translated by Mr. Bro. in Eccles p. 31. c. And therefore when Paul opened and alledged from the Scriptures that the Messiah must needs have suffered from Satan and his Instruments for their redemption it was a great stumbling block of offence to the Jews in general 1 Cor. 1. 23. and yet notwithstanding some few of their Hebrew Doctors held and wrote otherwise namely That the Messiah must suffer much evil from the enmity of Satan For saith Du Plessis in the Trueness of Religion page 531. Some of the Rabbins in the Thalmud say That Christ should be distressed as a woman that labors of a child according as Jeremy saith He had great Anguishes to suffer but that he would indure them willingly to deliver man from sin And saith he Rab. Hadarson saith That Satan should be an enemy to him and to his Disciples And saith he in the book of Ruth where it is written Eat thy bread and temper it with vinegar This Bread saith the Commentary is the bread of the anointed King or Messiah who shall be broken for mens sin and indure great torments as it is written in Isaiah And saith he Rabbi Symeon Ben Jochai writeth thus Wo worth the Murtherers of Israel for they shall kill Christ God will send his Son cloathed in mans flesh to wash them and they will kill him And saith he Whereas it is said we be healed by his death or stripes the ancient Cabalists understand it of Christ and say that the Angels had taught them that the clensing away of sin should be done upon Wood. And saith Du Plessis in page 478. Rab. Hechadosh saith That the Messiah shall by his death save Adams race and deliver mens souls from Hell and therefore hee shall be called Saviour And secondly Some few of the Hebrew Doctors did also hold the Resurrection of the Messiah For saith Du Plessis in page 532 533. Rab. Hadarson and Rab. Hachadosh and Rab. Jonathan the son of Uzziel and others do expound these Texts of the Resurrection of Christ Thou wilt not suffer thy holy One to see corruption And he shall be raised again within the third day for it is written He will quicken us after two dayes and in the third day will he raise us up again And say the Rabbins in Bresith Rabba commenting on Gen. 22. 4. There are many a three dayes in the holy Scriptures of which one is the Resurrection of the Messiah See Ains in Gen. 22. 4. These two points of Doctrine which was scoffed at by the wise Philosophers of the Gentiles Act. 17. 18 c. which was held but by a very few among the Jews Paul taught to be the only truth in their Synagogues and he opened and alledged the Scriptures to prove these points But because these points of Doctrine were contrary to their now common received opinion Therefore the Church or Synagogue of Thessalonica being forest alled by their erronious judgements were inraged at it and like mad men did teoth and nayl persecute Paul for it but yet he was hid from their rage and he that held the truth was glad to obscure himself at the present and to haste away out of their Jurisdiction unto the Jurisdiction of the Synagogue of Berea But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge thereof they sent thither also and stirred up the people against Paul verse 13. because hee hold and taught the said Doctrine there But although at the first it seemed very strange and new to them of Berea as it did to them of Thessalonica yet they did not persecute Paul for it because the chief Rulers there were of a more wise temperate and noble disposition than they of Thessalonica and therefore they took a wiser course For they searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so or no And this is worthy of all due consideration that they did not content themselves with a superficial search of one day and away but they made it their daily work to search the Scriptures neither did they trust only to the Expositions of those Hebrew Doctors that were now commonly received but they searched into the Scriptures themselves conferring what Paul had taught and his proofs with the Doctrine of Moses and the Prophets held forth in the Old Testament 2 Pet. 1. 19. concerning the promised Messiah where the first Scripture to be examined is in Gen. 3. 15. And first By this means Pauls two points of Doctrine which seemed new to them at the first shew was found by them to be the only true Doctrine of the blessed Scriptures and by that means many of them beleeved the said points with many honourable women which were Greeks and of men not a few verse 12. Secondly By this means Pauls new Doctrine
3 15. that his sufferings as he was declared to be the seed of the woman was to be from the voluntary cause in the trial of masteries with his proclaimed enemy Satan and his Instruments in which Combate in case Satan could have prevailed to disturb his patience then Satan had got the victory but in case he could not by all his ill usage disturb his patience nor any way subvert him in his obedience then the victory and the rich prize of mans Redemption was to go on Christs side p. 55 82 96 22 chap. 13 14. Eternity is essential to the Torments of Hell p. 56 The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell Torments thereby to make Eternity no more but a circumstance hath four inconveniencies attending it p. 56 Sometimes Mr. Norton doth affirm that Christ suffered the pain of loss in respect of the fruition of the good of the Promise but otherwhiles he saith it was but in respect of the sense of the good of the Promisess By which wide differing expressions he leaves the Reader in the dark to grâ—pe out his meaning p. 58 Mr. Norton in his book p. 123 holds that Christ was separated both in body and soul from all participation of the good of the Promise for a time and so he comes up to Christs total separation from God for a time p. 60 Sometimes again he makes the pain of loss to be no more but the want of the sense of the favor of God for a time p. 61 Mr. Norton is put to his shifts to maintain his poenal Hell in this life for he is fain to fly to Gods extraordinary dispensation to maintain it p. 62 Death in sin is the essential curse that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. p. 63 68 34 Seeing the Elect were in Christ vertually before they were in Adam actually it proves that eternal death did not stand in full force against them but a spiritual death in sin onely p. 65 Death in sin and other punishments also which the Elect do suffer since the revelation of the Covenant of Grace in Gen. 3. 15. are de jure penal Justice though de facto in the issue they are not p. 69 * Add this Note to p. 69. Yea Mr. Norton himself doth confess in his book p. 255. That Original sin is the penal effect of Adams sin Death is not from God as be did ordain nature but it was inflicted as a punishment for Original sin and then he also ordamed a judgement to follow which will be a judgement to eternal death to all such as die without Faith in their redemption from Satans Head plot by the promised seed p. 70 Mr. Norton doth often contradict his foundation Principle which is that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the essential punishment of the curse of Hell Torments p 72 107 113 291 Mr. Norton doth by necessary consequence impute the sin of unmindfuâ—â— ness to Christ in the very time when he diâ— execute his Priestly office p. 76. p. 327 * Add this Note to p. 76. and to ch 17. at Sect. 4. Mr. Weams in his Portraiture p. 248. saith as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was forgetful of his Office by reason of the Agony astonishing his senses O horrible Blasphemy And though he doth agree with Mr. Norton in the point of imputing sin to Christ yet he doth contradict Mr. Norton in the point of Christ suffering Hell Torments for in p. 208. he denies that Christ suffered Hell Torments because saith he some things were unbeseeming to the person of Christ as the torments of Hel therefore saith he the compensation of it was supplied by the worthiness of the person Payment in kind doth justifie the Elect actually as soon as ever they have life in the womb And this Tenent doth justifie the Antinomian Tenent which holds that the Elect are justified before they have any Faith p. 76 Payment in kind leaves no room for God to exercise his free pardon and see P. Martyr in Rom. p. 382. ult p. 77 Mr. Norton affirms most dangerously that Christ made full satisfaction by suffering Hell Torments before his death was compleated and so he makes his death and sacrifice to be altogether vain and needless as to the point of full satisfaction p. 79 309. and chap. 17. Reply 24. To affirm that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell is all one as to affirm that Christs sufferings were from Gods hatred p. 79. at the fifth Reason p. 80 The true nature of all Christs greatest sufferings are described by the word chastisements in Isa 53. 5. But the essential tormonts of Hell are no where called chastisements therefore Christs greatest sufferings cannot truly and properly be called the essential Torments of Hell p. 79. at Reas 6. p. 169. CHAP. V. THe Essential Torments of Hell are inflicted from Gods hatred p. 80 CHAP. VI. CHrist undertook all his sufferings from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and he underwent them as our voluntary combating Surety for the winning of the prize from his malignant combating Enemy Satan even the redemption of all the Elect by continuing constant in his obedience to the Laws of the Combate even to the death of the Cross and therefore be did not undergo his sufferings from Gods vindicative justice by imputing the guiss of our sins to him and so inflicting on him the essential Torments of Hell according to the legal order of justice in Court proceedings p. 82 83 96 102 138 55. Ch. 13 Ch. 14 God doth impute the guilt of Adams first sin to all his natural posterity because it was his good pleasure as he was the most absolute Supreme to make such a Covenant with Adam as might really include all his natural posterity namely That in case he did first eat of the forbidden fruit then his nature as it was the fountain of all mans nature in general should become dead in sin and so consequently he must impute the guilt of Adams first sin to them all as being all dead in sin by natural generation p. 83 Christ could not be Adams legal Surety to the first Covenant for then be must have suffered the vindicative curse of death in sin which is blasphemy in the bigbest degree to affirm Therefore none but Adam as he was the head of mans nature by nature generation was under the obligation of punishment for the breach of the first Covenant p. 86 150 c. Christ may well be called our voluntary Surety because be voluntarily undertook our cause namely to be our voluntary Combater against Satan to break his Head plot for our Redemption but in no sort can be he said to be our legal bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam p. 89. 205 * Add this Marginal Note to p. 89. See also what Grotius saith against legal Sureties for life in capital crimes p. 215 216. God ordained all Christs greatest sufferings in his long passion to be for his Priestly Consecration
themselves p. 145 * Add this Note to p. 145. Rutherfurd on the Covenant p. 25. faith You cannot shew me in all the Old or New Testament any penal Law that was imposed on the Man Christ where it is written If the Man Christ sin he shall eternally dye I tremble saith he at such expressions and hence I infer That then Christ could not be Adams Surety in the same obligation to the Curse of the first Covenant The true nature of Christs death was to be made a sacrifice by the power of his own Priestly office p. 145 146 309 313 ch 17. ult * Add this Marginal Note to p. 147. at 1. 23. As Christ assumption of flesh and spirit was not like ours so his death in the formality of it was not to be like ours but of a far differing nature A deseription of Christs merit namely how he merited our Redemption p. 146 176 130 308 This speech of Mr. Nortons Man sins and the Man Christ dyes is but a Paralogism p. 150 Christ was not our surety in the same obligation with Adam p. 150 86 Though it is supposed by Mr. Norton that the first Covenant was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the 〈…〉 or all Law of Nature yet in that sense it is not a compleat rule of Gods relative Justice p. 151 Gen. 2. 〈◊〉 doth not comprehend Christ within the composs of it p. 152 * Add this marginal Note to p. 152. Adam before his fall might beleeve in the Trinity but yet faith Mr. Weams in his Portraiture p. 91. he could not beleeve the incarnation of the Second person for then he should have understood of his own fall and then consequently saith he he would have been in a perpetual fear before his fall But faith 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 faith Vinditiae Legis in p. 129. he needed no Mediator nor comfort because his soul could not be terrified with any sin And so faith Austln in his Enchyrid to Lawrence chap. 32. When Adam was made a right man he needed no Mediator but when sin did separate him 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 Decrees 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 he 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 re-demption 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 hi 〈…〉 nd 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
yet it doth not thence follow that he was his own Executioner or Self murderer as Mr. Norton doth most unadvisedly thence infer p. 405 No full satisfaction could be made by any thing that Christ suffered before his bodily death was compleated because therein onely lay the formality of his sacrifice without which no full satisfaction could be made p. 415. 309. 79 145 315 Sometimes Mr. Norton doth make Christ to die formally under the sense of the wrath of God for full satisfaction but at other times he doth cross that and makes satisfaction to be fully compleated before hee suffered his natural death So uncertain hee is in his foundation-Principles touching Christs satisfaction p 416 There was a transcendent difference between the manner of Peters laying down his life for Christ and the manner of Christs laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect p. 417 * Add this Note to p. 417. Mr. Weams on the Judicial Laws p. 78. doth observe that though Peter said to Christ in Ioh. 13. 37. Lord I will lay down my life for thy sake yet Christ that knew his natural unwillingness better than himself told him afterwards that another shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not so that in the conclusion when Peter came indeed to dye for Christ he was partly willing and partly unwilling Ioh. 21. â—8 which kind of unwillingness was not in Christ at his death because he had by his prayers in the Garden obetained a confirmation against his naturall fear of death when hee came to dye on the cross Therefore Mr. Norton doth deale very unadvisedly to compare the manner of Peters laying downe his life with the manner of Christs laying downe his life for the Elect * Add this Note also to p. 417. The power which Christ said he had to lay down his life must not be understood of a permissive power to let Satan take it away formally nor yet of his absolute power as he was God but of his derivative power in relation to his Office of Mediatorship as I noted it in pag. 46. and in p. 420. from Mr. Ball for his Fathers commandement or commission gave him a speciall power of lawfull authority to lay down his life and therefore in vers 18. he saith this commandement or this authority have I as Mediator received of my Father Christs Priestly consecration by his sufferings and his Sacrifice by the formality of his death must not be confounded but distinguished when the parts of his Priestly Office are explained p. 427 No other act of a Priest doth make a Sacrifice formally but such an act as God hath appointed for the taking away of the life of the sacrifice formally p. 429 408 416 309 315 345 The word Sanctifie or make Holy in the Law is frequently ascribed to Gods Attonement and Forgiveness procured by Sacrifice And therefore all those sinners that are made holy by that means are Justified and Righteous persons in Gods sight p 431 These three legall Phrases Pardon of Sin Gods Attonement and a Sinners Righteousness are the same thing quite contrary to Mr. Nortons long Discourse in p. 209 210 211 212 c. See p. 432 What other death can the Apostle mean did God ordain to Reconcile us to himself but by the death of Christs flesh and not by the spiritual death of his immortall Soul as Mr. Norton holds p. 434 The death of Christ as is was a sacrifice of Reconciliation was by Gods voluntary Covenant the full price of mans Redemption p. 436 A Table of some Scriptures that are Expounded or Illustrated Genesis Ch. Vers Page 2 7 4 2 9 4 154. 2 17 23 59 63 112 130 144 149 152. 3 15 82 89 91 96 124 135 142 167 171 176 178 263 269 297 308 310 324 332 341 344 348 400 418. 3 19 30 147 334 401 419. 20 3 158 32 20 137 191 251 252 257. Exodus 22 31 235 432. 23 5 371 24 7 8 119 29 36 37 190 432 30 10 251 30 12 135 255 436 30 26 256 436 32 10 335 32 27 29 92 32 32 181 Leviticus 1 4 133 4 20 233 6 26 213 6 30 233 7 15 272 10 17 194 11 44 432 15 31 50 148 234 16 30 433 17 4 87 17 11 315 318 320 18 5 17 20 15 216. To this Text see our larger Annotation on the word cursed in Gen. 3. 14. Numbers 5 8 251 14 19 233 19 11 15 280 282 25 4 268 275 35 25 319 Deuteronomy 6 24 25 239 9 14 335 21 8 233 257 21 23 262 27 26 119 151 29 12 119 33 19 233 252 Joshua 7 12 276 8 29 272 2 Samuel 21 1 280 21 9 276 22 5 327 1 Kings 21 3 113 131 256 2 Kings 20 1 157 2 Chron. 30 19 20 158 Job 1 21 179 348 2 7 ibid. 19 21 ibid. 36 32 189 42 8 258 Psalms 16 10 109 18 5 321 327 22 1 59 370 25 11 333 25 18 168 31 5 436 32 1 168 258 260 32 5 85 40 6 213 40 8 44 187 40 16 270 49 7 8 9 94 135 51 14 233 51 19 233 252 65 4 137 69 7 9 269 69 20 343 69 27 349 78 38 160 94 15 138 118 19 49 Proverbs 7 9 272 28 13 197 Isay 53 4 162 Â 5 166 178 181 266 349 375 Â 6 167 186 193 Â 7 181 184 Â 8 351 Â 9 351 Â 10 96 124 178 211 222 223 314 348. Â 12 188 220 337 344 378 399. Jeremy 30 21 187 33 8 50 Ezekiel 18 4 20 25 94 149 217 27 12 13 14-373 Â Daniel 6 14 224 6 14 340 6 21 23 429 8 14 49 235 260 9 7 16 233 9 24 27 48 139 196 223 233 233 241 250 260 9 26 225 352 Jonah 3 4 158 Zachery 13 1 190 13 7 347 Matthew 4 1 346 5 17 18 113 16 21 142 19 28 29 20 22 33 305 26 28 260 Â 31 346 Â 38 173 269 270 298 314 321 327. Â 39 9 46 305 Â 46 335 339 Â 47 347 Â 53 54 184 298 384 27 39 270 Â 45 179 Â 46 59 370 Mark 10 39 305 307 14 33 223 338 14 24 35 290 15 27 28 220 352 Luke 9 28 107 9 31 121 10 40 374 12 50 183 22 28 170 Â 44 100 177 331 334 336 338. Â 53 184 418 23 34 45 23 46 436 414 24 25 26 44-143 Â 24 46 95 John 10 11 181 344 10 15 181 314 10 17 18 46 298 314 369 409 418 426 11 33 337 417 12 27 337 404 14 30 31 184 346 352 16 32 61 18 4 6 184 18 11 179 298 19 11 179 351 ib. 28 75 328 ib. 30 75 90 ib. 33 415 Acts. 2 23 179 312 351 ib. 27 109 3 17 18 142 4 28 179 13 27 28 143 15 9 259 in the Manusc Note Romans 1 32 239 2 13 18 ib. 26 241 260 3 21 223 237 ib.
All the glory of Gods câ—eatiâ—n had been confounded at the time of Adams fall if Christ had not been fore-or ainâ—d to be reâ—dy at hand to take on him the Government of all And secondly to alter it much more to the Elect for God had ordained that his Son Jesus Christ should be the Heir of all things as soon as ever Adam fell and that he should at the instant of Adams fall take on him the Rule and Government of the whole Creation now in rebellion and confusion by Adams fall and that he should uphold all things by the word of his power Heb. 1. 3. and in a special manner should rule over mans corruption and Sathans malice or else if Christ had not been provided in Gods eternal Counsel and Providence in a readinesse to undertake the Government of all this in this point of time no man can imagine what a hell would have been here on earth through mans spiritual death in sin and Sathans malice if Christ Jesus had not been prepared to interpose in the Government And secondly It pleased God presently after the execution of his spiritual death in sin to declare his eternal Counsel and Providence for the redeeming of Adam and all his elect posterity from this desperate Head-plot of Sathan and from this miserable death of sin thereby altering the execution of that heavy sentence in a great measure or else if God in his eternal Counsel and Providence had not found out a way to alter this sentence there had been no room left for the manifestation of the Covenant of grace by the promised Seed for till the time of Gods gracious manifestation Adam and all his posterity was extrinsecally under the execution of Gods vindicative threatning but it pleased the Lord of his rich mercy presently after to deliver him there-from for God said thus by way of threatning to the devil The Seed of that Woman whom thou hast deceived shall break thy Head-plot by his death and sacrifice and thou shalt have a liberty of power to do thy worst to hinder it And therefore when he shall make his soul a sacrifice for sin thou shalt at the same time have a liberty of power to peirce him in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor Gen. 3. 15. but yet so perfect shall be his patience that no ignominy nor torture shall disturb his patience nor pervert him in his obedience from accomplishing his death as a sacrifice and by this means shall thy cunning Head-plot be broken in peeces and the Elect shall be delivered as the Bird is from the Snare of the Fowler when it is broken Now to bring this work of Redemption to passe a double change must be wrought in fallen man by the Mediation of this Promised Seed 1 A change of our corrupt qualities by a Regeneration 2 A change of our present state from being the children of wrath by nature to be the children of God by his grace of Adoption 1 The alteration or change of our corrupt qualities is done by a twofold Regeneration 1 When the qualities of our souls and bodies are changed from bad to good which is done but in part whiles we live in this world through the Word and Spirit For except a man be born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God Joh. 3. 5. But this Regeneration as I said is done but in part for as long as we live in this world this body of sin doth still in part remain and therefore we can have but the first fruits of the Spirit here 2 The full degree of our Regeneration is not till the day of the general Resurrection and then all those that have been in part regenerated here shall be fully regenerated after they have suffered a bodily death here to fit them for that full Regeneration for without such a change of our corrupt nature by death flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God neither can corruption inherit incorruption 1 Cor. 15. 30. And in this respect saith Christopher Carlisle the Resurrection is called by Christ A Regeneration a new Birth a Renovation a In his Treatise of Christs descent into hell p. 31. Rising from the dead a Restitution from above Matth. 19. 28. Rom. 8. 23. And therefore such as are regenerate and in part sanctified here must suffer a bodily death that so at the Resurrection of all flesh they may be perfectly regenerate in body as well as in soul and then this corruptible shall put on incorruption and this mortal shall put on immortality 1 Cor. 15. 53. Ph. 3. 21. Now therefore behold the Justice and Mercy of God in ordaining a bodily death for as soon as God had dispatched this gracious Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. he did presently after namely in vers 19. which is but four verses after the promise tell beleeving Adam as he was the head of mans corrupt nature in general Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return And thus from the order of time when this threatning was denounced It follows 1 That a bodily death was not denounced untill after Christ was declared to be the Seed of the Woman to break thâ— Devils Head-plot by purchasing a new Nature and a new Paradise for Adam and as many else of his posterity as did beleeve in the Promised Seed but this threatning of a bodily death did imply a further degree of misery to all the rest of his posterity that did live and dye in the unbeleef of the Promised Seed for when God did first appoint a bodily death he did then also appoint a day of Judgement as Heb. 9. 27. doth expound the threatning in Gen. 3. 19. 2 This is also worthy of all due consideration That this bodily death was not threatned to be formally executed in the day of Adams sinful eating as death in sin was 3 Neither was a bodily death threatned to be formally executed on any certain day afterwards 4 Neither did God cease to threaten a bodily death as he ceased to threaten a spiritual death after this time but upon the committing of such and such sins he did still from time to time threaten a bodily death But after the first threatning of a spiritual death in sin God did never threaten that death any more he did but once threaten that death and but once execute it 5 When God denounced the sentence of a bodily death to beleeving Adam he adjudged him and all his beleeving posterity no further then their bodies to the earth whence Christ should one day raise them and by that means utterly abolish from them all sin and corruption but he adjudged his unbeleeving seed not only to a bodily but also to an eternal death in hell 6 From this appointment of a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. and not
Epist 10 Whitgensteniâ—â— unto Christs active obedience or to his native holinesse do thereby derogate from the death of Christ and do undoubtedly make it vain or superfluous Pareus doth often use this Argument and Mr. Gataker doth as often approve it not only in his disputation with Gomarus but also in his answer to Mr. Walkers Vindication in p. 13. 91. 10â— 136. and when he had repeated Pareus his words in p. 13. he speaks thus to Mr. Walker Now would I gladly understand from Mr. Walker what he thinketh of Pareus whether he count not him a blasphemous Heretick as well as Mr. Wotton The same question do I propound to Mr. Norton together with that crosse interrogatory that Mr. Gatakar propounded to Mr. Walker in p. 90. 91. 3 Mr. Thomas Goodwin saith That the Law which Christ In his Book of the heart of Christ in Heaven p. 50 51 Psal 40. 8. saith was in his heart or bowels Psal 40. 8. was that special Law which lay upon him as he was the second Adam namely it was a positive Law like that which was given to the first Adam non comedendi over and above the moral Law not to eat of the forbidden fruit such a Law was this which was given to the Mediator it was the Law of his being a Mediator and a Sacrifice over and besides the moral Law which was common to him with us and saith he as that special law of not eating the forbidden fruit was unto Adam Praeceptum Symbolicum as Divines call it given over and besides all the ten Commandements to be a trial or symbol of his obedience to all the rest such was this Law given to Christ the second Adam and thus he expounds the word Law in Psal 40. 8. of the peculiar Law of Mediatorship just as the Dialogue doth and not of the moral Law as Mr. Norton doth 4 Mr. Rutherfurd saith that Christs obedience in laying down his life was in obedience to a positive Law and not to the moral Law as I have cited him more at large in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 5 Mr. Joh. Goodwin doth cite divers eminent Divines that do distinguish the obedience of Christ into two kinds the one they call Justiâ—â—â—a personâ— the righteousnesse of his person the other Justiâ—ia meriti the righteousness of merit and for this distinction Christs obedience to the moral Law is called by Divines 〈◊〉 perâ—ene but his obedience in his death and sufferings they call Justiâ—ia meriti he cites Pareus Dr. Pâ—ideaux Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Forbs and Mr. Gataker and Justitia personâ— they place in Causa sine qua non 6 Saith Mr. Baxter many learned and godly Divines of singular esteem in the Church of God are of this judgement In his Pes of Just p. 53. and there he names many and saith he in his late Apologie to Mr. Blake p. 115. I deny not but that Christ as man was under a Law yea and a Law peculiar to himself whereto no other creature is subject even the Law of Mediation which deserves in the body of Theologie a peculiar place and the handling of it as distinct from all the Laws made with us men is of speciall use c. SECT 3. But saith Mr. Norton in page 192. The Death of the Mediator was in a way of Justice and was Legal obedience And in the same page he makes the Incarnation of Christ also to be legal obedience Reply 1. IT seems that Mr. Norton holds That God had ordained Christs obedience in his Incarnation and Death was not moral obedience but Madiatorial obedience to the special Law of Mediatorship no other way to take satisfaction but first by our Saviours performing of legal obedience for us and suffering the essential punishment of hell torments for this way only he calls The way of Justice But in the former Section I have shewed that sundry orthodox whereof some of them do hold as Mr. Norton doth that Christ made satisfaction by suffering hell torments as Pareus and Mr. Rutherfurd and yet they deny that Christs obedience in his death was legal obedience contrary to Mr. Norton 2 I will adde Mr. Ball to them for he held that Christ made Ball on the Covenant p. 281. satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God though in page 290. he seems not to hold that he suffered hell torments and yet he also doth exempt the death of Christ from being any part of legal obedience The Law saith he did not require that God should dye nor that any should dye that had not sinned nor such a death and of such efficacy as not only to abolish death but to bring in life by many degrees more excellent then that which Adam lost And saith Mr. Ball Christ upon the Crosse prayed for them See Ball on the Covenant p. 259. that crucified him Luke 23. 34. But saith he that might be of private duty as man who subjected himself to the Law of God which requires that we forgive our enemies and pray for them that pâ—rsecâ—te us not of the proper office of a Mediator which was to offer up himself a sacrifice who was to interecede for his people by suffering death It behoved Christ as he subjected himself to the Law to fulfill all Righteousnesse and to pray for his enemies but that was not out of his proper office as Mediator Hence the Reader may observe that Mr. Ball makes Christs obedience to the moral Law to bee out of private duty as a man and not ex officio out of the proper office of a Mediator as Mr. Norton doth make all his legal obedience to be And saith he in page 287. Christ was Lord of his own life and therefore had power to lay it down and take it up And this power he had though he were in all points subject to the Law as we are not solely by vertue of the hypostatical union which did not exempt him from any obligations of the Law but by vertue of a particular Command Constitution and Designation to that service of laying down his life This Commandement have I received of my Father Joh. 10. 18. 3 Saith Baxter The Law of the Creature and the Law of In Appendix to his Pos p. 128. the Mediator are in several things different The will of his Father which hee came to do consisted in many things which were never required of us And such saith he are all the works that are proper to the office of Mediatorship 4 Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Animad upon Gomarus doth thus Upon Gomarus p 25. Heb. 10. 10. expound Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will By which Will wee 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 were requisite for the Expiation of our sins therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ which he performed
Torments of Hell the Eternity of Hell-torments hee doth there make the Eternity of duration to be as Essential as the Extremity of pain both in respect of losse and sense and in Sect. 5. hee renders three Reasons of this Eternity 1 Because of the eternal abiding of the Offence 2 Because of the unchangeablenesse of the condition which that degree of punishment doth incur 3 Because of the want of satisfaction Now compare Dr. Ames at one time when he doth plainly lay down the grounds of Divinity with Dr. Ames at another time when hee is pinched to answer Bellarmines Argument and then you may finde him not well to accord with himself Yea Mr. Norton himself gives another reason of the duration of Hell punishments besides inability to satisfie sooner The reason saith he why eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body is chiefly because this bodily death puts a period to our capacity of having any part in the first Resurrection namely of Regeneration whereby only the second death is prevented and I may also adde whereby its eternity is prevented This reason which Mr. Norton hath here given makes Eternity essential to Hell-torments The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell-torments thereby to make Eternity no more but a circumstance hath four inconveniences attending it This distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell-torments whereby hee labours to make Eternity to bee no more but a circumstance hath these four inconveniences attending it 1 It supposeth that Divine justice in the execution of the legal curse admits of a satisfaction contrary to Psal 49. 7 8 9. Iob 36 18 19. 2 That Eternity of Hell-torments is not absolute without some Ifs or And 's but onely conditional in case the damned cannot give satisfaction sooner 3 To say that Eternity is not an essential part of Hell is to say that Hell may be Hell and yet not be Eternal 4 If this part of the curse viz. Eternity may bee taken away from Hell-torments then Mr. Norton may as well take away any other part from it It is safest therefore as I conceive to say and hold that eternity of punishment flowing from the Curse is from the voluntary cause or from the free constitution of Gods good pleasure as the due reward of sin Mr. Sam. Hieron saith That the extremity of Hell-torments are made known to us two wayes See Hicrons works p 294. 1 By the Universality of them in every part 2 In that they continue without intermission after they are once begun But Mr. Norton opposeth both these 1 Hee dispenseth with the Universality of the extremity of them in every part hee saith That Christ suffered the torments of Hell in his body but not in full extremity and therefore hâ—e saith what he wanted in his body hee made it up in his soul-torments in page 121. 2 Hee dispenseth with the eternity of continuance and grants an intermission contrary to the Scripture that telleth us That the worm dyeth not and that the fire never goeth out The Torments of Hell saith Austin de Spiritu Anima lib. 3. c. 56. as I find him cited in Carlisle are perpetual terrible Terrors fear without faith pain without remission the Hangman strangling the Hell-hounds scourging the worm gnawing the conscience accusing and the fire consuming or rather continuing without mercy end relaxation or ease See also at Reply 5. These and such like things propounded in the Dialogue Mr. Norton answers not but puffes them away with this breath They are circumstantial and not of the essence of Punishment SECT 3. The Essential Punishment of the Curse saith he in page 7. is the total temporal privation of all the sense of the good of the promise called by some The pain of Losse Reply 3. IN this point of the pain of Losse Mr. Norton is like to lose himself for hee delivers himself variously and contrariously as may bee seen by comparing his expression in this place with his various expressions in other places In page 31. line 5. Hee calls it the privation of the present fruition of the good of the promise Here the word sense in Mr. Norton affirms that Christ suffered the pains of losse in respect of the frution of the good of the promise but otherwhiles he saith it was in respect of the sense of the good of the promise by which wide differing expressions he leaves the Reader in the dark to grope out his meaning See Dr. Ames in Psal 21. cited also in Sect 4. left out In page 68. Hee saith That Christ had a taste of consolation at present in the Garden But saith he his desertion was total in respect of Sense upon the Crosse In page 111. he saith That the pain of Losse is the not enjoying of ought of the good of the promises and in page 112. he calls it The privation of the good of the promises In both these places the word sense is left out Now seeing Mr. Norton delivers himself thus variously it may justly stumble any judicious Reader how to understand him whether hee bee to bee understood as leaving out the word sense or taking it in for that word left out or taken in doth much alter the sense In page 118. Hee tells us in the Margin of Separatio quo ad substantiam in respect of substance quo ad sensum in respect of sense and feeling Dr. Ames in Psal 22. saith Wee are not to understand that the desertion of Christ was real but only in respect of sense and feeling and so must the privation of the good of the promise bee understood either that Mr. Norton doth mean it is real or in respect of sense and feeling only The former is a total privation the latter is only partial The former is judgement without mercy Iam. 2. 13. The latter remembers mercy in judgement though it may not be discerned at the present Now if Mr. Nortons meaning bee that Christ suffered such a privation of the good of the promise as is real namely as it is contra-distinguished from privation in sense and feeling then the word sense might well have been left out because it being put in doth cast a mist before the eyes of the Reader But if he mean no more but such a privation of the good of the promise as consists only in sense and feeling and as it is distinguished from the said real privation then it is very improperly called a total privation and then the pain of losse doth contain much more in it than this for a godly man may meet with as much as this in his life time as Spira did if wee suppose him to be godly This Essential punishment saith hee in page 8. was that and only that which Christ suffered Reply 4. I cannot but wonder at his various delivery of himself For in his 5 Dist page 10. He saith That Christ suffered the pains of Hell due to the Elect who for their sins
justice inflicted on all mankind for Adams Covenant-sin And Mr. Norton himself saith thus in page 118. in that Proposition God punisheth sin with sin the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin it self The infallible and penal futurition of sin is an effect of justice The Reader will see cause to take his meaning to be an Essential effect of justice and for this see also Dr. Ames in his Marrow l. 1 c. 12. n. 45 46 47. And sundry others of the Learned do say That God is not permissive but active also as a just Judge in some sins of men from these and the like Scriptures 2 Sam. 16. 10. 2 King 22. 22 23. Rom. 1. 26. Ezek. 14. 9. His third Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That the Elect though they suffer no part of penal justice yet they are left unto sin for a time Reply 3. I have said oft that original sin was penal justice in The punishments that the Elect suffer are de jure penal justice but in the issue de factâ— are not Adam till it please God to make an alteration by revealing the Covenant of Grace And so also the punishments that the Elect do suffer since the Covenant of Grace was revealed are de jure penal justice though in the issue de facto they are not To be under the power of sin though but in part and so likewise to be under temptations afflictions bodily death c. are the due wages of sin effects of the Curse flowing from it as such in themselves and by their own nature though God is pleased by the Covenant of Grace to alter the nature of them to the Elect and Mr. Nortons own words do testifie that the Elect do suffer that de jure which is penal justice for in Page 10. Argument 1. he saith thus This sentence namely Gen. 2. 17. was universal given to Adam as a Gen. 2. 17. publick person and holds all his posterity whether Elect or Reprobate in case of sin guilty of death His fourth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That sinful qualities are a defect not an effect they have a deficient not an efficient cause and therefore of them God cannot be the Author Reply 4. I may say the same of natural death it is a defect therfore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause and darkness also is a defect therefore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause Now let Mr. Norton shew how either of these have God for their Author and when that is done he may see the weaknesse of his reason If he be unwilling to answer then Dr. Ames doth answer the former in these words Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from God as taking vengeance on sin And Dr. Willet doth answer the latter hee first Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from Gods justice as a punishment for original sin The like may be said of eternal death it is from Gods justice as a punishment of original sin to such as do not repent and beleeve in the promised seed See Dr. Ames Mar. l. 1 c. 12. n. 31. Dr. Willet in â—o 5. Q 22. in Ans to Obj 2. Bar. Traheron on Rev. 4. P. Mar. in Com pl. part 1. p. 190. makes this Objection If Death be the punishment of sin then God should be the Author of death because he is the Author of punishment He answers thus As God created light darknesse he created not but disposed of it so he made not death but as it is a punishment God as a disposer rather and a just judge than an Author inflicted it And Bar. Traheron answereth his Objecter thus Will you say That death came into the world by the envy of the Devil ergo it was not ordained of God Did God as Isaiaâ— teacheth Chap. 30. 33. ordain Gehenna from yesterday that is to say from eternity and not death and so saith he Sin came not into the world besides Gods Ordinance And to this purpose speaks Peter Martyr of the Privation of Gods Image in Adam and of Original sin as I have cited him in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. ult So then sin as it is a punishment hath an efficient as well as a deficient cause His fifth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Christ suffered the Essential punishment and yet was without sin Reply 5. Christs sufferings do all arise from the voluntary cause and not from natural causes as ours do namely from a voluntary positive Law and not from the moral Law But whether Christ suffered the essential punishment or no is the great businesse of this dispute The Dialogue denies it all along let the judicious Reader judge whether this be fair disputing to bring in such a Proposition as is in controversie and which hee knows before-hand will be denied as a reason to confirm another doubtful point this is no better than a begging of the Question And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whether his five Reasons have weight sufficient in them to prove that sin as it is vindicative from God flows not from the curse Essentially and his own words on Gen. 2. 17. which I have cited in my former Reply to his third Reason do affirm as much and his words also in page 37. Judicial punishment saith he of sin with sin but in his Manuscript copy it is penal punishment of sin with sin is an act of vindicative justice The Reader may understand him to mean it of the essential part of justice 6 I will examine that passage in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned saith he proceed not from Hell-torments as an Effect from the Cause Reply 6. It is worth examination what he means by the sinful qualities of the damned whether such as they carry with them to Hell or the multiplication of sin when they come there flowing from that sinful habit which they brought with them thither The former may properly be called sinful qualities the latter sinful acts proceeding from that sinful habit of original sin And of these latter Dr. Ames doth tell us That they have more respect of punishment than sin In like sort the Summe of Divinity In his Mar l. 1. c. 16. n. 10 11. set forth by John Downame page 254. makes hatred against God in the damned and final desperation to be a great part of their punishment as the Dialogue doth See also Peter Martyrs Answer to Piggbius in Chap. 2. prope finem SECT 7. Still Mr. Norton explains his first Distinction in these words Duration for ever and the place of punishment are adjuncts as the nature of them sufficiently shews Reply IT is beyond my capacity I confesse to judge whether the eternal estate both of Elect and Reprobate after this life do come within the compasse of a Physical adjunct of time all things are called Eternal that were before the Creation of the world because
there is no setting of them out by any measure of time and why should wee think of any Physical adjunct of time after this world is ended shall there be Physical bodies and time then as there is now I wish the Learned to resolve this point Eternity saith Rutherfurd In Christ dying is not such a particular duration as time is that hath a poor point to begin with and end at Mr. Norton makes this point of duration to bee an adjunct only to Hell-torments by a comparison taken from the inability of the debtor to pay and therefore hee continues in prison But to this I have already answered in the second Section of this Chapter SECT 8. Giving some Reasons why Mr. Nortons Judgement cannot be sound in this Point of Christâ— suffering of the essential curse Reason 1. BEcause he doth often confute and contradict his foundation-Principles For 1. whereas the Dialogue doth propound this Quere Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his Body as well as in his Soul to redeem our Bodies as well as our Souls from hell torments His Answer in pag. 120. is this It is evident that as Christ suffered the torments of hell in kind in his Soul so who can deny but he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of Hell though not inflicted after the same manner Reply 1. Any man may see that in this Answer he doth plainly contradict and confute his first principal Proposition and also his Assertion in his first Distinction for in this and in other places also he doth affirm That Christ suffered the essential punishment of the curse and in pag. 123. he saith That Christ both in Soul and Body was separated from all participation of the good of the promise for a time but in his Answer he dares not venture to say that he suffered the torments of hell in his body in kind as he did in his soul But instead of making a clear Answer to my Quere he propounds another Quere Who can deny saith he but that he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of hell His first ground-work was that Christ suffered in a way of exact justice the essential punishment of the curse of the Law and now he flies to the word Equivalent all that know any thing of the strict justice of the Law do know that it will not alter one joâ— from the punishment threatned in kind to that which is equivalent if Mr. Norton being now put to a pinch to answer this Quere will allow of so much alteration from the letter of the Law to equivalency then he doth also affirm that the Law was relaxed to make a new Covenant for equivolency and yet in pag. 146. and in pag. 174 he denies acceptilation and thus he crosseth himself up and down and stands not fast to his first ground-work 2 He crosseth his first ground-work in page 121. It is sufficient saith he to integrate and make up the execution of the full measure of wrath upon Christ that if his bodily torments were not equal to the bodily torments of the damned yet what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul Reply 2. He that hath but half an eye may see that in this Answer he doth fully overthrow his first fundamental Proposition and his first Distinction for in those places he hath affirmed that Christ suffered the very Essential Torments of Hell in kind but now he saith it is sufficient to integrate and make up the full execution of the full measure of wrath that what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul first hee confesseth that Christ did not suffer the full essential Curse in his body and then by some Revelation he knows that what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul beleeve him that list and yet he crosseth this also in page 123 for there hee saith That Christ both in soul and body was separated from all participation of the good of the promise for a time And thus he makes the eternal Curse in Gen. 2. 17. one while to be executed in kind only and another while to be arbitrary and to bee suffered either in kind or else in that which is equivalent hee allows a lesse punishment to his body and so much more to his soul doubtless he must know this by some private Revelation for he cannot find any Scripture that is rightly interpreted that will own it But yet Mr. Norton doth labour to prove it thus The measure of Hell-pains saith he is made up without bodily pains in the Angels that fell Reply 3. What a deceitful kind of reasoning is this for all men know that the fallen Angels have no bodies and therefore they must needs suffer the full measure of Hell-torments without bodily Torments And in page 122. he saith according to his fundamental Proposition That Christ was tormented without any forgivenesse God spared him nothing of the due debt Reply 4. But Mr. Norton doth plainly crosse this Assertion also for hee said formerly that what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul here he acknowledgeth that Christ had some forgivenesse in respect of his bodily Torments And in page 122. Hee saith That Christ had not so much as the least drop of water to ease him in the least particle of his suffering that was due to him according to justice but was wholly forsaken in respect of any participation of the sense of the good of the promise for a time Reply 5. This he doth also plainly crosse for in page 68. hee doth acknowledge that Christ had a taste of consolation in the time of his Agony in the Garden so that hee doth sometimes give Christ a taste of consolation under his Essential Torments and sometimes not a drop of consolation either he must confesse that Christ was not yet under the essential punishment of the Curse in the Garden or else he must confesse that his Position in page 122. is not true But he doth affirm That Christ suffered the essential Cuâ—sâ— in the Garden in page 70. in these words Hee had clods rather then drops streaming down his blessed body a thing which neither was heard or seen before nor since And saith he The true reason thereof is Christ dyed as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death And in page 121. Christ suffered the Torments of Hell upon the Crosse where he bare the moral Curse Gal. 3. 13. and in the Garden Hence it follows that by these two last places he doth justifie his former Position in page 122. but still that is contradictory which I cited in page 68. And thus Mr. Norton doth confute and contradict himself and being uncertain in his principles he leaves the truth of Christs satisfaction uncertain to a scrutinous conscience Mr. Samuel Heiron saith in page 244. That the extremity of Hell-torments is made
our guilty Surety on whom God did justly inflict the Essential Torments of Hell is to run himself and his Reader into a labyrinth of confused error That Preacher therefore saith Tindal page 170. that bringeth a naked similitude to prove that which is contained in no text of Scripture nor followed of a Text count a Deceiver a Leader out of the way and a false Prophet and beware of his Philosophy and perswasions of mans wisdome as Paul 1 Cor. 2. saith c. for the reasons and similitudes of mans wisdome make no faith but wavering and uncertain opinions only one instance of a divine imputation of sin to an innocent had confirmed the point but a hundred such instances of Philemons imputing of Onesimus debt to Paul is nothing to the point If saith Mr. Wotton we take sin formally then I deny that our sins were so imputed to Christ His words at large I have recorded in my examination of 2 Cor. 5. 21. 3 As for that Imputation by way of grace used ten times in Rom. the fourth I cannot but wonder at the citing of this Text to explicate that manner of Gods imputing our sins to Christ surely Rom. 4. can have no respect of agreement to the Argument in hand Therefore it is only cited to prove that the word impute is used in Scripture as if any one that reads the Scripture were ignorant of it but if any please to see the sense of the word Impute in Rom. 4. let them read Mr. Wotton de Reconc peccatoris part 2. l. 1. c. 15. Rom. 4. But saith Mr. Norton in page 25. It is certain that Christ was couched and comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant It is very probable saith he That the Tree of Life was a figure of Christ And saith he If Christ be be not within the compasse of the Text the Text is not true And saith he Elect sinners not dying in their own persons must dye in their Surety or else the Text should not be a truth Reply 5. It hath been sufficiently shewed I think that Christ was not Adams Surety in the first Covenant 2 Neither was Christ revealed to Adam as Mediator as yet Had Mr. Norton but consulted with Mr. Shepherd in his 178. and 133. Thesis on the Sabbath he might have been better advised than to say as he doth that Christ was comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenans and that the Tree of Life was a typical figure of Christ if he can find no better Arguments to prove that Christ was our Surety in the first obligation with Adam he must be contented In vindiciae legis lect 14. p 133. 135 136 with his liberty to be fond of his conceited notion 3 Mr. Burges also doth dispute against this Tenent of Mr. Nortons and against such as hold a necessity of Christ to Adam in the time of his innocency 4 Mr. Ball doth oppose it in his Book on the Covenant page 9. 11. 13. 5 Mr. Blake on the Covenant saith thus in page 14. The first Covenant was immediate no Mediator intervening All the blessing of the first Covenant saith he flowed from the Trinity as the creation it self did without respect to Christ incarnate there was no Revelation of that high mystery to man in innocency 6 Mr. Burges saith That all those that hold a necessity of Christ to Adam and Angels must also necessarily maintain that In vindiciae legis 13â— though Adam had not fallen Christ would have been Incarnated And this was the opinion of Osiander That Christ had been Incarnate though Adam had not sinned And truly Osiander might as well maintain his opinion as Mr. Norton may That Christ was in the same obligation with Adam as his Surety in the first Covenant he saith That Elect sinners must dye in their Surety or else the Text should not bee a truth had he but said or else I am mistaken and have not given the right sense of the Text then hee had spoken humbly and truly and then I had beleeved him Re. 6 Though hitherto I have denyed that Christ was our bounden Christ was our voluntary Surety but not our bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam Surety in the same obligation with Adam yet this I do also acknowledge that presently after Adams fall he was declared to be Adams voluntary Surety namely to be his free Redeemer For it pleased God to declare the Decree of the eternal Covenant that was agreed on between the Trinity for mans Redemption from Sathans Head-plot in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God by way of Threatning told the Devil in the hearing Gen. 3. 15. of Adam and Eve That the seed of the deceived woman should over-match him at last and should break in peeces his crafty Head-plot and he gave the Devil leave to do his worst to hinder it and for that purpose hee proclamed an utter enmity between them and bid the Devill pierce him in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor on the Crosse to disturb his patience and so to pervert his obedience wherein the root of an acceptable sacrifice doth lye that so his death might not be a sacrifice 2 It is also manifest by the said Declaration that Christ had Covenanted from Eternity to take upon him the seed of the Woman and the sinlesse infirmities of our true humane nature and in that nature and with those infirmities to enter the lists with Sathan and to continue obedient through all his afflictions temptations and trials to the death even to the death of the Crosse Phil. 2. 8 9. 3 It is also manifest by the said Declaration That God the Father had Covenanted that in case Christ did continue obedient through all his sufferings temptations and trials that then his obedience through all his temptations and trials should bee accounted as the upshot of his Priestly Consecration which indeed must be compleatly finished before he might make his soul a sacrifice and it is out of controversie that his sufferings were ordained for the perfecting of his Priestly Consecration by Heb. 2. 10. 17. with Heb. 5. 9. and therefore as soon as ever hee Heb 2. 10. had finished all his sufferings that were written of him He said It is finished Joh. 19. 30. and then as a compleat Consecrated Priest he made his Sacrifice saying Father into thy hands I commend Joh. 19. 30. my Spirit and so he bowed his head and gave up the Ghost This last act was properly and formally his Death and Sacrifice and it was properly and formally full satisfaction and this powering out his vital soul and rendring his immortal soul into the hands of God was the act of his Eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. Yea his Death Sacrifice must be done by the joynt concurrence of both his natuesr or else he had not been the Mediator of the New Covenant through death Heb. 9. 15
16. and then the Devils Head-plot had not been broken but because hee continued obedient through all his sufferings on the Crosse and at last made his Sacrifice by his own Priestly power even by the joynt concurrence of both his Natures he hath through that kind of death destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil Heb. 2. 14. and all this was declared unto Adam in Gen. 3. 15. and exemplified in the sacrifice of a Lamb the Law maketh men High-priests which have infirmities Heb. 7. 28. namely sinful infirmities But the word of the Oath to David which was since the Law maketh the Son who is consecrated for evermore namely made perfect by his obedience in all his sufferings and so hee had no sinful infirmity but continues a perfect High-priest for us for evermore But this kind of voluntary Sarety doth differ as much from Mr. Nortons bounden Surety in the same Obligation with Adam as a free Redeemer doth differ from a bounden Surety I grant therefore that Christ was our Surety as he was our free Mediator and Redeemer but no otherwise and so in an unproper sense he may be called our Surety but not in a proper legal sense according to Mr. Nortons Court-language This way of satisfaction first declared in Gen. 3. 15. is the foundation upon which all after Prophecies touching satisfaction by Christs death and sufferings must have dependence and as it was first exemplified to Adam in the sacrifice of a Lamb as I have shewed in the Institution of the Sabbath and therefore all those positive Laws touching Priest and Sacrifice declared afterwards to Moses are but the further opening of the manner of Christs satisfaction and indeed those types were but the Picture of what was agreed on in the Eternal Covenant to bee performed in due time by the seed of the Woman 4 It may hence be gathered That God ordained no other afflâ—ctions for Christ to suffer but either from Sathans enmity in piercing him in the foot-soals meaning thereby his outward afflictions Or else secondly they were from himself in the inward man for as he was true man of the seed of the Woman so he must be inwardly touched with the feeling of our infirmities and therefore as often as objects of fear or sorrow c. did present he was to be touched as our merciful High-priest with a greater measure of these infirmities than any other man can be but no Scripture doth speak a word in Mr. Nortons Dialect that his soul was pressed under the sense of Gods immediate wrath for in case his Fathers immediate wrath had pressed those sorrows from his soul as Mr. Nortons term is then those sufferings had not been voluntary from his own will but constrained but say all sound Divines nothing was constrained in Christ by any supreme power and therefore not by Gods immediate wrath though the Devil had liberry to use what force hee could to his outward man yet hee had no liberty to force his soul but himself was the only voluntary Agent in all the affections of his soul hee feared hee sorrowed c. when hee would and as much as hee would and therefore was often touched with the feeling of our infirmities in a larger measure than any other mans soul can bee and thus hee was our voluntary Mediator and Surety Mr. Norton still makes Christ to bee our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam on the contrary I do still affirm that Christ suffered our punishments not from Gods judicial imputation of sin for then indeed he had suffered from Gods wrath but that he suffered our punishments only from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and such sufferings might be and were undertaken by Christ both without any judicial imputation of sin and also without wrathâ— as in the trial of masteries with Sathan Enmity upon Adams fall was proclamed and the seed of the Woman was commanded but not in wrath to enter the lists with Sathan and try masteries with him and the Devil must do his worst to disturb his patience and so to pervert his obedience and Christ must exemplifie the perfection of his obedience by the perfection of his patience even in that ignominious and painful death of the Crosse untill hee had finished all his sufferings for his consecration to his Priestly office and then at last make his soul a sacrifice for sin But this way of satisfaction Mr. Norton dams for heresie The Lord open his eyes to see better and the eyes of those that are misled by him 5 It was ordained in the Eternal Decree and Covenant that Christ should be consecrated to his Priestly office for the better making his death a sacrifice by afflictions Heb. 2. 10. Heb. 5. 9. Heb. 2. 10. God ordained all Christs greatest sufferings in his Passion to be for his consecration to his sacrifice To consecrate is interpreted by the Seventy to make perfect As for example when the people had worshipped the Golden Calf Moses by Gods special positive command in Exod. 32. 27. 29. commanded the Levites to consecrate their hands by doing perfect and exact justice upon the Idolaters without respect of persons not sparing their own sons or neer kindred and this act of theirs is recorded to their praise in Deut. 33. 9. and by this impartial act of perfect justice their hands were consecrated to God 2 The consecration of Aaron and his sons to the Priestly office was to bee effected by continuing seven dayes under the observation of certain particular Rites before their consecration could bee finished Exod. 29. 9. and Lev. 8. 22. and then the very next day after their consecration was finished Moses bid them draw near to the Altar to execute the Priests office by offering a sacrifice both for themselves and for the people Lev. 9. 7. But Christ needed not to offer any sacrifice for himself and therefore it was only for his people 3 As Moses is said to consecrate Aaron and his sons through many particular Rites exactly observed whereof one was no small affliction though willingly born by them at the Lords appointment namely Yee shall abide at the door of the Tent of the Congregation day and night seven dayes and shall keep the charge of Jeâ—ovah that ye dye not Lev. 8. 33. This exact watch for that space of time being separated from their wives and families under the penalty of death was doubtlesse a time of affliction to them though as I said before willingly born at the Lords appointment 4 It is said in Heb. 2. 10. It became him namely it became God the Father that hee should consecrate the Prince of our salvation through afflictions And it is also said in verse 17. That it behoved Christ to bee made like unto his brethren that he might bee a merciful and a faithful high Sacrificer in things concerning God and that hee might make Reconciliation for the sins of the people 5 In these two verses
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 sour 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. 15. 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 prevail 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. 13. It will thence unavoydably follow saith he that sin was some way judicially upon Christ for we read of no curso 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 alittle 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 becausâ— 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 ourguilt 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 as touching his God-head he obeyed as a friend towards a friend and not as an inferior unto death The Lord of life submitted himself to death and being immortal he died How contrary is this of P. Martyr to Mr. Nortons kind of imputation Surely by Mr. Nortons imputation of sin to the Mediator in both his Natures the God-head of Christ did not obey as a Friend to his Friend to the death as P. Martyr saith but as a Delinquent to the supreame Judge to the death iâ— not this kind of imputation good Divinity Now let the judicious Reader judge whether some of these expressions do not exceed the bounds of his said third Distinction for there he makes the imputation of guilt to be the obligation to punishment But in sundry of those speeches of his which I have repeated he goes further than I beleeve most men could imagine by his said Distinction and he doth all along make Christs sufferings to be from the imputation of sin that so he might deserve â—ell torments and the second death according to the exact order of Courts of Justice in their proceedings in criminal causes Some Philosophers saith Mr. Traheron do teach that all things come to pass by the copulation of causes wrapped up one in another In Rev. 4. p 49. Christs sufferings were not inflicted on hâ—m according to the natural order of justice by imputation of sin But from the voluntary cause and so they make God subject to the order and row of causes depending upon each other But saith he we say that all things come to pass because God through his secret will and purpose hath ordered them so to be done as they are done Ibidem saith he the latter Schoolmen say truly that all things come to pass necessarily not by the necessity of natural causes but by the necessiâ—y of Gods Ordinance which they call necessitatem consequentis And saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. p. 124. God is not to be compelled to order neither ought he to be ordered by humane Laws But Mr. Norton doth all along put Christs sufferings into the order of Justice according to the order of humane Courts and Laws namely by infliction of punishment from the imputation of sin And saith P. Martyr in p. 111. It is much to be marvelled at how the Pelagians can deny that there is original sin in Infants seeing they see that they daily die but saith he here ought we to except Christ only who although he knew not sin yet died he for our sakes But death had not dominion over him because that he of his own accord suffered it for our sakes And the like speech of his I have cited in chap. 10. at Reply 2. By which speechs it is evident that Peter Martyr could not hold the imputation of our sins to Christ as Mr. Norton doth but he held that Christ bore our sins namely our punishments according to the antient Orthodox and no otherwise and that phrase and sense is according to the Scriptures 1 Pet. 2. 24. but that sense is very far from the sense of Mr. Nortons imputation for the first sort agrees to the voluntary cause but Mr. Nortons kind must be ranked with the compulsory cause of Christs sufferings according to Courts of justice But I would fain know of Mr. Norton what was the sin that God imputed to Isaak for which he commanded Abraham to kill his Son for a sacrifice did not God command it rather for the trial of Isaaks obedience as well as of Abrahams for in that act of obedience Abraham was the Priest and Isaack was the Sacrifice and in that act both of them were a lively type of the obedience of Christ who was both Priest and Sacrifice in his own death and Sacrifice doubtless if Abraham had killed Isaack it had not been from the imputation of any sin to him but in obedience to a voluntary positive command of God and not to a moral command from sin imputed for then it had been grounded on the copulation of causes wrapped one in another as Mr. Norton would have Christs death to be but the Scripture imputes no sin to Christ but makes him the Holy one of God in all his sufferings In our judging of the ways of God saith Dr. Preston in his Treatise of God without causes p. 143. we should take heed of framing a model of our own as to think that because such a thing is just therefore the Lord wills it The reason of this conceit saith he is because we think that God must go by our rule we forget this That every thing is therefore just because the Lord doth first will it and not that God doth will it because it is first just but we must proceed in another manner we should first find out what the will of God is for in that is the rule of Justice and Equity So far Dr. Preston And it is now manifested that the Rule of God from eternity was that Christ should be the seed of the woman to break the Devils head-plot by his blessed Sacrifice and that he should be such a High Priest as is holy and harmless and separated from sinners and that he should be a Lamb without spot and blemish and therefore without all imputation of sin in the sight of God and of his Law and that he should be consecrated through afflictions Heb. 2. 10. and 5. 9. and 10. 20. and to this end should as a voluntary Combater enter the Lists with Satan c. as aforesaid And all thiâ— may be further cleared if we consider what kind of cause Christs death is to take away our sins it is saith M. Burges a meritorious cause in his just p. 190. which is in the rank of moral causes of which the rule is not true Posâ—â causâ sequitur effectus This holdeth in natural causes which produce their
effects But saith he moral causes work according to the agreement and liberty of the persons that are moved thereby as for example God the Father is moved through the death of Christ to pardon the sins of such persons for whom he dieth so this rule must be applyed to the voluntary and eternal Covenant and also to the event as from the voluntary cause CHAP. VII His Fifth Distinction Examined which is this Distinguish between a Penal Hell and a Local Hell Christ suffered a Penal Hell but not a Local Hell Reply 1. THis Distinction makes two Hells that have the same Essential Torments one Temporary and the other Eternal one for Christ alone in this world and the other for Reprobates in the world to come By the like Reason there are two Heavens that have the same Essential blessednesse the one Temporary and the other Eternal for if Scripture may be judge there are as many Heavens for Essential blessednesse as there are Hells for Essential torment I thinâ— the judicious Reader may well smile at this odde Distinction and yet I do not see how Mr. Norton can maintain that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hell without this Distinction This penal Hell was first devised and is still maintained for It is a meer fantacy to say that Christ suffered the essential Torments of hell in this world seeing it is acknowledged by Mr. Norton That the Devils are not in full Torments here the sake of Christs sufferings only I never heard it used in Mr. Nortons sense for any body else no not for the Devils themselves as long as they are in this world For first saith Mr. Norton in page 124. the full Torments of Hell are not inflicted upon the Devils before the day of Judgement Secondly neither dares he affirm that any man in this life did ever suffer the Essential torments of Hell For in page 115. he saith That the reason why Eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body is partly because of the inability of the nature of man in this present state of mortality to indure the wrath of God without separation of the soul from the body namely to indure Gods penal wrath as hee doth presently after call it such as Christ bare And in Chap. 13. he saith There may be some doubt concerning the capacity of a meer creature to hold such a measure of Torment 1 Hence it follows from his own confession that no mortal man can suffer the penal wrath of God or the Essential Torments of hell in this life 2 Hence it follows that there is no such penal Hell for any other in this life but for Christ alone 3 That none but Christ can dye the second Death till they be first dead in sin 4 Neither dares Mr. Norton affirm that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hel in this penal Hell by Gods ordinary dispensation For in Page 120. he saith That according to the ordinary dispensation of God the full pains of hell are not suffered in this life But saith he according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not onely could but did suffer the pains of Hell in this life And truly seeing this penal Hell hath need of miracles to support it it shall have my vote to be matched with Purgatory as a like fiction SECT 2. But Mr. Norton labours to confirm his said Distinction three wayes 1 By a compartive Argument 2 By the Testimony of the School-men 3 By Psal 16. 10. 1 His comparative Argument is this Christ might as well suffer the pains of Hell out of Hell as partake of the joyes of Heaven out of Heaven His words in page 119. are these As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joyes of Heaven out of the place of Heaven as Luke 9. 28. if not at other times yet after the Resurrection so might it suffer the pains of Hell out of the place of Hell Reply 2. HIs sense of Hell-torments must all along bee remembred to bee the Essential torments of Hell For according to his first Distinction in page 8. he saith That the essential part was that and onely that which Christ suffered Luke 9. 28. Who ever is paâ—tâ—ker of the essential joâ—es of heaven is confirmed against the suffering of death In like sort he must be understood that Christ did partake of the Essential joyes of Heaven out of Heaven by Luke 9. 28. and then I beleeve his body had been glorified and so consequently confirmed against the suffering of death for if his Man-hood had partaken of the essential joyes of Heaven then hee must bee cloathed with such essential glory as himself doth mention in Joh. 17. 5. Glorifie me with thy self and in vers 24. That they may behold my glory which thou hast given me or else he reasons imperâ—inently and not to the point in hand And thus hee hath abused the sense of Luke 9 28. If he had affirmed these suffâ—rings of Christ and these glorious Revelations in a metaphorical sense then hee might have aâ—corded with the Scripture sense for great joyes by an hyperbole may well bee called the joyes of Heaven but not the Essential joyes neither do I beleeve that the Man-hood of Christ did partake of the Essential joyes and glory of Heaven till he came there neither doth that place in Luke 9. 28. nor any other Scripture prove it 2 Mr. Norton doth labour to confirm his said Distinction by the School-men For in page 120. hee saith The sounder School-men teach that Christ was in such a penal Hell namely where he suffered the Essential torments of Hell before his death But in case the School-men did not teach so much then Mr. Norton doth wrong both them and the Reader to cite them to his sense But according to my learning they were far from Mr. Nortons Tenent But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The soul is understood by judicious Authors properly Hell metaphorically for pains equivalent to the pains of Hell it self Reply I confesse I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often use the word Equivalent seeing his fundamental principle is Mr. Norton flies from his foundation principle of essential torments to that which is equavalent That Christ suffered the very Essential Torments of Hell and yet ever and anon hee is glad to flye to the word Equivalent in the point of satisfaction and yet he doth oppose the use of it in the point of satisfaction in the Dialogue Hee said in page 8 That the Essential part of Hell torments was that and only that which Christ suffered But here he is forced to leave that Principle and to flye to that which is Equivalent sometimes he holds close to the very letter of the Law as if God could not alter one jot because Christ was in the same obligation with Adam but presently after hee doth admit of the word Equivalent such uncertainty there is in his foundation-principles 2 The metaphorical
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 satisfactio 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 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 the 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 two fold 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 Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Animad gives this exposition of Upon Goviarus p. 25. Heb. 10. 10. 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 is 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
Reply 2. If Mathew had known that such a Tenent would have been broached he would doubtlesse if the Spirit of God had permitted have shewed that he must not have suffered the wrath of God but it had been for Mr. Nortons honor if he could have shewed that Christ told his Disciples That bee must go to Jerusalem to suffer many things there from the immediate wrath of God as well as from Sathans instruments and then the Reader might have been satisfied The third Scripture cited by the Dialogue is in Luke 24 25 26 44. 46. Mr. Norton Answers Toese words saith he conclude that Christ was to suffer But the word All saith he in vers 26. includes the suffering of Divine Justice Reply 3. In the two former Scriptures he could not find any particle for the proving that Christ suffered divine Justice but now in Luke 24 26. he finds it in the word All and yet there is no All in that verse Mr. Norton will rather coyn Scripture-words than want a proof of Christs suffering from Gods immediate wrath The fourth Scripture cited by the Dialogue is Act. 13. 27 28. He Answers thus The word All in this text saith he is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fulfilled by the Romans and the Jews as the instruments thereof Reply 4. In this Answer he doth but repent the full and true sense of the Dialogue and in so doing he justifies the sense of the Dialogue Now let the Reader judge how well he hath confuted the Dialogues proofs for the stating of the case And whether this Answer of his be not rather a confused shuffling of an Answer than an Answer to satisfie any judicious Reader CHAP. X. The Examination of Mr. Nortons Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in page 21. For the true understanding whereof saith Mr. Norton consider these three things 1 What is here intended by Death 2 The Distribution of Death 3 The Application of that Distribution SECT I. Saith he The Commination Thou shalt surely dye is not particular concerning some kind of death but indefinite therefore equivalent to an universal comprehending all kinds of Death Reply 1. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. from two circumstances in this Text of Gen. 2. 17. that the death there threatned is limited to a spiritual death in sin only 2 In his Distribution And 3 In his Application of this Death he brings Christ within the compasse of it two wayes 1 By separation of his soul from his body which he makes to be a temporal and penal death in Christ 2 By the separation of his soul from the sense of the good things of the promise and the presence of the evill things in the commination which he calls Total Temporal and properly Penal in Christ Reply 2. I deny that the death of Christ namely the separation of his soul from his body was a proper penal death for The death of Christ could not be a penal death because Gods Law threatens none with a penal death but sinners themselves In his Common places part 2. p. 244. the Law of God threatens no man with a penal death nor yet with any other true curse but sinners themselves Sin and Death saith Peter Martyr is compared as cause and effect But saith he here we must exempt Christ only who notwithstanding he knew no sin yet for our sakes he dyed But saith he Death had no dominion over him because he of his own accord did suffer it for our salvation The like speech of his I have cited in page 54. Had not Christ dyed voluntarily saith Bernard ad milites Templi cap. 11. that death had not been meritorious how much more unworthily he dyed who deserved not death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wilt ask is this that an innocent should dye for a malefactor It is no justice it is mercy If it were justice then should he not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed he should dye but the other for whom he dyed should not live yet though it be not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not be both just and merciful These Testimonies of the Orthodox and more to this purpose I might bring do point-blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent that Christs death was inflicted on him from Gods penal justice through the meritorious cause of sin as our death is on us But it is no such matter Christs death is of another nature The true nature of Christs death was to be a sacrifice because he undertook it from the voluntary Cause and Covenant onely upon condition of meriting the destruction of Satans Head-plot and the redeeming of all the Elect thereby and in this respect his obedience in giving his life was covenanted to be accepted by the Father as a free gift and as the richest Present that the world could afford namely as a sacrifice of Attonement or Reconciliation smelling like a most sweet savor in the nostrils of God and in this respect his death is the ground of merit but had it been inflicted on him from Gods penal wrath as deserved through the imputation of sin it had merited nothing as Bernard speaks above When conditions are made by a voluntary Covenant for the winning or meriting of a rich prize he that will strive for the mastery with his opposite Champion for the winning of the said Prize must strive lawfully that is to say in obedience to those Laws and he must be willing to undergo all the hardships that he must meet withall from his opposite Champion it may be to the forcing of his body into an Agony it may be to the breaking of his body and to the shedding of much blood all this he must do from the voluntary cause from the voluntary Covenant for the Masters of the Game do not compel any man to undertake these difficult services neither do they out of anger and wrath inflict any of the said punishments though the opposite party may happily do what he can in anger to pervert the Combaters obedience and to provoke him to some miscarriage against the Laws of the prize that so he may not win the prize from him Even so Jesus Christ the author and finisher of our Faith for the joy that was set before him indured the cross despising the shame and is now set down as a Victor over Satan and all his potent Instruments at the right hand of God having first endured the cross and the contradiction of sinners and hath spoyled Principalities and Powers in it namely in his death on the cross which by Gods appointment did strive for the mastery with him and the Devil did in anger provoke him what he could to spoil his obedience and so to hinder him from destroying his head-plot and so from winning the prize namely from the salvation of the Elect and the Devil proceeded so far in
sins here Man is taken specifice for mankind 2 Saith he Man dies here the word man as it relates to the Elect is taken numerice and as it relates to Christ so it must be taken for an individual person as I have noted formerly in answer to Ezek. 18. 4. in chap. 6. And so this elegant speech Man sins and man dies is not ad idem It is but a Paralogism namely a deceitful Sylogism This speech man sins and man dies is but a paralogism which seemeth true when it is not But saith Mr. Norton in p. 24. This Text of Gen. 2. 17. is Gods judicial denunciation of the punishment of sin with a reservation of his purpose concerning the execution of the execution of it or as it was in his manuscript concerning the manner of the execution of it and truly I cannot but wonder at his alteration from his Manuscript to such an uncouth expression except it be to puzzle his Reader Reply 5. I would fain know why this reservation of Gods purpose is mentioned It seems it is for this purpose to hook in Christ was not in the same obligation with Adam as his Surety to the first Covenant Christ as a Surety within the compass of this Text and so to make the curse contained in it due to him as it appears both by his answer to his fourth Query in p. 6. which hath been already examined and also by his daring expressions in p. 25. If Christ saith he be not within the compass of this Text then the Text is not true and a little after Because elect sinners not dying in their own persons must die in their Surety or else the Text is not a truth Modesty would rather have said or else the Text is not truly expounded 2 Had Mr. Norton said thus This Text is Gods judicial deunciation of sin and so had wholly left out his reservation of the execution of the execution of it I should have assented to him 3 Take the commination for the present event of Adams sin As Gen 2. 17. respects eternal death so it speaks rather of the desert of sin than of the event and then it was the present death of the nature of all mankind in sin but take the commination as it respected eternal death as Mr. Norton takes it then it speaks onely of the desert of Adams sin and not of the event to Adam and his elect posterity for he was delivered from the event by the interposition of the promised seed and so God was pleased to alter the event of the commination of the first Covenant by his grace declared in the new Covenant in Gen. 3. 15. 4 This reason makes it evident that this Text hath not any such reservation as above mentioned Because the commination in this Text must accord with other the like comminations which do limit the curse threatned to the same numerical and individual persons that are inherent and formal sinners as in Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Ezek. 18. 4. Therefore to assert the suffering of Hell torments from this Text by one that never was a sinner inherently would have been held a paradox in Divinity to our fore-fathers and to affirm that Christ suffered the second death from this Text that never was guilty of the first death never dead in sin can be no less I think than a monster in Religion 5 This reason also makes it evident that the first Covenant Though the first Covenant be supposed to be made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature yet in that sense it is not a compleat Rule of relative Justice could not contain a compleat rule of Gods relative Justice yea though it be granted that it was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of Nature because it neither takes in the sins against the Gospel nor yet the duties nor the rewards of it these are supplied by the Gospel in the Covenant of Grace God did add what his good pleasure was to add when he published the Gospel which is comprized in Gen. 3. 15. 6 This commination in Gen. 2. 17. doth hold all the Elect as well as the Reprobate alike guilty of the death there threatned in case Adam disobeyed by eating the forbidden fruit Or thus both the Elect and the Reprobate are alike guilty of Adams sin and therefore they are alike under the guilt of original sin Rom. 3. 19 20. therefore de jure they are both alike under the same curse though after a while the Elect de facto are not under the curse of eternal death by means of the promise of Christ intervening Gen. 3. 15. Rom 8. 1. Gal. 3. 13. Col. 2. 14. 1 Hence it follows that the first Covenant was alterable by the Gospel 2 Hence it follows that in case this commination doth speak of eternal death then it speaks of the desert rather than of the event of Adams sin in relation to the Elect. SECT 3. THis Text saith the Dialogue doth not comprehend Jesus Gen 2 17. doth not comprehend Christ within the compass of it Christ within the compass of it for this Text is part of that Covenant which God made with Adam and his posterity respecting the happiness they had by creation Mr. Norton in p. 24. answers the Dialogue thus Though Christ doth not fall within the compass of the Covenant of Works it doth not follow that he is excluded the compass of the Text. Reply 1. Though he grants that Christ is not within the compass of the Covenant of works yet saith he he is not excluded the compass of the Text namely of Gen. 2. 17. or else he answers not to the Dialogue and he is also most confident that Christ must be contained in that Text or else saith he in p. 23. the Text is not true Now if Christ be contained within the compass of this Text of Gen. 2. 17. then he must be contained either within the prohibition or else within the commination But he cannot be contained in either of these as I shall shew by and by But Mr. Norton proves that Christ may be within the compass of this Text thus Damnation saith he is no part of the Gospel yet it is a part of that verse wherein the Gospel is revealed He that is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not is damned Reply 2. If Mr. Norton had paralleld this sentence of the Gospel with Gen. 3. 15. he had hit the nail but because he doth parallel it with Gen. 2. 17. he hath mist it But to speak more fully the word Gospel must be considered two ways First Either strictly for the glad tidings of salvation onely Or secondly More largely not only for the glad tidings of salvation but also as comprehending other appurtenances belonging to that Covenant as Ceremonies or Seals and so in case of neglect or contempt punishments In the first sense the threatning of Damnation
is no part of the Gospel but in the second sense it is Now seeing Mr. Nortons scope in this Instance is to make good his answer to the Dialogue namely that though Christ doth not fall within the compasse of the Covenant of works yet that he was contained within the compasse of that Text that speaks of the first Covenant of works even as Damnation though it be no part of the Gospel yet is it contained within the compasse of that verse which reveals the Gospel I say the scope of this Instance being brought to make good that Answer The judicious Reader will easily see that this Instance hath not truth in it and therefore he hath not as yet proved that Christ was contained within that Text of Gen. 2. 17. But still Mr. Norton strives to make it good That Christ was comprehended within the compasse of that Text for saith he in page 24 25. Adam in his eating intended and prohibited was a figure of Christ to come Rom. 5. 14. Rom. 5 14. Reply 3. Not properly in his eating intended and prohibited But in the effects that followed his eating prohibited the typical Resemblance that is between Adam and Christ lyes only in some general things as thus Adam was the head of that Covenant which God made with him concerning the nature of all mankind and so Christ was the head of the Covenant of grace which God made with him concerning the Regenerating of the nature of all the Elect Adam by his disobedience merited a corrupt nature to all his posterity and Christ by his obedience even to death merited a sanctified nature to all his elect seed The Reader may fetch the parallel from P. Martyr Dr. Willet and others on Rom. 5. 19. Rom. 5. 19. But what is the inference that Mr. Norton makes namely That Christ is contained within the compasse of this Text. I say it follows not for though there may be a resemblance between the first and second Adam in many other things yet not in all things and therefore in some things Adam was no figure of Christ as for example He was no figure of Christ in bearing the essential Curse And that is the point which Mr. Norton doth aim at in this Text. But saith Mr. Norton in page 25. It is certain though Adam during the first Covenant perceived it not that Christ was couched and comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant It is very probable saith he That the Tree of life in Gen. 2. 9. was a figure of Christ who is called and indeed is the Tree of life Rev. 22. 2. And saith he If Christ be not within the compasse of the Text the Text is not true Reply 4. We may soon lose our selves in this dispute if wee keep not close to the point of the Dialogue in hand which Mr. Norton labors to confute The Dialogue saith this text of Gen. 2. 17. doth not include Christ within the compasse of it as liable to the death there threatned But Mr. Norton cites another text to prove it namely Gen 2. 9. and yet he affirmed that Christ was within the compasse of this text of Gen. 2. 17. namely as the Surety of the Elect and that thereby he was made liable to suffer the death there threatned for saith he Man sins and man dyes by vertue of this Text either in his own person or in the Man Christ Jesus But how doth all this that Mr. Norton hath said suit to the point in hand and how doth it tend to disprove what the Dialogue affirms 1 Saith he It is certain that Christ was couched in this Text but in his proof he only saith It is very probable that the Tree of life c. in his Proposition he affirmeth It is certain but in his proof he saith It is no more but probable But let his words be a little further examined Where is Christ couched 1 One while he tells us That he is couched and intended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant 2 Another while he tells us That it is probable that the Tree of life in Gen. 2. 9. was a figure of Christ 3 Another time he saith That Christ must be within the compasse of this Text of Gen. 2. 17. or else the Text is not true All these three considerations laid together do prove that Christ is contained somewhere or no where in some Text or in no Text. And now let the judicious Reader judge what his Proposition and his Proof doth amount to 2 Examine his Discourse a little further The Dialogue affirmeth that Christ falls not within the compasse of this Text in Gen. 2. 17. The Dialogue doth not meddle whether Christ was couched in any other Text. 2 The Dialogue denies that Christ was not within this text as liable to the death there threatned Now then let it bee supposed that Mr. Norton could produce some other text during the first Covenant wherein Christ was included or prefigured Suppose the Tree of life was a figure of him though it be denied both by Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Burges and others as I have noted in Chap. 2. yet except he can prove that Christ was comprehended in this text and that hee was thereby liable to the death there threatned he doth but labor to no purpose 3 Examine his arguing a little further The Dialogue contends that Christ is not contained in the word Thou Thou shalt surely dye Thou Adam in thine own person and thou Adam in thy Posterity saith the Dialogue But not thou in thy Surety shalt dye The word Thou shalt dye intends no more but the person or persons with whom the first Covenant was made But let us consider the Argument that doth arise from Mr. Nortons own words And it may be framed thus Christ falls not within the compasse of the first Covenant of works faith Mr. Norton in page 24. But thou shalt dye intending thereby the persons with whom the first Covenant was made falls within the compass of the first Covenant as he affirmeth in his second Proposition Therefore Christ falls not within the first Covenant of works because the word Thou intends the persons only with whom the first Covenant was made And thus you see how Mr. Norton hath confuted himself by proving that Christ was not comprehended within the compasse of Gen. 2. 17. SECT IV. IN my former brief Reply to his first Argument I promised a morefull Answer to his minor I will repeat his whole Argument as it is laid down in his 10 page Either Christ suffered the Justice of God instead of the Elect denounced against sin in Gen. 2. 17. or God might dispence with the execution thereof without the violation of his Justice But God could not dispence with the execution thereof without the violation of his Justice Reply 5. I have sufficiently replied to his major by proving that Christ was not in the same obligation
forbidden fruit to be a sin against the moral Law Reply 7. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. That the true nature of the first Covenant stood not in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature but in relation to a Gods positive Laws were not engraven in Adams nature as his moral Law was positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature as the eating of the two Trees was for Gods positive Laws were not ingraven in Adams nature but reserved in Gods secret Decrec to be imposed on man for an act or acts for a time as hee pleased to appoint and then to be annihilated again I grant that the moral Law of nature did direct Adam to obey God in whatsoever positives he should appoint But yet by the Law of nature he knew not any of Gods positives till they were particularly revealed neither can man without a special revelation know the reason of them because they depended only on the good pleasure of God and therefore Adams moral perfections could not prevent but that the Devil might deceive him about the reason of positives as I have shewed in Chap. 2. 2 I do not remember and I pray let the Judicious consider it that eternal death is directly threatned for the breach of any outward positive Law but at the first death in sin and ever after a bodily death but eternal death is often directly threatned for Unbeleâ—f and Rebellion against the Law of Grace and therefore the threatning in Gen. 2. 17. may bee exempted from that threatning though not from death in sin 3 Let it bee supposed that the first Covenant with Adam was made in relation to the moral Law which is denied and cannot be granted yet it is evident that God doth somtimes alter from See P Martyr in Com. pl. par 1. pag 190. that Law for he commanded Abraham to kill his only son which was contray to the sixth Commandement and hee commanded the Israelites to spoyl the Egyptians of their goods Exod. 11. 2. and Christ bid the Impotent man when he was healed to carry his bed on his back on the Sabbath day These examples shew that God is not tyed to his revealed moral Laws as wee are but that he hath a supreme power to alter from that Rule to his secret Decree but when God is God doth somtimes alter from the rule of his moral Commands to his secret Decree pleased to bind his promises or threatnings by an oath then we may be sure his will so revealed is unalterable because his oath doth alwayes declare what his secret Will and Decree is And hence it comes to passe that his word and command which he delivers to us for our rule is many times alterable because it is many times differing from his secret Decree And hence it is that when his threatnings are annexed to his Laws it is to shew unto man what his sin deserves but not what God will certainly execute for it is his good pleasure sometimes to Relax his threatning which is a forgivenesse of temporal plagues Psal 78. 38. 2 Sam. 12. 13 14. for as there are two sorts of punishments threatned so there are two sorts of pardon Isal 78 38. one in relation to temporary and the other in relation to eternal punishment and so in like sort there are two sorts of justification 4 This sentence as it relates to eternal death in Gen. 2. 17. In the Right way of dying well saith Perkins must be understood with an exception borrowed from the Gospel or Covenant of Grace revealed to Adam presently after his fall The exception goes thus Thou shalt certainly dye whensoever thou eatest of the forbidden fruit except I give thee a deliverance from death namely the Seed of the woman to destroy the Devils Head-plot And saith Vrsinus after that sentence in Gen. 2. 17. there followed the equity moderation and lenity of the Gospel in his Ans to Q. 40. And saith Baxter How can it stand with the truth and justice of God to dispence with his threatnings he answers thus to In his Aphora p. â—8 and in Append. p. 122. this Question When threatnings are meerly parts of the Law and not also predictions of events and discoveries of Gods purpose thereabout then they may be dispenced with without any breach of truth and he gives two Instances to explain his meaning the last of them runs thus when God saith Thou shalt dye the death the meaning is Death shall bee the due reward of thy sin so that it may be inflicted at my pleasure and not that hee should certainly suffer it in the event And he cites Vossius concluding that the Law was not abrogated but relaxed dispenced with and abrogate And to this sense saith another learned Divine The commination in Gen. 2. 17. is like to some other of Gods threats against the Transgressors of his Law but it bindeth not God that he shall have power to release or mitigate what and to whom it pleaseth him The Elect are called the children of wrath as well as others De Recens peccatoris par 1 c. 1. But saith Mr. Norton It may bee answered that the Holy Ghost in these and such like places of Scripture doth signifie what is due to sin and sinners and what their estate must needs bee in their own apprehensions if they will judge of themselves according to the light of true reason for there is in sin a certain naughtiness for which it justly may bee and indeed is odious unto God but it will not follow thereupon that he ceaseth to love them Whom he hath predestinate unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ Eph. 1. 5. All these Instances do evidence that Gods threatnings in the event are often alterable and therefore that his threatning of eternal death in Gen. 2. 17. in case it be there threatned is alterable and doth not bind God neither to leave the Elect under the power of their spiritual death in sin nor yet to inflict eternal death neither on the Elect nor on their Surety and therefore according to the liberty of his eternal Will and purpose hee ordained that the conlfict of Christ with Sathan in continuing obedient to the death of the Crosse and at last making his soul a sacrifice should be a valuable consideration whereion hee would dispence with the rigor of his commination and so let fall or suspend the pnealty of eternal death in case it had been the chief thing threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as most do hold and therefore for their sakes I have cited these Instances though still I think my first exposition of Gen. 2. 17. is sound and good in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. CHAP. XI SECT I. The Examination of Isa 53. 4. Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows Mr. Jacob interprets these sorrows of Hell sorrows which Christ bare in our stead or else we must have both them THe Dialogue in
his divine nature and doubtlesse as his humane nature was most perfect in spirits so it was to the utmost touched with the sense of our infirmities much more then our corrupt natures can bee But I shall have occasion to speak more of this in the Passion of Christ and in respect of his ineffable union his divine nature did leave his humane nature to act in his moral obedience and natural actions But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The Curse is not only bodily but spiritual as we were delivered from our sin so bee bare our sin But wee were delivered not only from the bodily but also from the spiritual punishment of sin Therefore c. Reply 11. I suppose that Mr. Norton by this speech Wee were delivered from the spiritual punishment of sin doth mean that Christ hath delivered us from the spiritual death of Hell But I have shewed in Chap. 2. in Sect. 3. That the first death threatned to Adam and his posterity in case hee did eat of the forbidden fruit was a spiritual death in sin and that bodily death and eternal death was threatned after this as a just punishment for Adams death in sin and hence I reason thus That seeing Christ hath delivered us from our first spiritual death in sin without bearing it in kind and from our bodily diseases in Mat. 8. without bearing them in kind hee may as well deliver us from our spritual and â—ternal death in hell without bearing it in kind But saith Mr. Norton in page 40. Whilst you so often affirm that obedience of Christ to be meritorious and yet all along deny it to bee performed in a way of justice you so often affirm a contradiction the very nature of merit including justice for merit is a just desert or a desert in way of justice Reply 12. The way of justice is either the way of vindicative justice or else it is the way of justice according to the voluntary Covenant The Dialogue indeed doth oppose the way of The true nature of merit and how Christ did merit our Redemption vindicative justice but yet it makes all Christs sufferings to be performed in a way of justice according to the order of justice in the voluntary Cause and Covenant but it is no marvel that Mr. Norton cannot see into this ground-word of merit because he is so much prejudiced against the Dialogue scope or else he could not have said that it affirms a contradiction Indeed I should have affirmed a contradictioni f I had at any time affirmed as Mr. Norton doth that the meritorious cause of all Christs sufferings and death was from Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ But the Dialogue goes another way to work it shews from Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. That the Devil must combate against the seed of the deceived woman and that Christ in his humane nature must combate against him and break his Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and that therefore his sufferings and death were meritorious because it was all performed in a way of justice namely in exact obedience to all the Articles of the voluntary Covenant as I have shewed also in Chap. 10. And it is out of all doubt that the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption are comprised in that declaration of our Redemption in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God doth there declare by way of threatning to Sathan doubtlesse in the hearing of Adam and for his instruction that he would put an enmity between him and the woman and between the devils seed and her seed hee shall enter the Lists and try Masteries with thee and hee shall break thy Head-plot and to this conflict doth the word Agony agree in Luke 22. 44. And Thou Sathan shalt bear an utter enmity against him and thou shalt have liberty to enter the Lists with this seed of the deceived woman and have liberty to do what thou canst to pervert his obedience as thou haddest to pervert the obedience of Adam and in case thou canst disturb his patience by ignominious contumelies or by the torture of a painful death and so pervert him in his obedience then thou shalt by that means hinder this seed of the woman from making his soul a sacrifice and so from the breaking of thy Head-plot and so from winning the prize and therefore thou shalt have free liberty to tempt him to sin as much as thou canst and thou shalt have liberty to impute as many sinful crimes against him as thou canst devise and so to put him to an ignominious and painful death like to wicked male factors But in case he shall continue patient without disturbance and continue obedient to the death without any diversion and at last make his death an obedient sacrifice by his own Priestly power then I will accept his death and sacrifice as full satisfaction for the sins of the Elect and so hee shall break thy Head-plot and win the prize which is the salvation of all the Elect and doubtless this death and sacrifice of Christ was exemplified to Adam by the sacrifice of some Lamb presently after his Fall Lo here is a true description of Christs merit according to the order of justice as it was agreed on in the voluntary Covenant For wee may gather from the threatning First That there was such a voluntary Covenant Secondly That Christ did covenant to continue constant in his obedience through all his temptations and trials And thirdly that upon the performance thereof God would reward him with the salvation of all the Elect Pbi 2. 9 10 11. Es 53 10 c. Mr. Wotton De Reconciliatione peccatoris part 1. cap. 4. doth thus explain the meritorious cause That the meritorious cause of Reconciliation saith hee is a kind of efficient there needs no other proof then that it binds as it were the principal efficient to perform that which upon the merit is due As if a man in running a race or the like so runneth as the order of the Game requireth by so doing hee meriteth the prize or reward and thereby also hee bindeth the Master of the Game to pay him that which he hath deserved This is a true description of the true nature of Christs merit according to the order of justice in the voluntary Covenant better and more agreeable to the Scripture than Mr. Nortons is from the legal order of Court-justice by a legal imputation of sin for the Scripture is silent in this way and plain in the other way And from this description of merit from the voluntary cause and Covenant These Conclusions do follow 1 That the wounds bruises and blood-shed of such as did win the prize cannot be said to be inflicted upon them from the vindicative wrath of the Masters of the Game caused through the imputation of sin and guilt against their Laws for none can win the prize that is guilty of any such transgression against their Law as the Apostle doth
witnesse in 2 Tim. 2. 5. and peruse also Dr. Hammonds Annotations on 1 Cor. 9. 24. and on Heb. 12. 1 2. Imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize and on 2 Tim. 4 8. and take notice that the Greek in 2 Tim. 4. 7. is the same by which the Seventy translate Gen. 30. 8. With excellent wrastlings have I wrastled namely for the mastery and victory and so also our larger Annotations on 2 Tim. 4. 8. 2 Hence it follows That the said wounds bruises and blood shed ought not to bee accounted as any vindicative Punishments may be suffered without the imputation of sin punishments from the Masters of the prize but as voluntary trials of their man-hood of their patience and obedience to their Laws 3 Hence it follows That the wounds and bruises mentioned in Isa 53. 5. 10. c. which Christ suffered were no other but the very same that God had declared hee should suffer from Sathan God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as hâ—e gave Sathan leave to do his worst unto Christ in Gen. 3. 15. I consess that the Hebrew word for bruised or peâ—rced in Gen. 3. 15. is different from the Hebrew word in Isa 59. 5. 10. but yet in both places it is plainly spoken of the bruising of Christ by Sathan and his instruments Isaiaâ— saith He was wounded and bruised for our transgiessions namely by Sathan at Gods appointment and because Christ did voluntarily undertake this combate with Sathan therefore God did also covenant that his bruises should bee for the chastisement of our peace and for our healing And so in verse 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise hiâ— and to put him to grief namely according to Gods prediction in Gen. 3. 15. but God did not bruise him by his immediate wrath hee was not pressed under the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton affirms for to bee pressed under the sense of Gods wrath is to bee forced to suffer by violence Job did acknowledge when the Devil destroyed his cattel and children that it was the Lord that took these things from him Job 1. 21. and saith when the Devil smote him full of boyls The band of the Lord hath touched me Job 19. 1. and yet it was Sathan that did smite him with boyls Job 2. 7. So God is said by Isaiah To delight to bruise Christ and to put him to grief because God delivered Christ into the hands of the Devils Instruments to combate for the victory Act. 2. 23. and so it is said That God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all namely to Sathan and his Instruments to combate with him Rom. 8. 32. And so in like sort God is said To give power to Pilate to condemn Christ Joh. 19. 11. And so God delivered him into the hands of sinners Matth. 27. 45. to do unto him whatsoever the council of God had determined Act. 4. 28. And his Father gave him the cup of all these afflictions Job 18. 11. because hee declared that Sathan should have this liberty and power Gen. 3. 15. Yea Christ delivered himself into the hands of sinners Job 18. 4. 8. And Christ did often foretel his sufferings to his Disciples saying Behold wee go up to Jerusalem and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief Priests and unto the Scribes and they shall condemn him unto death and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles and they shall mock him and scourge him and spit upon him and shall kill him Mat. 16. 21. Mar. 10. 33 34. Luke 18. 31 32 33. Luke 24. 7. 25 26 44 46. Act. 13. 27 28 29. And all this Christ did undergo from the voluntary Cause and Covenant as it was declared in Gen. 3. 15. and therefore not from Gods wrath 4 This doth cleerly exemplifie how and in what respect the obedience of Christ in all his sufferings was meritorious 5 This doth also cleerly exemplifie how all the sufferings of Christ may be called punishments without the judicial imputation of our sins to him by God 6 This also doth exemplifie how God is said to bee just to sinners in 1 Ioh. 1. 9. Rom. 3. 26. namely because hee had from all eternity covenanted with Christ the Mediator that upon the performance of his combate with Sathan according to the Laws of the combate that then hee should thereby obtain his reconciliation to beleeving sinners As soon therefore as Christ had performed this combate and made his soul a sacrifice according to the eternal Covenant God is said to declare his righteousness in remitting their sins that so he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Iesus Rom. 3. 26. But still Mr. Norton objecteth in page 41. thus Had Christ suffered death without sin imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 13. In the former description of punishment suffered from the voluntary Cause and Covenant hee may see an instance to the contrary But Mr. Norton saith in page 140. Though the notions of a Mediator and a Male factor are cleerly distinct in themselves yet your distinguishing between Christs dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor is unfound Reply 14. Though it bee unsound in Mr. Nortons sense yet it is not unsound in the Scripture sense let the former Scripture in Gen. 3. 15. be judge in the case 1 He must dye as a Malefactor for God had armed Sathan with authority to use him as a vild Malefactor and to crucifie him in the Foot-soals And yet 2 As soon as Christ had finished all those sufferings in obedience to the Laws of the combate he must make his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation taught by the death of some Lamb by his Priestly power even by the joynt concurrence of both his natures or else he could not have been the Mediator of the New Testament through death if hee had not as soon as hee had finished all his sufferings offered his vital soul for a sacrifice by his eternal Spirit both his natures did concur to make his death a sacrifice and in that respect only hee was the Mediator of the New Testament through that kind of death As the Apostles argument lyes in Heb 9. 14 15 16. And thus the Dialogue doth make the notions of a Malefactor and a Mediator to bee cleerly distinct 7 Hence it is evident that all the outward sufferings of Christ were from the voluntary Cause and Covenant in entring the Lists with Sathan not in the power of his God-head but in his humane nature which he received from the seed of the deceived woman and as it was accompanied with our infirmities And in this respect he is said by Isaiah to be wounded or tormiented for our transgressions and to bee bruised for our iniquities And thus Peter must bee understood when he saith He bare our sins in his body on the Tree that is to say Our punishments in his combate with
Sathan 1 Pet. 2. 24. And thus Christ was oppressed by his 1 Pet. 2. 24. Combater Sathan Isa 53. 7. when hee suffered himself to bee apprehended by a band of armed Souldiers and to bee bound Es 53. 7. as a prisoner and as a Malefactor and in this sense Christ saith I am the good Shepherd that giveth his life for his sheep Joh. 10. 11. I will readily venture my life in the combate with that roaring Lion Sathan for the redemption of my sheep And thus Moses did offer his life to redeem the lives of the Israelites when they had forfeited their lives into the hands of Gods justice by worshipping the Golden Calf Exod. 32. Then Moses said I will now go up to the Lord peradventure I shall make Attonement for your sin and be said to God If thou wilt forgive their sin and if not but that they must still dye blot me I pray thee out of thy book which thou hast written called the Book of the living Ps 69. 29. and called also the Writing of the house of Israel Eze. 13. 9. And herein Moses saith Ainsworth dealt as a Mediator between God and men and was a figure of our Mediator Christ who laid down his life for his sheep Ioh. 10. 15. and redeemed us from the curse of the Law when hee was made a curse for us Gal. 3. 13. The intent of Moses say the Hebrew Doctors was That hee might dye instead of them and bear their iniquity according to that in Isa 53. 5. He was wounded for our Trespasses For say the Hebrew Doctors The death of the just maketh Reconciliation Ex. 32. 32. See Ains in Exod. 32. 32. But in case Moses had been made guilty of their sin by Gods imputation doubtless hee had not been a fit person to offer his life as a Mediator for their lives This resemblance I grant is but very weak because Moses did not offer to give his life as a Mediator for them by a mutual Covenant but of his own head and therefore his offer was refused yet that speech of the Hebrew Doctors The death of the just maketh Reconciliation may somewhat inlighten touching that place in 1 Pet. 3. 18. where it is said That 1 Pet. 3. 18. Christ suffered the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God for hee being just in Gods sight ingaged himself acording to a mutual and reciprocal Covenant to enter the Lists with Sathan and to continue just through all the malicious designs of Sathan even to the death of the Crosse that so at last hee might make his soul a sacrifice of Attonement and so bring us to God Mark this Hee is called the just in all his sufferings But hee was not so called in the Jews account for they put him to death as a sinful Malefactor Neither could hee bee said to be absolutely just in the sight of God in case God had imputed the guilt of our sins to him in a formal legal way But saith Peter The just suffered for the unjust hee that knew himself to be every way just in the fight of God and of his Law hee entred the Lists and suffered from Sathans enmity and yet still he continued obedient to the death and so continued to bee just And hence wee may see wherein the efficacy of Christs All Christs sufferings were without any imputation of sin from God and therefore he was accepted and so his obedience to the death doth bring us to God sufferings do consist namely in this because in all his conflict with Sathan his patience was not disturbed nor his obedience perverted but to the very last hee approved himself to bee most just and righteous in the sight of God and therefore hee conquered Sathan by righteousnesse as the ancient Divines do very often speak because he strove lawfully according to the order agreed on by the voluntary Covenanters And so hee won the prize 2 In his combate with Sathan his obedience was eminent above the obedience of any condemned delinquent that patiently submits his life to bee taken away by justice because hee put forth a voluntary act of compliance in all his combating with Sathan and in all his sufferings that so hee might please him that had chosen him to bee the Captain of our salvation and in that respect his chastisements which hee suffered from Sathans malice to provoke him to some sinful distemper are said to bee for our peace and healing by obtaining a reconciliation for us and so he doth heal us and bring us to God and so say the Hebrew Doctors The death of the Just maketh Reconciliation It is no evill in it self to bee punished from a voluntary undertaking of a combate but to bee punished in a legal way through a legal imputation of sin and guilt that is a true evill indeed 3 Take notice in some particulars how eminently active Christ was voluntary in complying with all his sufferings or else they had not been meritorious See also Ch. 6. Christ was in his sufferings as a voluntary Combater 1 He was lead by the Spirit that lighted on him at his Baptism into the Wildernesse as soon as ever hee was extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office on purpose to try Masteries with the Devils temptations which no man else in the world might presume to do but this Captain of our salvation and in this respect all his sufferings may more fitly bee called active sufferings or active passive obedience rather than passive obedience for he put forth a ready and voluntary compliance with them and that by way of anticipation according to Covenant as a voluntary undertaker of the combate for our Redemption and this kind of obedience in his sufferings made his chastisements to be meritorious for our peace and for our healing as the Dialogue shews in p. 49. 2 Take another instance of Christs voluntary obedience in entring into the Lists with Sathan as the Captain of our salvation in all that long businesse that is called his Passion 1 He manifested himself to bee continually mindful of that hour that God had appointed to bee for his apprehension and death Luke 12. 50. Ioh. 12. 23 27. c. Ioh. 13. 1. and in verse 2 3. Supper being ended and Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hand namely to order himself in every circumstance of his sufferings in his combate with Sathan according to the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for the Text saith That he knew from the beginning who it was that should betray him Joh. 6. 64. Joh. 13. 11. therefore hee was active and provoked Judas at Supper to go out saying unto him What thou doest do quickly Joh. 13. 27. and then saith hoe The Son of man goes as it is determined namely by a mutual Covenant Luke 22. 22. and then said he The Prince of this world cometh to incounter with mee with more armed violence than formerly but saith
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 pâ—ssed 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 53. 6. was after the same manner as the Lord laid the sins of Israel upon the Priest and Sacrifice and no otherwise as in Exod. 28. 38. and in Lev. 10. 17. Mr. Norton doth answer in page 43. Whatsoever your words are we presume your meaning is That the Types instanced in did not typically hold forth any imputation of sin to Christ the Antitype Reply 1. The meaning of the Dialogue is plain namely that Christ bare our sins as the typical Priest and Sacrifice did bear the sins of Israel And the Priests are said to bear all their sins because they offered publick sacrifices to procure a legal Attonement for the sins of all Israel and so Christ bare our sins because hee made his soul a Sacrifice by his Priestly power by which he procured his Fathers Attonement for all our sins formally 2 In the Dialogue in page 25. I have shewed how Christ may be said to bear our sins several other wayes and yet not as a guilty sinner by a formal legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds But saith Mr. Norton in page 44. Put case you produce a Type which holdeth not forth bearing of sin by imputation in the Antitype except it may appear that the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended you conclude nothing Reply 2. The Dialogues instances do make it appear plain enough to the willing to bee informed That the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended but to a byassed spirit it is not easie to be done Let the Reader peruse the Dialogue and then judge But saith Mr. Norton in page 44. It is very true God laid our sins upon Christ as upon our Sacrifice Isa 53. 12. Therefore say we by Imputation Reply 3. He doth acknowledge it to bee a truth that God laid our sins upon Christ as upon our Sacrifice therefore say wee not by Mr. Nortons kind of imputation for his kind of imputation is not to be found in the typical sacrifices but the true manner of Christs bearing our sins as our Priestly Mediator may be found because it was typified by the Priests eating of the peoples Sin-offering as Mediators in the holy place as the Dialogue hath truly expounded Lev. 10. 17. for their eating signified such a communion as Mediators must have between both parties in the work of Attonement And secondly The Lord laid all our sins upon Christ as upon our sacrifice and this is elegantly expressed by Isaiah Hee poured out his soul to death and bare the sin of many and made intercession for transgressors Isa 53. 12. All these three terms saith the Dialogue are Synonima's But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. Synonima's are divers words signifying the same thing but death bearing sin and intercession are doubtlesse divers things though they concur as ingredients to the same Mediatorship Reply 4. I cannot find any thing in this answer to confute the Synonimas expressed by the Dialogue I think this answer is meerly intended to amuse the Reader The Dialogue shews plainly that all these three terms are metaphorical Synonimas being all joyned together in this Text to declare unto us the true manner how how the Lord made Christ to bear all our sins as our Sacrifice 1 His death is put for his sacrifice 2 His sacrifice bears all our sins from us because it procures Gods Attonement 3 By the eternal efficacy of his Death and Sacrifice he makes continual intercession for us and so hee doth still bear our sins by his continual interceding Gods Attonement And thus all these terms are Synonimas and to this I shall speak more fully in Reply 18. But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. The force of this Reason is that Christs sacrifice was effectual to procure Attonement therefore sin was not imputed to him A meer non sequitur Nay the contrary consequence is true Christ saith hee appeared that is Was manifested in the flesh to put away sin Heb. 9. 26. was once offered to bear the sins of the many verse 28. The Greek word here used by Paul and elsewhere by Peter 1 Pet. 2. 24. signifies to take carry or bear up on high and that so as to bear away and this is an allusion to the Rite of the whole Burnt-offering Reply 5. In this Answer Mr. Norton labors to prove that Christ bare our sins by Gods imputation by Heb. 9. 26. 28. Heb. 9. 26. 28 Christ appeared that is saith he was manifested in the flesh hee little minded the Context in saying that his appearing here did signifie his manifesting in the flesh for it is easie to bee discerned that his appearing here doth signifie his appearing before Dan. 9. 24. God with his sacrifice for sin and that was three and thirty yeers after his first appearing in the flesh as I noted Christ put away sin namely all Sin offerings by his being made the only true Sacrifice for sin from his approaching unto God in the beginning of this Chapter by which hee put away sin namely all Sin-offerings according to that in Dan. 9. 24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy City to finish Trespasse offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make reconciliation for iniquity as the meritorious cause and so to bring in an everlasting Righteousness instead of the ceremonial as our money brings in our cloathing and then it follows in Pauls next words That Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many this Greek word to bear here used by Paul and elsewhere by Peter saith Mr. Norton signifies to take carry or bear up on high and that so as to bear away now apply his Rule in page 44. to what he saith here and there hee answers himself to what hee reasons here Put case saith he you produce a Type which holdeth not
continually charge us with the breach thereof and therefore the debt of punishment due to us for sin is not discharged in full in respect of temporal plagues though it bee discharged in full in respect of eternal condemnation to all that beleeve in the Promisea Seed I say that till the Resurrection all the godly do still suffer for sin both in their life in their death and in their putrifaction in their graves and therefore they do still stand in need of the daily intercession of Christ for the pardon of their sins by the satisfaction of Christ continually presented unto God and in this respect Christ doth stil bear away our sins in heaven by his Priestly intercession as much as ever hee did when he was here upon earth as I noted afore in Reply 4. And this doth plainly shew that the satisfaction of Christ was not Ejusdem but Tantidem If Christ had been our legal Surety to pay the uttermost farthing in kind at his death then our Redemption had been perfect at once but because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it was agreed that wee should have our Redemption but by degrees and therefore wee must still wait for the full redemption of our bodies till the time appointed as I have shewed in Chap. 4. 3 Hence it follows that this legal Court-way in making Christ a legal Surety so liable to suffer the eternal curse from Gods legal imputation c. is none of Gods way in point of satisfaction as I have often noted to have it the better marked and searched into but it was the Devils way to make Christ a legal sinner and to that purpose hee stirred up false witnesse to make a legal proof of his sinful imputations and then hee stirred up Pilate to proceed to a legal condemnation of him to the odious death of the Crosse and hence some infer to admiration that when Pilate sate on his Tribunal God sate on his Tribunal to sentence Christ with the eternal curse as if Pilates Court-proceedings were a type of God the Fathers Court-proceedings but I have oft noted that Gods way was to commissionate Sathan to bee Christs Combater and to afflict him to his utmost skill and that Christ was to win the victory by his constant practice and obedience Conclusion Hence it follows that neither the phrase The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all in Isa 53. 6. nor the phrase of imposing hands on the head of the Sin-offering with confession of sin in Lev. 1. 4. Ex. 29. 10. Lev. 4. 4. and 5. 5 6. and Lev. 16. 21. do prove that God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of any of his sufferings much lesse of suffering Hell-torments as Mr. Norton doth most boldly and groundlesly affirm for all his Scripture proofs are but Scriptures perverted CHAP. XIV 2 Cor. 5. 21. Examined Mr. Norton saith in page 53. That Christ was made sin for us as we were made Rightousnesse that is saith he by judicial imputation without the violation yea with the establishing of justice 2 That Christ was made sin as he was made a curse Gal. 3. 13. the Greek here used and there are the same But saith he he was made a curse by judicial imputation because he was the Sin-offering in truth therefore he was made sin by real imputation as the legal Sin-offering was made sin by typical imputation Reply 1. MR. Nortons first comparative Argument cannot hold firm for these Reasons 1 Because it is not framed to the words of the Text. 2 Because it is not framed to the sense of the Text. 1 It is not framed to the words of the Text because hee makes Christ to bee made sin for us by Gods imputation in the same manner as wee are made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ for hee means it of the righteousnesse of Christ and so hee opens his meaning in page 230. and in other places that we are made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed but any one that hath eyes in his head may see that the righteousnesse expressed in the Text is called the righteousnesse of God and not the righteousnesse of Christ therefore his Argument is not framed to the words of the Text. And secondly the righteousnesse expressed is not the righteousnesse of God essentially as Mr. Norton makes it to bee in page 230. but the righteousnesse of God the Father personally and yet this nothing hinders but that the justification of beleeving sinners is the work of the Trinity because they have an order of working in the several causes and this is most cleer and evident because the Apostle doth plainly distinguish between God and Christ from verse 19 to the end of verse 21. For saith the Apostle in verse 19. God was in Christ thereby plainly noting two distinct persons I grant that others have The mistaking of the righteousnesse of God for the righteousnesse of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is the cause of an erronious interpretation mistaken the word God for the word Christ before him but had he been well advised hee might have followed some eminent Divines that have more narrowly searched not only into the words but also into the sense of this Text and that have given their grounds for the differencing of the righteousnesse of God from the righteousnesse of Christ and then he might have been better advised then to confound the righteousnesse of God with the righteousnesse of Christ as hee doth without distinction in page 230. and elsewhere But thirdly in case the righteousnesse of God in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in other places had been meant of the righteousnesse of Christ as Mr. Norton doth make it then the Text should have run thus God made him to be sin for us which knew no sin that we might be made the righteousnesse of Christ in him that is to say That we might be made the righteousnesse of Christ in Christ and then according to this interpretation the word God must bee blotted out of the Text and the word Christ put into the place of it But I beleeve that Mr. Norton will abhor to say that the word God must be blotted out to put the word Christ into the place of it and therefore by the same reason hee should abhor to expound the righteousnesse of God to bee no other but the righteousnesse of Christ especially seeing there is as much difference between them in the point of a sinners righteousnesse or justification or reconciliation as there is between the meritorious and formal causes of a sinners justification or reconciliation I grant that Christ is our righteousnesse in the meritorious cause Rom. 5. 18. but I say also that it is God the Fathers righteousnesse that is the formal cause of our righteousnesse 4 Mr. Anthony Wotton doth judiciously demonstrate that the Apostle did not intend any comparison here and he doth also give two reasons why the
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 mâ—er 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 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 righteâ—eousness 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 Aâ—tonement 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
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 condemn 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 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 verses 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 Statutes 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 Heiser 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. Rom. 5. 16. The free gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness 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 â—ree 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 justificition 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 un circumcision 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 meritoriouâ— 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
would certainly have fallen upon them was but half a Shekel which in humane reason materially considered cannot be esteemed a sufficient price for the ransom of their souls from death as David sheweth in Psal 49. 7 8. yea though it were paid yearly during life But formally considered namely as it was ordained by Gods positive Law and Covenant to be paid and accepted as the price of redeeming their lives from death so it was the full price of their lives because Gods positive Law and Covenant had made it to be a full price if they had offered many thousands of silver for the redemption of their lives yet it had not been a sufficient price without Gods positive Law and Covenant As I have shewed in Chap. 8. in Ahabs offer to Naboth in 1 King 21. 3. Even so it was Gods positive Law and Covenant that made the death and sacrifice of Christ to be the 2 King 21. 3. full price to cover Gods angry face or to attone him for the ransom of the many Mat. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 2. 6. 1 Tim. 2. 6. The said price of redemption is called the silver of Attonements Exod. 30. 16. and with this mony or at least with part of See Ainsw in Exod. 30. 12. and Lev. 28. 4. it they bought the daily sacrifices that were offered morning and evening for the procuring Gods attonement to the whole Church of Israel and with this money they also purchased the publick Sin-offerings and Trespass-offerings and therefore it was called sin-mony and trespass-mony 2 King 12. 16. Neh. 10. 32 33. but in Exo. 30. 16. is called attonement mony and by some Translations redemption-mony because redemption is obtained by procuring Gods attonement and hence we may see the reason why we are said to be bought with a price 1 Cor. 6. 20. and why the blood of Christ is called a price 1 Pet. 1. 18 19. the phrase of a price given to the Sacrifice and so to Christs sacrifice is borrowed from the price that God appointed them to pay for the redemption of their lives and for the buying of sacrifices of attonement for the procuring of Gods attonement for the redemption of their lives and so for their justification in his sight Sixthly Caphar is used for the covering of Gods angry sace from moral sins that defile the Land by executing impartial Justice upon Malefactors And thus Phineas when he executed justice on the Fornicators did by that means cover Gods angry face or make attonement for the Sons of Israel Numb 25. 17. In like sort when Gods angry face had been upon the Land by a three years famine for Sauls bloody sin in slaying the innocent Gibbeonites Then David said to the Gibbeonites wherewith shall I cover Gods angry face or make attonement that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord 2 Sam. 21. 3. Then they Deut. 21. 8. said in ver 6. Let seven of his Sons be given and we will ang them up to the Lord and so Gods angry face was covered and attoned It is also said in Numb 35. 33. Blood polluteth the Land and there shall be no covering of my anger or attonement made for the Land but by the blood of him that shed it and in case of a secret murderer yet by Gods Ordinance the Land was guilty till the Elders of the people had made attonement by the death of a Bullock Exod. 21. 8. Seventhly Caphar is used for the covering of Gods angry face from ceremonial sins by typical Sacrifices of Attonement and from the moral sins of our souls by the true sacrifice of Christ And this kind of covering by Attonement doth alwaies denote Gods forgiveness and receiving into favor as Lev. 4. 20 26 31 35. Lev. 5. 6 10 13 16 18. And sometimes it is expressed by making clean as in Numb 8. 21. Lev. 16. 30. Mr. Ainsworth in Gen. 32. 20. saith This word Caphar is often used in the Law for covering or taking away offences and for pacifying anger by gifts and so making Attonement as in Exod. 29 36. Levit. 14 20 26. and 5. 6 10 13. Deut. 21. 8. And saith he in Psal 65. 4. Our trespasses thou wilt mercifully cover them namely expiate propitiate purge away and so mercifully cover and forgive them And saith he the Hebrew Caphar signifies to cover and saith he the cover of the Ark was called Caporeth Exod. 25. 17. in Greek Hilasterion That is the propitiatory or Mercy-Seat Hebr. 9. 5. which name Paul giveth to Christ Rom. 3. 25. and he is the true propitiation for our sins 1 Joh. 2. 2. And saith he in Psal 78. 38. He being compassionate mercifully covered iniquity And saith he in Psal 79. 9. mercifully cover our sins he doth most fitly add the word merciful to the word cover because Caporeth is applied to the cover of the Ark called Gods Mercy-Seat where he used to appear and to manifest his favor by the cloud of his presence when he was attoned to his people Lev. 16. 2. and so the word Merciful or propitious is added to Gods forgiving the sins of his people in Heb. 8. 12. and such as confess their sins have the promise of Gods mercy namely of his merciful pardon in Prov. 28. 13. By these and such like considerations we may see the reason why David useth this phrase Blessed is the man whose sin is covered Psal 32. 1. namely by Gods gracious forgiveness for the sake of Christs propitiatory sacrifice The use of the burnt offering saith Ainsworth was to procure Gods attonement or remâ—ssion of sins as it is evident saith he by Job 42. 8. and so saith he the anger of God is covered or appeased by the burnt offering of Christs for he is the attonement or reconciliation for our sins Dan. 9. 24. 1 Joh. 2. 2. Heb. 10. 8 10. Eighthly After I had penned these meditations on the word Attonement I met with another excellent explanation of it in our larger Annotations in 2 Chr. 6. 49. The Reader may please to confer that note with these meditations Ninethly It is also worth the marking that the Seventy do render the Hebrew word Caphar in various expressions Some of them I will name 1. The Seventy do render the word Caphar to sanctifie in Exod. 29. 33. There our Translation saith thus Aaron and his sons shall â—at those things by which attonement was made But the Seventy say by which they were sanctified And so in ver 36. our translation saith thus Thou shalt offer every day a Bullock for a sin of Attonement The Seventy say for a sin by which they shall be sanctified But I have opened this word sanctified before in Reply 3. And so it is said in Heb. 9. 13. That the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh for their legal Justification before God in his Sanctuary But when Christ came into the world he took away
have heard expounded thus cut off in this world and cut off in the world to come 3 Dr. Hammon in his Annotation on Rev. 20. 6. saith this phrase the second Death is four times used in this book and it seems to be taken from the Jews who use it proverbially for finall utter irreversible destruction So in the Jerusalem Targum Deut. 33. 6. Let Ruben live and let him not dye the second death by which the wicked dye in the world to come 4 Mr. Broughton saith That the ancient godly Hebrew Doctors that lived after Ezra seeing the increase of Sadduces In his Reduct on Dan 9. they did frame divers terms to express the world to come both in relation to the godly and to the wicked Epicurean Sadduces and those terms in their sense doth the New Testament approve and follow and they made the term Second-death to express the immortal misery that belongs to the soul of the wicked in the world to come they made the spiritual death of the soul by original sin and the death of the body to be the death of this world And Austin speaks just as the Dialogue doth as I have cited him in Chap. 16. Reply 20. All sorts of death that men do suffer in this world is counted but the first in relation to the Second death in the world to come That the spiritual death of sin and the death of the body is the first-First-death because it belongs to all men in this world and so doth Zanchy in his Sermons page 162. and that the second-Second-death belongs only to the wicked after this life is ended But Mr. Norton opposeth this division of death in page 115. and page 120. and makes a threefold death to confound the Reader about the term second-Second-death in Rev. 14. and so hee evades his answer to the main scope of the Dialogues Argument against Christs suffering of the second-Second-death which is this namely That the second-Second-death cannot be suffered in this life where the First-death only is suffered by Gods appointment But on the contrary he labours to maintain that Christ suffered the Second-death in this world by Gods extraordinary dispensation But I have formerly answered that the Papists may in like fort maintain the Miracles that they ascribe to their legion of Saints if they may but flye to Gods extraordinary dispensation 8 Mr. Anthony Wotton denied Mr. Nortons Tenent though for some respects best known to himself he was sparing to publish De Recon pec par 2. l. 1. c. 11. n. 8. and more cleerly in c. 18. n. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. his judgement and yet he hath left enough in print to witness what I say and it is also further evident in this that hee denied that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his sufferings as I have shewed in the former Chapter 9 I find by conference with such as have been wel read in the Ancient Divines that nothing in them without wresting their sense can be found that doth evidence that they held that God did legally impute our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of inflicting Hell-torments on him 10 The Dialogue hath cited some eminent Divines both for Learning and Piety that have denied that Christ suffered Hell-torments like the two witnesses of Gods truth even when that doctrine bare the greatest sway as Mr. Robert Smith that suffered much for the truth being silenced through the iniquity of the times and Mr. Robert Wilmot a man eminent for learning and the power of godliness and Mr. Christopher Carlisle a judicious Expositor and Mr. Nichols a student of the Inneâ—-Temple All which were far from siding with Popish Tenents as some to blast the truth are apt to say that scarce any deny Christs suffering of Gods vindicative wrath but Papists 11 I have on Psal 22. 1. cited our larger Annotation that goes quite contrary to Mr. Nortons strain 12 I have cited other eminent Divines in Chap. 2. Sect. 2. that do hold much differing from Mr. Norton And it is a known thing among the Learned that sub judice lis est It is a controversie not yet unanimously resolved and therefore I presume I shall meet with some judicious Readers that will be able to judge whether the Dialogue and the truth therein contained hath been rightly censured by Mr. Norton and by those that set him on work This Proposition saith Mr. Norton in page 96. Cursed is every one that hangs on a Tree is a typical Proposition and contains in it these two truths 1 That every one that hangeth upon a Tree in Judea from the promulgation of that Curse to the Passion of Christ inclusively is ceremonially accursed i. e. All that are hâ—nged are so infamed that the carkass of uch in case they be not buried before Sun-set shall defile the land 2 That Christ in testimony that he redeemed us by bearing the moral curse should be hanged on a Tree Reply 10. Neither of the two Propositions are true in themselves much lesse are they deducible from the Text in Deut. 21. 23. 1 I have sufficiently shewed already That this exhortation defile not the land is not connexed but separated from the former sentence by a colon or by a full prick as the Geneva and Tindal make it and that it hath reference to the execution and exact justice upon Malefactors as in verse 21 22. 2 That no Ceremonial sin did defile the whole land 3 That hanging on a Tree longer than Sun-set did not defile the land and that sometimes hanging many dayes together did not defile but cleanse the land from moral sins 4. Therefore seeing all Mr. Nortons Arguments laid together have not strength enough to prove his first typical exposition of Deut. 21. 23. much lesse have they strength sufficient to prove his second Proposition which cannot bee true unless the first be true But yet Mr. Norton makes a great shew for his exposition by citing Junius Piscator Parker and Mr. Ainsworth as concurring with his sense therefore I will make a short Reply Reply 11. The two first I perceive by conference with such as have perused them speak very moderately and sparingly and not so full as Mr. Norton doth but suppose they were fully of his mind yet that could not prove no more but this That Mr. Norton is not alone in his exposition and collections and so much may the Dialogue say but all that are judicious do know that it is not mans consent but Scripture rightly interpreted and Arguments drawn from a right interpretation that must determine the point 3 I have not yet examined what Mr. Parker saith 4 As for Mr. Ainsworth he is a little too bold to make him full of his judgement let his mind and meaning be examined by conferring with his own words in his Annotations in Gen. 3. 15. in Num. 21. 9. in Exod. 32. 32. in Lev. 6. 21. in Psal 69. 4. Besides I received some letters
manifest that he was to be troubled Christ did fear death regularly more than other men can do because his pure nature was not subject to death as â—câ—s is In his War Peace ch 36. anâ— I have cited Mr. â—â—all to this sense in ch 17. at Reply 25. Christ both in his combate with Satan also in the formality of his death by his Priestly order did all by way of Covenant and not by condition of nature with the fear of a bodily death more than any other man because the constitution of his nature and natural spirits was more pure than the nature of other men and therefore he must manifestly abhor it more than other men for he was not made subject to death by nature as all other men are all other men by reason of original sin are born the bondslaveâ— of Satan Death is their Birth-right and therefore they abhorre it not in a regular manner but with a dull slavish spirit but because Christs nature was conceived by the Holy Ghost without original sin therefore he was not born the bondslave of death Death hath no right saith Peter Martyr in Rom. p. 121. where there is no sin unless we will say that God doth punish the innocent and hence it follows that the pure constitution of his nature must needs be toubled with the regular fear of his bodily death more than other men can be His death saith Grotius was not determined by any Law as Mr. Norton affirms but by agreement and as it were by special Covenant made with his Father who upon that condition promised him not onely the highest glory but a seed to serve him for ever This speech of Grotius is worth our marking And in ch 2. I have shewed more at large that the death of Christ was a death of Covenant and noâ— oâ— condition of nature as ours is And in relation to his Covenant and to the rich reward of his death by Gods Covenant his rational soul did always desire to die but yet that desire did no way hinder his natural and vital soul from fearing the ill usage of his pure nature by Satan and hiâ— instruments Secondly I find this to be a received maxim among the learned that the bodily pains which Christ indurâ—d were See Mr. Burges on Just p 82 Dr. Wilâ—iams in his seven Golden Candlestick p 453. more sensible to his nature than the like pains can be to other men because of the most excellent temper and tender Constitution of his body and therefore his vital and sensitive soul which is the bond of union between the immortal soul and the body was quicker in operation than other mens spirits can be with the dread and fear of his ignominious death That speech of our Saviour is emphatical in Heb. 10. 5. A Heb. 10. 5. The excellent temper and tender constitution of Christs humane nature made him more sensible of fear thame and pain than other men can be body hast thou prepared me namely by sending the Holy Ghost to prepare the seed of the woman for my humane nature that it may be of a more excellent temper and tender constitution than any other mans can be and therefore that it may be touched with the objects of fear ignominy and pain more eminently than other mens can be and therefore as it behoved God to prepare such a body on purpose for him so it behoved Christ to be made like unto his brethren and to be touched in an eminent manner with the sence of our passions and infirmities that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest and so in particular he must be eminently touched with the fears of death Heb. 2. 14. 17. And so it became God the Father to consecrate the Prince of our salvation through sufferings and how else did it become God to consecrate him but by making his obedience perfect through sufferings and therefore said Christ to God A body hast thou prepared me thou hast moulded it and organized it on purpose to be touched with thâ— tender sense and feeling of mans infirmities in my sensitive soul the better to exemplifie the perfection of my patience and obedience through all my sufferings It is no marvel then that seeing the constitution of his body and spirits was thus transcendently tender that his soul-troubles are expressed by all the Evangelists to be more than other mens can be as concerning their meer bodily sufferings and death But saith Mr. Norton in page 57. Other men conflicting with death by reason of sin do not conflict only with death other men conflicting with natural death conflict also often with eternal death Christ according to you conflicted only with a natural death how then do you say without any distinction that he was bound to be troubled with the fear of death as much as any other man Reply 4. I reply to the Interrogation that Christs troubled fear of death was wholly Regular but other mens fear is for Christ feared his ignominionâ— death after the rule of fear not after the example of this oâ— that man the most part irregular Christs fear therefore must not bee compared to this or that particular mans fear as Mr. Nortons kind of arguing doth import to the lesse wary Reader but his fear must be considered in relation to that disease of evil which was opposite to the perfection of his nature for by the rule of Gods Creation Adam and Christ were perfect in nature and not subject to curses and therefore according to the Rule of Contraries the more ignominy and pains of death they must suffer the more they must abhor it more than other men that are the slaves of death by nature the soul and body in the first creation were united in all perfection after Gods Image and therefore all ignominy torments and death must needs be an abhorring in an higher degree than it can be to other men and therefore it was most suitable to Christs regular constitution to manifest his exceeding troubled fear of his ignominious and painful lingring death more than any other man can do in a regular manner But saith Mr. Norton in page 57. Christ according to you conflicted only with a natural death and he doth very often charge the Dialogue with this expression of a natural death as in page 156 158 159 164 c. Reply 5. This I beleeve is a false charge I do not remember Christs death was not a natural death that the Dialogue doth any where call the death of Christ a natural death but it doth carefully shun that term as altogether unfit because the death of Christ was supernatural The Dialogue holds that Christ was not subject to a natural death as sinners are from the curse of original sin in Gen. 3. 19 as I have shewed a little before and shall do it again towards the end of this Chapter Secondly But yet the Dialogue doth often call the death of Christ
a true bodily death in opposition to Mr. Nortons spiritual death with this explanation that his death was such a kind of bodily death that it was also a mediatorial death and sacrifice If Mr. Norton had not been more than ordinary blinded with prejudice against the Dialogue he could not so often have mistaken the words and sense of the Dialogue as I have noted it also elsewhere yea in page 153. he saith That Christ suffered not only a natural but a spiritual death But saith Mr. Norton in page 57. Christs meer inability as man to prevent death by the use of means or other mens inability thereto and that at such times when they were not wanting on their part neither was it their duty to endeavour continuance of life but on the contrary to give up themselves to death such as was the present case of Christ and was long before the case of Isaak and sometimes hath been the case of Martyrs who notwithstanding have given up their lives with joy cannot bee looked at as a reason of his or their being bound to be so troubled with the fear of death Reply 6. I shall speak the briefer to this inference because I have already shewed in Reply 3. That the humane nature of Christ was priviledged from death and from the fear of death and from all other miseries by nature But yet such was his infinite and eternal love to the Elect that were fallen in Adam that according to the Council of the Trinity he entred into a Covenant with his Father to take upon him the seed of the deceived woman with our infirmities and to enter the Lists and to combate with Satan that had a Commission given him to peirce him in the foot-soals with an ignominious death and therefore he covenanted to manifest the truth of his humane nature in fearing and abhorring such a kind of usage for the salvation sake of all the Elect And saith Rutherfurd on the Covenant page 342. God by a permissive decree appointed the crucifying of the Lord of life but as touching his approving and commanding will he did neither will the crucifying of his Son but forbids and hates it as execrable murther 1 Then consider Christs troubled natural fear of death materially with all the circumstances of ignominy and tortures from the Devil and his Instruments according to Gods declared permission in Gen. 3. 15. and then it was his duty to stir up his sensitive soul to be tenderly and eminently touched with a trembling fear and with a manifest abhorring of this kind of usage 2 But consider his ignominious and painful death formally namely with the reward that was annexed to it by Gods Covenant which was that he should thereby merit the salvation of all the Elect and then I say It was the duty of his rational soul not to fear but earnestly to desire to perform this combate with Satan and to suffer him to do his worst and therefore in this regard he said I delight to do thy will O God thy Law is in my heart Heb. 10. And I desire to eat this Passover this Type of my death before I suffer 3 Christs humane nature knew perfectly by the revealed will of God in Gen. 3. 15. that God had armed the Devil against him with an express permission to use him as a sinful Malefactor and to peirce him in the foot-soals and in this combate hee knew it was the declared will of God that hee should encounter him not with the power of his God-head but with his humane nature only as it was accompanied with our infirmities of fear sorrow c. and therefore by his Covenant hee was bound to express and manifest his troubled natural fear of such an unnatural usage and accordingly he declared it to his three Apostles that he took with him to be witnesses that he did then begin to be sorrowful and very heavy saying unto them My soul is exceeding sorrowful even to the death Mat. 26 37 38 39. Mat. 26. 38 39. and then he went a little further from them and fel on his face and prayed saying O my Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me and this request he made three times over because it was of absolute necessity that that cup should pass from him namely the cup of his natural fear I have shewed in the Dialogue page 46. that the word Cup is put for a measure or portion of any thing either of joy and comfort or of ignominy and pain or of fear and sorrow and at this time he was very heavy and sorrowful and therefore the cup that he doth so earnestly deprecate is the cup or measure or portion of his present natural fear Hee doth not in this place as I apprehend deprecate his ignominious and painful death but the fear and dread which his sensitive soul had of it at this present and he was heard and delivered from his natural fear or else hee could not have laid down his life by his own will desire and power as hee had covenanted Joh. 10. 17 18. But as soon as hee had obtained a confirmation by his sweating prayers against this his natural fear then when the band was come to apprehend him he was fearless and said unto Peter Put up thy sword again into its place for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father and he shall presently give me more Mat. 26 52 53 54. then twelve legions of Angels But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that say Thus it must be The Scriptures in Gen. 3. 15. c. say that I must bee thus apprehended condemned and executed by the power of Satan and his instruments Thus it must be I must be thus used as you shall now see mee to bee by these Arch-instruments of Satan yea thus it must bee of necessity even by the necessity of the voluntary Decree and Covenant and therefore I must bee voluntary also in the performance of this combate and not admit of any obstruction to my Combarter by thy sword he must by Gods declared permission have his liberty to do his worst to provoke my patience and I must do my duty by continuing constant in my obedience through all his assaults But John doth relate our Saviours Joh. 18. 1â— words to Peter thus Put up thy sword into thy sheath the cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drink it namely that portion of my ignominious and painful sufferings which my Father hath appointed mee to undergo as hee hath declared it in Gen. 3. 15. Here you see that Christ did not now dread this cup of his ignominious and painful sufferings as hee did the fear of this cup in Matth. 26 37. Then it was necessary before he prayed that his natural infirmities of fear and sorrow should appear but now it was as necessary after he had obtained his request that
that Christ suffered in his soul the terrible torments of the damned and forsaken men and this speech of Mr. Nortons in page 56. That Christ conflicted with eternal death and that speech in page 213. That Christ was accursed with a poenal and eternal curse For my part I can find no difference in them but I will leave such nice distinctions to them that love them and that can discern the difference for I cannot SECT II. Mr. Nortons Answer in page 62. to the Dialogues Exposition of Mark. 10. 39. Examined Mar. 10. 39. Mat. 26. 39. Mat. 20. 22 23. THe words in the Dialogue run thus in page 46. our Saviour doth explain the quality of those sorrows which hee suffered at the time of his death unto the two sons of Zebedeus he tells them They must drink of his cup and be baptized with his baptism Mar. 10. 39. Hee tells them That they must bee conformable to the quality and kind of his sufferings though perhaps there might bee some difference in the degree of their sufferings and he doth explain the kind of his sufferings by a twofold expression 1 Hee tells them They must drink of his cup that is to say of the same bitter portion of death 2 Hee tells them That they must be baptized with his baptism that is to say They must be put to death by the malice of Tyrants as he must be and this is expressed by the metaphor of Baptism for baptizing is a diving or drowning of the whole body under water and therefore Christ ordained Baptism as a typical sign of drowning the body of sin in his blood but the baptizing of Tyrants was used for no other end but to drown mens bodies to death and in this respect Christ saith I am entred into the deep waters Psal 69. 2 15. and in this very sense the Apostle saith Else what shall they do that are baptized for dead namely what shall they do that are baptized with death as Martyrs are if the dead rise not at all why then are they baptized for dead 1 Cor. 15. 29. Godly Martyrs would never be baptised 1 Cor. 15. 29. with death if the hope of a better resurrection did not animate their spirits to suffer death for the truths sake being therin conformable to the death of Christ Pbil. 3. 10 11. By these two expressions saith the Dialogue which are Synonima or equivalent our Saviour doth inform the two sons of Zebedee what the true nature of his sufferings should bee namely no other but such only as they should one day suffer from the hands of Tyrants And hence it follows 1 That the troubled fear which Matthew and Mark do ascribe unto Christ in the Garden must bee understood of his natural fear of death and not of his fear of his Fathers wrath 2 Hence it follows that all the outward sufferings of Christ were from mans wrath and malice incited by the Devil according to Gods decree declared in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Sathan shalt peirce him in the foot-soals Mr. Norton in page 62. doth thus answer to the Dialogues Exposition Herein saith he is a fallacy confounding such things as should bee divided This Text saith Piscator is to be understood with an exception of that passion in which Christ felt the wrath of God for the Elect. Reply 11. It is most evident that Mr. Nortons distinction is a fallacy because it confounds things that differ for it confounds the death of Christs immortal soul with the death of his body so he makes Christ to suffer two kinds of death formally and so consequently he makes Christ to make two kinds of satisfaction formally But saith the Dialogue No other death but his bodily death is to be understood by Mar. 10. 39. our larger Mar. 10. 39. Mr. Norâ—on saith that Christ suffered a twofold death in p. 155 70. 174 and he makes his immortal soul to be spiritually dead in p. 159. and makes it the second death in p. 115. Annotation doth fully concur with the Dialogues exposition on Matth. 20. 22 23. without any such exception as Mr. Norton makes from Piscator But I wonder that Mr. Norton dares honor Piscator so much as to take this exposition upon trust from him alone seeing he makes the form of justification to lye only in remission of sins which opinion of his Mr. Norton doth damn for heresie and yet now he so much honors Piscator as to cite his judgement above for his exposition of this Text. But for the better trying out of the truth let us a little more narrowly search into the sense of Mar. 10. 39. by a cleer conference with the context which I account to be a good rule for the trying out of a sound exposition 1 James and John the sons of Zebedee desired of Christ that the one might sit at his right hand and the other at his left in his glorious Monarchy 2 Thereupon Christ demanded of them Can yee drink of the cup that I shall drink of they said We can then Christ replied Yee shall indeed drink of the cup that I shall drink of Hence it follows That seeing the cup of Christ was filled with the vindicative wrath of God as Mr. Norton affirms then James and John must drink of the same cup for said Christ to them Yee shall drink of the same cup that I shall drink of But I think Mr. Norton himself will say that they did not drink of the cup of Gods vindicative wrath but of the cup of an ignominious and violent death only Therefore it hence follows by the like consequence that the death of Christ was of the same kind But saith Mr. Norton in page 63. Christ suffered both as a Martyr and as a Satisfier the sons of Zebedee saith he drank of the cup of Martyrdome not of the cup of Satisfaction or Redemption James and John were asleep whiles Christ was drinking that cup. Reply 12. I grant that Christ suffered as a Satisfier but the only reason why the death of Christ was a death of satisfaction was from the mutual Covenant that was made between the Trinity it was their agreement that made the death of Christ to be a sacrifice of full satisfaction or to be the full price of The only reason why thâ— death of Christ was a deâ—th of satisfaction dâ—stinct â—â—oâ— Martyrdome was the Covenant between the Trinity our redemption as I have shewed also in Chap. 9. but because God made no such Covenant with the sons of Zebedee therefore though they drunk the cup of a violent death as Christ did yet it was not for satisfaction it was no more but the cup of Martyrdome in them But as I said before because the death of Christ was a death of Covenant it was not only a death of Martyrdome but it was a death of satisfaction also Secondly I have often shewed from the first declared Will and Covenant of the Trinity in Gen. 3. 15. that
that which hee feared Observe I pray That Dr. Hall doth speak this of Christs natural fear of his bodily death And secondly This also is worthy of due observation that Christ must overcome his natural fear of death before hee could make his vital soul a sacrifice according to Gods command for it was Gods command and his own Covenant also that he should not suffer any to take away his vital soul from him But secondly to lay it down of himself namely as a sacrifice by his own will desire and power but this his humane nature could not do until hee had overcome his natural fear and he had no better way to overcome his natural fear than by his fervent wrastling prayers as it is expressed in Luke 22. 44. and Heb. 5. 7. Hee might not in this case use the power of his Godhead to make his nature impassible because hee had covenanted to enter the Lists with his Combater Satan in the infirmities of our humane nature and he had no better way to get a confirmation like Armor of proof to his humane nature against this fear of his unnatural 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 Possion 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. with Joh. 13. 1. Now is my soul troubled and what shall I say Father Joh. 12. 27. 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 Parcus 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 Ball 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 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 as 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
also compared to a victorious shepherd that ventures his life to combate with the fierce Lion and the ravenous Bear to redeem the poor Lamb from his prey as David did in Joh. 13. 11. and in Isa 53. 12. He is Isa 53. 12. Joh. 10. 11. said to divide the spoyl with the strong because he poured out his soul to the death namely because he ventured his life with his combater Satan and because at last when he had fulfilled all his sufferings he powred out his vital soul to the death in the nature of a sacrifice when he said Father into thy bands I commend my spirit And therefore saith God He shall divide the spoil with the strong adversary Satan for though Satan at the first got the victory over Adam and thereby inwrapped all mankind under his power as his spoil yet now at the last Christ by his constant patience and obedience notwithstanding all Satans provocations hath got the victory again over Satan and by that means he pacified Gods wrath for the Elect and rescued them from being Satans spoil to be his spoil And thus you see how Christ hath divided the spoil as David did when he conquered the Amalekites 1 Sam. 30. and this dividing of the spoyl is always done with joy for the victory as in Judg. 5. 30. Luk. 11. 22. These and such like Sciptures do fully declare unto us wherein the true nature of Christs agony doth consist namely in his combate with his ignominious answer from his malicious combater Satan both his inward agony in the Garden when he was surrounded with great fear and with great heaviness it was in relation to his outward agony by his combate of sufferings from Satan on the cross and also the true nature of his conquest is set out by that victorious weapon of righteousness his constant and exact patience and obedience and no Scripture doth mention his sufferings to be from Gods Judgement seat in the way of legal proceedings from Gods immediate wrath though the Devil took that course to make him a legal sinner before Pilats judgement seat 3 The Devil having had this open warning by Gods proclamation of an utter enmity namely that the seed of the woman should by his patience and obedience under all the difficulties of the combate break his head-plot he took the warning and therefore he neglected no time but took the very first opportunity to disturb the patience and to spoil the obedience of the seed of the woman even as soon as ever he was intrinsecally installed into the Mediators Office which was done at his baptism and then Christ also was led by the Spirit of God that annointed him and installed him with gifts for his Office into the wilderness on purpose to try Masteries with the Devil and there the Devil continued to tempt him by all the sleights he could devise for forty daies together and because he could not prevail in those forty days therefore when the said forty days were ended he grew to be more desperate than formerly in his temptations and according to the grant of his power which was unlimited over the body of Christ he took it up and carried it alost to the Air and set it upon the top of the Pinacle of the Temple and truly it is no marvel that the Divine nature would suffer his Humane nature to be carried about by the Devil seeing he suffered Satan did first enter the Lists with Christ at his baptism when he was first extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office though more especially in the Garden and on the Cross his humane nature to be crucified by him But still the Devil lost his labor because Christs obedience was unconquerable for by his patience and obedience he resisted the Devil in all his temptations and after the Devil had spent his skill in these three notable temptations he is said to leave him for a season Luk. 4. 14. but it was but for a short season for in vers 16. when our Savior came to Nazaret where he had been brought up he went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read and at last he said thus to them No Prophet is accepted in his own Country vers 24. And then all in the Synagogue when they heard these things were filled with wrath for the Devil did now provoke their corrupt natures thereto and they rose up and thrust him out of the City and led him to the brow of the hill that they might cast him down headlong vers 28 29. and ever after continually the Devil did nothing else but raise up most vild slanderous accusations against him and often moved the Pharisees to take him and put him to death 4 The Devil did yet more eagerly enter the lists with Christ at his last Supper and so on to the Garden for at his last supper he said thus to his Disciples Hereafter I will not talk much with you for the Prince of this world commeth Joh. 14. 30. For just now Joh. 14. 30. he hath taken away Judas from our society to fetch a Band of armed men from the High-Priests to apprehend me as a sinful malefactor and therefore I fore-tel you that the Prince of this world commeth now to assault me more fiercely than ever heretofore So that hereafter I cannot talk much with you as now I do Of which more hereafter But because Mr. Norton doth make this Agony of Christ to be his conflicting passions with his Fathers vindicative wrath therefore it is needful ere we go any further to examine such Scriptures as are brought for the proof of it 1. The first Scripture I will begin with is in Mat. 26. 31. This Scripture hath been objected to me by some of note to prove Matth. 26 31. that God himself did smite Christ the Shepherd of the sheep by his immediate vindicative wrath The context lies thus When Christ was at Supper with his Disciples his true humane nature was much exercised with the thought of his ignominious and cruel usage which Satan was ready to bring upon him as it appear by his speeches to his Disciples All ye said he shall be offended because of me this night For it is written I will smite the Shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered Matth. 26. 31. This I hath been expounded to me by some of note to be God and so it is but withall they expound it to be Gods smiting of Christs soul with his immediate wrath But this I deny for these words must be expounded from Zach. 13. 7. and then the case will be altered Zach. 13. 7. for the words in Zachary runs thus Smite thou the shepherd there the word Thou is put for the word I in Matthew and this difference is observed by Mr. Ainsworth in his preface to Genesis so that in Zachary God saith to Satan smite thou the Shepherd Smite him as a sinful malefactor and spare not do
have resisted his pursuers 6. Austin speaks very much to this sense That Christ overcame the Devil by justice namely by combating justly according to the Laws of the voluntary Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. and not by force namely not by the power of his God-head any man may see that his discourse sounds to this sense His discourse is long but Mr. Worton hath abbreviated his method De Reconciliatione peccatords part 2. lib. 1. c. 21. and there he cites Bernard also to the same sense and thither I refer the Reader 7. Saith Dr. Willet on Dan. 9. 26. the justice of Christ is meritorious of eternal life for us because by it he overcame death and subdued the Devil none of all which Adams righteousness could do And it was one great part of the righteousness of Christ to agonize himself with the dread of that ignominious usage which his Combater was to inflict upon him And thus you see that the ancient Divines do agree That Christs greatest sufferings were from Satans malice by Gods permission and I perceive by conference with such as have been well read in the ancient Divines that they did not hold as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was a guilty sinner by Gods legal imputation nor that hee was pressed under the wrath of God but on the contrary they affirm that there was no sign of sin in him and that the Devil held him by no law of sin and that he was no way guilty of sin 8 Those few Hebrew Doctors that speak of the death of the Messiah do speak of his sufferings with his Combater Satan as I have noted their speeches in the Epistle to the Reader 9 The Apostle makes a like kind of reasoning in Heb. 2. 14. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood hee Heb. 2. 14. also himself took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the Devil Here two Questions may bee propounded and answered 1 How came the Devil to get the power of death 2 How came his power to be destroyed Adams first sin caused by the Devil was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death by original sin and that was the meritorious cause of Gods justice in appointing a bodily death and judgement To the first Question the Geneva Note doth answer because he was the author of sin none but the Devil was the author of Adams first sin in causing him by his deceitful reasoning to eat the forbiden fruit which sin brought in the spiritual death of original sin And then secondly The spiritual death of original sin was the meriting cause of Gods justice in denouncing a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. bodily death therefore was not the immediate effect of Adams first sin as most Expositors do carry it though I think they miss it for if bodily death had been the immediate effect of Adams first sin then the Pelagians cannot The Pelagians cannot be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granted that bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for they may say as most Expositors say That bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin and then the Pelagians may still hold that the death of Infants is not the punishment of original sin traduced from their Parents But the Apostle doth make the death of Infants to bee the immediate effect of original sin in Rom. 5. 12. and the Devil was the author of original sin because it was the immediate punishment of Adams first sin whereof the Devil was the author and so consequently it occasioned God in justice to denounce not only a bodily death to all the fallen sons of Adam but also to denounce eternal death by necessary consequence to so many of the fallen sons of Adam as did not beleeve their Redemption by the promised Seed for when God did first denounce a bodily death he did at the same time implicitly denounce a judgement as the Apostle shews in Heb. 9. 27. and to this sense of death doth Austin speak There is a first death Heb 9. 27. See Austin in Ser. 129. and a second death Of the first death saith hee there are two parts One when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator The other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods justice And the second death saith hee is the everlasting torment of body and soul And thus the Devil got the power of death The second Question is this How came this power of the Devil to bee destroyed The Answer is by the second Person in taking upon him the Seed of the woman in the fulness of time and by entring the Lists according to his Covenant in that nature as it was accompanied with our natural infirmities of fear sorrow c. and so by his constancy in obedience through all Satans conflicts he compleated his victory and it last hee made his vital soul a propitiatory sacrifice which was agreed and covenanted between the Trinity to be accounted for full satisfaction for the redemption of all the Elect And thus hee destroyed him that had the power of death The Devils plot was by some stratagem or other to make Christ a Transgressor as he had made Adam but because this Seed of the deceived sinful woman continued obedient to the death through all Satans malicious stratagems even to the death of the Cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice therefore hee got the victory and won the prize even the salvation of all the Elect. And thus through this kind of death he hath destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil But saith Mr. Norton in page 70. Christ in his Agony was pressed under the sence of the wrath of God and conflicted with eternal death Reply 23. This compulsary term of being pressed under the wrath of God is no way sutable to the voluntary obedience of a voluntary Covenanter I have shewed in Chap. 9. that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsary power When grapes or any other thing is pressed it is therefore pressed to force some thing from it Is this a fit speech to be applied to the voluntary Covenanters and to the voluntary undertaker of obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenanters Satan indeed did labour to oppress him to force him to impatiency but not God by his immediate wrath And the like strange expression I find also in the Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. By reason of the Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath guilt of our sins saith hee there fell upon him sorrow trouble of mind astonishment and heaviness to death Matth. 26. 38. when hee was to enter the Lists
and to fight the great combate hand to hand with his angry Father Ibidem in page 320. hee calls the said combate Handy gripes with his Father and his suffering on the Cross hee calls The main battel fought three whole hours with his Father all which time â—ugging in the fearful dark with him that had the power of darkness to hide from the eyes of the world the fire of his Fathers wrath which in that hot skirmish burnt up every part of him And saith Calvin Wee see that Christ was thrown down so far that by inforcement of distress hee was compelled to cry Just l. 2 c. 16. Sect. 11. out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And thus instead of entring the Lists with the Devil according to Gen. 3. 15. he saith He entred the Lists to fight the great combate hand to hand with his angry Father and instead of the Devils wrath they put in Gods wrath and instead of the Devils force they put in Gods force to compel the humane nature of Christ to suffer his immediate wrath And let the Reader take notice of this word Compelled most unadvisedly used by Calvin and others And now let the judicious Reader judge whether such descriptions of our Saviours Agony be sutable to the language of the holy Scriptures whether he was pressed and compelled by Gods immediate wrath And whether his Agony and Conflict were not rather from the pressure and compulsion of the Devil and his instruments according to Gods declared Decree in Gen. 3. 15. and judge if it bee not utterly unlike that the humane nature of Christ as it was accompanied with our infirmities was able to enter the Lists with his angry Father and to be pressed under his wrath and to conflict with eternal death as Mr. Nortons phrases are was his humane nature which was left by his divine nature on purpose that his humane infirmities might appear able to fight it out three whole hours on the Cross with his angry Father Perhaps you will answer hee was able because his humane nature subsisted in his divine I grant that it alwayes subsisted in the divine because the divine nature was never angry with the humane but yet it doth not follow that it was alwayes assisted and protected by the divine for then it could not have suffered any thing at all from Satan and his instruments I find it to be an ancient orthodox Tenent that the divine nature did often put forth a power to withdraw protection and assistance from his humane that the infirmities of the humane might appear and in this sense his infirmities in his sufferings were admitted by his divine power But let it be as the objection would have it namely that his humane nature being assisted by his divine was able to induce to bee pressed under his Fathers wrath Then it wil follow from thence that his divine nature did assist his humane nature against the divine Is this absurd language good Scripture-logick But saith Mr. Norton in p. 123. The divine nature was angry not onely with the humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him Reply 23. First I have shewed in p. 101. from Mr. Burges that sin was not imputed to the Mediator in both his Natures Secondly Was it ever heard that a Mediator between two at variance did fight hand to hand with the stronger angry opposite party to force him to a reconciliation Can any reconciliation be made whiles displeasure is taken and whiles anger is kindled against the Mediator that seeks to make reconciliation These are paradoxes in Divinity by which the clear Truth is made obscure Such Tenents are like the smoak of the bottomless pit that darkens the Sun and Air of the blessed Scriptures The Lord in mercy open our eyes to see better But saith Mr. Norton in p. 70. Through anguish of his soul he had clods rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body a thing which neither was seen nor heard before or since the true reason thereof saith he is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the If it be true that Christ sweat clods of blood then doubtless it was a miraculous sweat and then no natural reason can be given of the cause of it wrath of God Reply 24. If it be true that Christ through the anguish of his soul had clods of blood streaming down his blessed body then doubtless it was a miraculous sweat and then no natural reason can be given as the cause of it but I have all along affirmed that his Agony was from natural causes and that his sweat was increased by his strong prayers and cryes and that his sweat was not from the miraculous cause But I perceive that Mr. Norton himself is put in a wavering mind in p. 66. whether the sweat of Christ in his Agony was from the natural or from the miraculous cause for when he had expounded his Query he concludes thus We leave it to them that have leasure and skill to enquire And saith he Though the Evangelist mentioneth it as an effect proceeding from a greater cause than the fear of a meer natural death notwithstanding saith he our Doctrine is not built onely or chiefly upon this Argument Hence 1 Any indifferent Reader may easily perceive that Mr. Nortons answer to his own Query is but a very wavering and confused answer and therefore his bold conclusion aforesaid is built but upon a sandy foundation and therefore it is not sufficient to satisfie a doubting conscience 2 This speech of his our Doctrine is not built onely or chiefly upon this Argument is a plain acknowledgment that the Agony of Christ and his sweat like blood is no sound Argument to prove that Christ conflicted with eternal death and yet in p 70 39 68 89 c. he laies great weight upon his Agony as a true reason to prove that he died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death 3 Mr. Norton is wavering in this that he dares not affirm that Christ suffered the Torments of Hell but by Gods extraordinary dispensation as I have noted it in Chap. 7. Sect. 1. 4 Hence Mr. Norton might as well question whether the first touch or real impression of Hell pains would not utterly have dissolved the link and bond of nature namely of the sensitive soul that is between mans mortal body and his immortal soul in a moment Seeing he holds that his death was caused by the wrath of God For he saith That his blood was shed together with the wrath of God because it was shed as the blood of a person accursed For this is a clear Truth That the vital body of man cannot subsist under the Torments of Hell untill it bee made immortal by the power of God at the Resurrection 5 Hence it may be propounded as another question of moment whether
descended as it were a Dove Matth. 3. 16. somewhat resembling a Dove So the Manna was like Coriander-seed in shape and quantity but not in colour 9 Christopher Carlile in his Descent page 46. saith Was not Christ extreamly afflicted when he for fear of death sweat drops in quantity as thick as drops of blood 10 So John Frith the Martyr saith thus to Sir Thomas Moore See his Ans to Sir Tho. 〈◊〉 p. 34. as it is printed with Tindals works Christ did not only weep but feared so sore that he sweat like drops of blood running down upon the earth which was more than to weep Now saith he If I should ask you why Christ feared and sweat so sore what would you answer me That it was for the fear of the pains of Purgatory Forsooth he that should so answer would bee laughed to scorn of all the world as hee were well worthy Wherefore was it then Vetily even for the fear of death as it plainly appeareth after for he prayed unto his Father saying My Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me Mat. 26. 38 39. So fearful a thing is death even to the purest flesh And saith he the same cause will I assign in Hezekiah that hee wept for fear of Death and not of Purgatory In these words you see that Friths judgement was That Christs Agony was for fear not of a spiritual but of a corporal death 11 Tindal translates Luke 22. 44. thus His sweat was like drops of blood trickling down to the ground and speaking of Christs last Supper hee saith thus The fear of death was the same hour upon him neither slept hee any more after but went immediately after he had comforted his Disciples into the place where he was taken to abide his Persecuters where also he sweat water and blood of very agony conceived of his Passion so nigh at hand 12 In Reply 18. I have cited Dr. Lightfoot saying In his Agony he sweat drops like blood These five last Authors you see are not for sweating of perfect blood though Tindal say hee sweat water and blood yet that is far from pure blood and farther from clods of blood 2 This is farther remarkable that Tindal and Frith do make the fear of his bodily death in the words cited to bee the cause of his Agony 3. This is still farther remarkable that neither of these two have a word in all their writings that hee suffered any other death but a bodily death though Mr. Norton is so bold as to condemn their judgement therein to be heresie 4 Saith Mr. Norton in page 67. These Authors I not having by mee cannot examine the Quotations their words therefore rather better bearing the sense of the Orthodox than the sense of the Dialogue Reply 25. The Reader may please to take notice of Mr. Nortons unjust prejudice of the Dialogue for the Author of the Dialogue cites their sense to his sense which is so clear and manifest that it stares him in the face and yet their words cited in the sense of the Dialogue he saith is orthodox and that the sense of the Dialogue is heresie Is not this plain partiality to favour the same doctrine in one as orthodox and to condemn it in another for heresie And saith hee Friths other writings call to have it so namely to mean it according to Mr. Norton Reply 26. It is an open wrong to Mr. Frith and to the Reader to make Frith of his judgement the words of Frith which I have truly cited him do cry shame upon him for saying so and in all his writings hee makes the death of Christ to bee no other but a true bodily death 12 I have cited Cyprian in Reply 8. to the sense of Frith namely to bee sorrowful unto death and for the exceeding grief thereof to powre forth a bloody sweat 13 Damasen saith thus Christ took unto him all blameless and natural passions for he assumed the whole man and all that pertained to man except sin Natural and blameless passions are those which are not in our power and whatsoever entred into mans life through the condemnation of sin namely of Adams sin as hunger thirst weakness labour weeping corruption shunning of death fear agony whence sweat and drops of blood These things saith he are in all men by nature Christ therefore took all these unto him that he might sanctifie them all Howbeit our natural passions were in Christ according to nature and above nature According to nature they were stirred up in Christ when hee permitted his flesh to indure that which was proper to it Above nature because nature in him did never go before his will for there was nothing forced in him but all things voluntary when hee would hee hungred when he would hee thirsted when hee would hee feared and when hee would hee dyed From this speech of Damasen touching Christs Passion and Agony in the Garden we see he held 1 That shunning of Death Fear Agony whence sweat and drops of blood which are in all men by nature and therefore saith he Christ took all these unto him that hee might sanctifie them all 2 That these were in Christ not only according to nature but above nature because nature in him did never go before his will 3 That nothing in him was forced therefore hee was far from holding as Mr. Norton doth in page 70. that he was pressed under the sense of the wrath of God Conclusion When the fulness of time was come that the seed of the woman Christ Jesus was to be bruised and peirced in the foot-soals with an ignominious torturing death by Satan and his instruments according to Gods declared permission in Gen. 3. 15. The divine nature might not protect the humane but must leave the humane nature to its self to manage this conflict in which conflict he was to manifest his true humane infirmities and therefore when the Devil and his Arch-instruments were to seise upon him he began to be sore amazed and to be very heavy and then he said unto Peter James and John My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto the death or it is surrounded with sorrow that is to say Every part of my body wherein I have my vital soul is in a quaking fear of such an ignominious death by such a malignant enemy as is armed with power and authority from God to execute it on me and I do here manifest my true humane nature and the infirmities of it that you may record it to all posterity that I have took part with them that for fear of death are all their life time subject to bondage that they may be assured I am a merciful High-priest and that I am truly touched with the feeling of their infirmities not in a small degree for then it might be doubted whether I am so sensible of their condition as I am but in the highest degree according to the most excellent temper and tender constitution
of my nature above the nature of other men But yet it is of necessity that I must over come this natural fear because I have covenanted to lay down my life by my own will desire and power Job 10. 17 18. and therefore my rational soul must betake it self to prayer therefore tarry yee here and watch and pray that yee be not overcome by the many temptations that now are at hand to try you and then he went a little from them and fell on the ground and prayed That if it were possible that hour might pass from him namely that the dread of his ignominious usage might pass from him for so much the hour imports in Mark 14 35 41. And his Agony was so great that it caused him to sweat as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground And when he had three times offered up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from the natural dread of his ignominious torturing death he was heard and delivered from the natural fear of his vital soul because of his godly fear in his rational soul and then he was confirmed against his natural fear and so he never feared more after this and then as soon as he had fulfilled all his sufferings he did in perfection of patience and obedience make his vital soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation for mans Redemption This Relation of Christs Combate and of his Agony in his Combate is every way agreeable to the scope of the blessed Scriptures and therefore Mr. Nortons Tenent must needs bee dangerous because he makes this Combate to be between Christs humane nature and his divine being pressed under the sense of Gods wrath and conflicting with eternal death and so forcing out clods of blood as wine is forced from the grapes by Gods pressing wrath such expressions of pressing do utterly destroy the voluntariness of Christs obedience in his suffering and do make him to be no lesse than an inherent sinner in his Death and Sacrifice CHAP. XVII SECT I. The Examination of Psal 22. 1. with Matth. 27. 46. THe Dialogue cites Mr. Broughton saying My God my God sheweth That Christ was not forsaken of God but that God was still his hope 2 Saith he The word Forsaken is not in the Text But why dost thou leave me to the griess following from the malice of the Jews as they are expressed in the body of the Psalms 3 Saith he None ever propounded one matter and made his amplification of another But Psal 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by men and not from Gods anger And therefore the Proposition in the first verse is not a complaint to God that hee had forsaken his soul in anger for our sins c. Mr. Norton Answers thus in page 78. The Hebrew as also the Syriack used by our Saviour in Mat. 27. 46. and the Greek word used here by the Septuagint signifie to leave another helpless in their necessity and extremity which appeareth not only in its frequent use in the Scripture but also in that this very word per Antiphrasin it being one of those Hebrew words that have two contrary significations signifiet to help up that which is down and to fortine Neh. 3. 8. 4. 2. And such having we usually express by forsaking and accordingly it is read by Latine Expositors premiseuously who do in effect say with Mr Ainsworth there is no material difference between leaving and forsaking so as the meaning be kept sound Reply 1. He saith that this Hebrew word Azab to leave is one of those Hebrew words that have two contrary significations The Hebrew word Azab hath two contrary significations as Mr. Norton affirmeth to amuse his Reader about Gods forsaking christ I wish he do not cast a mist in this speech as well before his own eyes as before his Readers Though I am no Linguist yet I love and approve such as do labor to use the Originals to the advantage of the truth and to the profit of the Reader But as far as I can learn this Hebrew word Azab is none of those that have two contrary significations if there be any such when things are searched to the bottom but yet I freely grant that this word as well as many others have several differing significations but not contrary namely a proper signification and a metaphorical But saith Mr. Norton It hath two contrary significations First Because it signifies to help up that which is down as well as to leave or forsake Reply 2. I grant that Azab by a necessary consequence from the context doth signifie helping up that which is down and in this he alludes to Exod. 23. 5. and there the words run thus Exod. 23. 5. If thou see the Ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden and wouldest forbear to help him thoushalt surely help with him I grant that our Translation doth twice in this Text render Azab to help but yet in the Margin they translate it to leave in both places according to the propriety of the Hebrew thus wouldest cease to leave thy business for him thoushalt surely leave it to joyn with him hence it follows by a necessary consequence that if he must leave his business to joyn with his hater whose Ass lies under his burden it must be to help him and in this respect the Translators may well render Azab to help And to the like sense doth Ainsworth translate it in his Annotations When thou shalt see thy haters Ass lying under his burden then thou shalt cease from forsaking him and hence it follows that he that ceaseth from forsaking his hater when his Ass lies under his burden must needs help him And therefore in the next clause Mr. Ainsworth reads it thus Thou shalt leaving leave thâ—â—e own business to be with him thou shalt not leave him by passing away on the other side of the way as the Priest and the Levite did from the wounded man but thou shalt leave thy hatred to help him as the Samaritan did Luk. 10. 33 34. And according to this sense the Seventy render it thus Thou shalt not pass by the same that is thou shalt not leave his Ass under his burden but shalt raise up the same together with him And the Chalde speaks thus Thou shalt leave what is in thine heart against him and hence it follows That he that leaves what is in his heart against his hater when his Ass lies under his burden must needs help him Therefore from hence I conclude that the Translating of Azab to help is more from the sense of the Context than from the proper sense of the word and therefore though it be translated to help up yet that doth not prove it to have a contrary sense to leave it onely proves that Azab may be taken in a various sense according to the circumstances of the Context where it is used The like he affirms of a contrary sense in
other words p. 48 and he gives three instances To which I answer that they are not contrary though different in respect of the metaphorical sense and so the word Tzedec Righteousness is often put for a counterfeit righteousness which in proper speaking is untighteousness in Gods sight And therefore the Seventy translate it unrighteousness in Ezek. 21. 3. Isa 49. 24. But it is ironically called righteousness Secondly Saith Mr. Norton Azab signifies to Fortifie Neh. 3. 8. 4. 2. Reply 3. I grant that to fortifie is contrary to leaving and forsaking in case it can have no other sense in the place cited But our larger Annotations on Nehem. 3. 8. do rightly expound our Margin Translation which is according to the propriety of the Hebrew word Azab of leaving off to fortifie when they came to the broad wall because that was done in former times and was still standing undemolished as the rest was and the like sense they give of Neh. 4. 2. and the like sense must be given of Azab in Isa 49. 25. and therefore as yet there is no contrary signification of the word Azab as Mr. Norton doth make his Reader beleeve to bewilder his understanding in the manner of Gods leaving or forsaking Christ on the Cross But for the better finding out the truth I will first give some instances of the various sense of Azab and then I will examine what sense it hath in Psa 22. 1. 1 It is used in a metaphorical sense for a Mart or Fair Ezek. 27. 12 14 16 19 22. And it is also used for Wares of Merchandize in Ez. 27. 27 33. And the reason is plain because in Fairs and Markets there is an usual and continual leaving of one thing for another by way of contract as of mony for Wares and of Wares for mony of one sort of Ware for another So in like sort the Hebrew word Gnereb which in propriety doth signifie the connexion or con-joyning of two or more things together is used by Ezekiel by a Metonymia for Fairs or Markets and for Wares of Merchandize Ezek. 27. 13 17 c. Because of the connexion and conjoyning of sundry sorts of Wares to sell and because of the sundry conjunctions between men by contracts about Wares as I have shewed at large in my Treatise of Holy Time 2 As Azab is put for leaving one thing for another in Markets so it is put for any other kind of leaving either by way of agreement or disagreement As for example when it is agreed that two shall strive for the mastery there all friends must stand aside and leave their friend alone to try the mastery as David was left of his friends when he alone undertook to try masteries with Goliah 3 Leaving is put for leaving of a mans own business to help another in his necessity as in Ezek. 23. 5. afore expounded 4 Leaving is put for forsaking or leaving another that is helpless in their necessity Sometimes it is to leave in anger as 2 Chron. 24. 25. And sometimes not in anger but by necessity 1 Sam. 30. 13. And sometimes willingly and so Mary left Martha to serve whiles she attended to Christs Doctrine and in that respect Martha complained to Christ saying Dost thou not care that my Sister hath left me alone to serve Luk. 10. 40. There Sabactani is in the Syriack just as it is in Psa 22. 1. and in Mat. 27. 46. 5 Leaving in Hebrew is often used in mercy favor and kindness as in Ruth 2. 16. Jer. 49. 11. and so it is used in the Chalde in Dan. 4. 15 26. the word Leave there is in favor as ver 26 sheweth 6 Azab is applied to Gods leaving or forsaking of notorious finners in anger 2 Chron. 24. 18 20 24. Deut. 31. 17. 32. 36. 1 King 14. 10 21. 21. 2 King 14. 26. Yea sometimes Gods hatred is joyned to his leaving or forsaking as in Isa 60. 15. But remember this that God never forsakes any in wrath but such as do first forsake him by provoking sins 7 Azab is used for leaving of a mans first love to the Truth in Prov. 3. 3. Let not Mercy and Truth leave thee or forsake thee 8 God left Hezekiah onely to try his heart 2 Chron. 32. 31. 9 Azab is put for a leaving of those that a man loves well to cleave to that which a man loves better as to leave a Father for a Wife Gen. 2. 24. Ruth 1. 16. 10 A man leaves a thing because he is forced Gen. 39. 12 13 15 18. 11 A man often leaves that he loves through haste Josh 8. 17. 1 Sam. 30. 13. 12 Hee leaves a thing through fear 1 King 31. 7. 1 Chron. 10. 7. 13 Azab is to leave or cease or rest from complaining and so the Divine nature did often rest or cease or leave the Humane nature to his own natural principles in his sufferings and combatings with Satan and his Instruments These several senses of Azab and many such like do shew the various sense of the word leaving 14 And this is worth the noting That though Azab doth often signifie such a leaving as is a forsaking yet it doth not alwaies signifie forsaking as it doth leaving For Azab is applied to sundry kinds of leaving which cannot with any fitness be called a forsaking as in Gen. 39. 6. Potiphar left all he had in trust in Josephs hand So in Gen. 50. 8. Their little ones and their flocks and their heards they left in the land of Goshen And so in Exod. 9. 21. 2 Sam. 15. 16. and so in Ruth 2. 16 Boaz commanded his Reapers to let fall some of their handfuls and leave them in kindness on purpose for Ruth to glean them So Job 39. 14. The Ostritch leaveth her eggs in the warm dust to hatch her young ones So in Jer. 49. 11. Mal. 4. 1. 2 Chron. 28. 14. Ezra 6. 7. And many other places might be cited to prove that Azab cannot so fitly be translated to forsake as to leave I grant notwithstanding that the word leave is so large that many times it doth most fitly agree to the word forsake in the largest use of it But ere long I shall shew the particular sense of the word left or forsaken Psa 22. 1. But saith Mr. Norton in the page aforesaid The meaning of the word leave or forsake was kept sound with Mr. Ainsworth but with you is not Reply 4. I grant that Mr. Ainsworth did hold that God forsook or left Christs soul in wrath but yet for all that he was far from holding as Mr. Norton doth namely that Christ suffered the Essential torments of Hell I received some Letters from him not many years before his death about the point of Christs sufferings And his Letters tell me that he held this as a principle that Christ suffered no other afflictions for kind but what the Elect do suffer in this life though in a far greater measure
as I have noted it in the Dialogue In Fox tom 1. p. 50 80 tom 2. p. 130. p. 58. In the conflict saith Ball on the Covenant pag. 284. his Faith was most firm not shaken with any degree of unbeleef And saith Dr. Sibs on Matth. 27. 46. Christ was not forsaken in regard of Grace as if Faith or Love or Joy in God or any other Grace were taken from Christ O no saith he he beleeved when he said My God my God Unto these words of his I put in the Grace of Joy in a parenthesis because he had said before in general That Christ was not forsaken in regard of Grace and thence I infer that then he was not forsaken of the Grace of Joy in the good of Gods promises for that is one of the Graces Gal. 5. no not then when his sufferings were most grievous to his flesh his Joy in the apprehension of Gods Fatherly love in his promises was not then interrupted and therefore out of that his never interrupted apprehension or rather joyful view of the light of Gods countenance and of the good of his promises he like a conquering Combater indured the cross and dispised the shame Heb. 12. 2. 6 Seeing Christs soul was as full of Grace as the Sun is full of light without any eclipse and as full of Grace as the Sea is full of water without any ebb as it is acknowledged by almost all Divines how can it be true which Mr. Norton affirms that he was in the spiritual death of his soul when he said My God my God why hast thou forsaken me For where there is any true Grace there the soul is spiritually made alive and therefore true Grace is called the Grace of life 1 Pet. 3. 7. where the Spirit of God abides there the soul is in life and therefore the Spirit of God is called the Spirit of Life Rom. 8. 2. and therefore Christ could not be in the spiritual death of his soul because he always had the Spirit of Grace in him above measure Abominable then to God must that doctrine needs be which Mr. Norton hath published that makes Christs soul to be under the power of a spiritual death Some learned Divines do say That none can die the second spiritual death in soul before they die the first death in sin therefore Mr. Nortons Tenent must needs be a Paradox in Divinity that makes Christs soul to be spiritually dead under the pain of loss and sense for by that Doctrine he doth also necessarily make him to be devoid of all Grace and so consequently to be spiritually dead in sin which is horrible blasphemy 2 His Tenent in making Christs soul to be without the comfort of a promise at the very instant when he made his soul a sacrifice doth make Christ to be a blemished Priest and so consequently it makes his death and sacrifice to be an abomination to God for a Priest that is a mourner in soul is a blemished Priest therefore a Priest must not be a mourner in soul at the time of offering any sacrifice Lev. 10. 19. 21. 12. for the time of offering sacrifice is a time of procuring Gods Reconciliation and Gods Reconciliation procured is a matter of rejoycing Num. 12. 14. Lev. 10. 19 20. Deut. 16. 11 15. Neh. 8. 9. doubtless therefore all Christs soul-sorrows and sadness in the consideration of Satans ill usage was fully over as soon as he had done his prayers in the Garden and yet I grant also that when he hung upon the Cross he was under most grievous tortures and pains to his sences but yet I say also that those pains born with perfect patience did not hinder the sweet sense of his inward joy that had both conquered Satan and made reconciliation with God and that now had recovered the Elect and so had divided the spoil with the strong adversary Satan which act of dividing the spoil is always done with joy 1 Sam. 30. 26. Heb. 12. 2. Isa 9. 3. Judg. 5. 35. Isa 53. 12. I will divide saith God and he shall divide the spoyl with the strong 7 Take Mr. Nortons words into consideration in p. 89. Christ saith he knew that God was his Mat. 27. 46. fully understood the glory of the blessed and that his soul presently upon his dissolution should be in Paradice Luk. 23. 43. Doth not Mr. Norton in these words prove that Christ was not totally deprived of the sense of the good of the promises For now in his greatest torments on the Cross he saith he promised paradise to himself as well as to the penitent theef and thus at last Mr. Norton hath confuted his own Assertion SECT 4. Secondly I come now to shew that God did not forsake Christ on the Cross in the formality of his death Reply 15. I Grant that God by his declared permission to Satan in Gen. 3. 15. did allow him so much power as to pierce Christ in the foot-soals namely to crucifie him as a sinful malefactor with the soars of death just like to other malefactors that were formally killed thereby But yet for all this I say also that God did not give the Devil so much power as to put Christ to death formally because he had ordained Christ to have a Priestly power in the formality of his death by his unchangeable oath to the end that he might make his death a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to Covenant But in case he had been put to death formally by the power of Satan and his Instruments then his death could not have been a sacrifice unless he will say that God ordained the Devil to be a Priest it could have been no more but a death of Martyrdom But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. The Scripture mentioneth no other death then what is inflicted justly for sin Reply 16. In this speech M. Norton doth much wrong the sense of the blessed Scriptures for in Job 10. 17 18. Christ saith This commandement have I received of my Father to let none take away my life from me formally but to lay it down or as Tendal translates it to put it from me of my self Hence it is evident that the blessed Scripture doth make a plain difference between the formality of Christs death and the death of all other men as I shall more at large expounded this Scripture by and by 2 His death is called a sacrifice and none could make it to be a sacrifice but such a Priest as was called of God to be the Priest and no other act could make it to be a sacrifice but such an act of such a Priest as did formally take away the life of the sacrifice Therefore he must be the onely Priest in the formality of his own death Heb. 9. 26 28. 10. 12. and no other mans death is called a sacrifice formally but his 3 All other men die by co-action because they are sinners in Adam but Christ was no sinner
therefore his death was not co-acted by Gods Justice as other mens is But his death was a death of Covenant onely and that Contract and Covenant made it to be the meritorious price of mans redemption And to this sense I have cited divers Orthodox Divines in chap. 2. and in chap. 3. and in chap. 16. at Reply 3 10 12. But Mr. Nortons foundation-Tenent taken from Court Justice namely that God did legally impute our sins to Christ hath so beguiled the eyes of his understanding that he cannot see the difference which the Scripture makes between the formality of Christs death and the death of other men that are inherent sinners More easie it is saith Origen for a man to put off any other customs how much so ever he is affixed to them than to lay aside his accustomed opinion But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. Mr. Ainsworth whom the Dialogue often cites seemeth to understand death to be laid upon Christ according to the sense of Gen 3. 19. Gen. 3. 19. Reply 17. Mr. Ainsworth doth not explain himself touching the manner of Christs death by this verse But in Numb 19. 2. he doth thus explain himself Christ saith he was without yoke as being free from the bondage of sin and corruption and as doing voluntarily the things appertaining to our redemption From these words of his I reason thus If Christ was free from the yoke of sin and corruption and did all things voluntarily that appertained to our redemption then his death was not co-acted by Gods Justice like to the death of all other men that are sinners his death therefore must be considered as a voluntary act from the voluntary Covenant for as he was an absolute Lord in Trinity so he was a reciprocal Covenanter 1 To take our nature and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan and to suffer him to do his worst to provoke his patience and so to spoil his obedience as he did Adams if he could 2 He covenanted that as soon as he had fulfilled his utmost sufferings from his Combater Satan hee would send forth his Spirit as the onely Priest in the formality of his own death that so he might make his death to be a sacrifice of reconciliation for mans Redemption from Satans Head-plot both these acts of his voluntary obedience he performed exactly according to the Articles of the voluntary and eternal Covenant for the meriting of a great reward namely for the meriting of the Spirit for Regeneration and for the meriting of his Fathers Reconciliation and eternal Redemption of all the Elect. But saith the Dialogue I will distinguish upon the death of Christ for God appointed him to die a double kind of death 1. As a Malefactor 2. As a Mediator and all this at one and the same time 1 He died as a Malefactor by Gods determinate Council and Covenant and to this end God gave the Devil leave to enter into Judas to betray him and into the Scribes and Pharisees and Pontius Pilat to condemn him and to do what they could to put him to death as a cursed Malefactor and in that respect God may be truly said to bring him into the dust of death Gen. 3. 19. as the Dialogue doth open the phrase in Psa 22. 15. 2 Notwithstanding all this Christ died as a Mediator and therefore his death was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor for it was his Covenant to be our Mediator in his death Heb. 9. 15 16. and therefore he must separate his soul from his body by the power of his God-head namely after his Manhood had performed his conflict with Satan all the Tyrants in the world could not separate his soul from his body Job 19. 11. no not by all the torments they could devise till himself was pleased to actuate his own death by the joynt concurrence of both his natures Mr. Morton in p. 84. doth thus Answer The plain meaning of the Author in this distinction is this Christ died as a Malefactor onely though unjustly in the Jews account but not as a Mediator as Mediator onely in Gods account but not as a Malefactor This distinction saith he in name but in truth a Sophisme is used as a crutch to support the halting of the non-imputation of the sin to Christ Reply 18. This distinction it seems doth somewhat trouble Mr. Nortons patience because it agrees not to his legal court way of making satisfaction from Gods judicial imputing our sincs to Christ and from his inflicting Hell torments upon him from his immediate vindicative wrath and therefore in contempt he calls it a Sophisme namely a false kind of arguing 2 To the same purpose Mr. Norton doth thus repeat another speech of the Dialogue Christs death as Mediator saith the distinction was not really finished by those Torments which he suffered as a Malefactor the Jews are said to put Christ to death because they indeavored to put him to death but did not separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death So saith he is the distinction expresly interpreted in the Dialogue p. 100. Mr. Norton in p. 84. doth thus Answer If Christs death was a suffering then the formal cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body so often mentioned in the Dialogue otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter Reply 19. I have often warned that the death of Christ is more largely or more strictly taken 1 The pains of death are often called death in Scripture though they prove not in the issue to be death formally 2 The Dialogue doth all along affirm that Christs death was a suffering and that he was active in his compliance with all his sufferings for he delivered himself into the hands of Satan and his Instruments that they might use their best skill to try if by any means they could disturb his patience and so spoil his obedience as he did Adams that so hee might put him to death formally as he did the other Malefactors 3 It is also evident that Christ was more intirely active in all his soul-sufferings than in his outward sufferings for the Text saith He troubled himself at the death of Lazarus Joh. 11. 33. and he sighed deeply in spirit for their infidelity Mark 8. 12. and Christ was often his own aflicter with soul-sorrows so in Job 13. 21. and from hence I infer that he was his own afflicter very often as I have shewed more at large in chap. 16. at Reply 10. And to this purpose I lately cited Damasen for Christs voluntary soul-troubles in his Agony And unto him I will add Beda Jesus hungred saith he it is true but because he would he slept it is true but because See Beda in Ioh. 11. he would he sorrowed it is true but because he would he died it is true but because he would Ibidem The affections of mans infirmity Christ
only and therefore second causes could not further work his misery and death than he gave way to according to his own voluntary Covenant he covenanted to take our nature and infirmities and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan and that Satan should have full liberty to do to him all the mischief that he could even to the peircing of him in the foot-soals but he also covenanted that no man nor power of Satan should take his life from him formally but that himself would be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and according to this Covenant God commanded him to lay down his own life and to take it up again Joh. 10. 17 18. But the main Argument of the Dialogue M. Norton passeth over never speaks to it first or last which is this He that takes away the life of a Sacrifice must be a Priest but the death of Christ was a Sacrifice therefore he that takes away his life formally must be the Priest Hence the Dialogue infers that the Roman Souldiers did not take away his life formally because they were Executioners rather than Priests neither did his Fathers wrath take away his life formally because he was not the Priest and none was ordained to be the Priest but Christ himself and therefore none but he must take away his life formally Mr. Norton should have answered this Argument but he passeth by this and pleads that Christs suffering of the essential curse of Hell-torments was full satisfaction and thence he must also hold that Hell-torments did put Christ to death formally for there is no satisfaction without the formality of Christs death Heb. 9. 25. Rom. 5. 10. But saith Mr. Norton in page 169. It is a daring Assertion when there is not one Text nor I beleeve one Classical Author who assirmeth that Christ as the next and formal cause shed his blood but on the contrar plentiful Texts and Testimondes that he was put to death killed and slain and that by the Jews Luke 18. 33. 1 Pet. 3. 18. Mar. 12. 8. Act. 3. 15. 1 Thess 3. 15. Jam. 5. 6. Act. 2. 23. Rev. 5. 6. 9. 12. and 6 9. to contradict not only the godly whether learned or unlearned both of the present and all past Generations since the Passion of our Lord Jesus But also the Scriptures themselves in saying The Jews did not actually put Christ to death Reply 23. I have shewed immediately afore that though the Scriptures do charge the Jews with murthering the Lord of life yet that Christ was not actually put to death by their power and so saith the Geneva Note on Act. 2. 23. 2 I will now cite a Jury of Classical Authors some ancient and some later that concur with the Dialogue That Christ was the only Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice 1 Athanasius cont Arianos Orat. 4. saith To have power to lay down his soul when he would and to take it again this is not the property of men but it is the power of the Son of God for no man dyeth by his own power but by necessity of nature and that against his will but Christ being God had it in his own power to separate his soul from his body and to resume the same again when hee would 2 Origen in Joh. Tom. 9. saith Doth not the Lord affirm a thing that was singular to him above all that ever were in the flesh when he saith None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self and have power to lay it Joh. 10. 17 18. down and power to take it again Let us consider what he meaneth who left his body and departed from it without any way-leading to death This neither Moses nor any of the Patriarchs Prophets or Apostles did say besides Jesus for if Christ had dyed as the Theeves did that were crucified with him he could not have said That he laid down his soul of himself but after the manner of such as dye but now Jesus crying with a strong voyce gave up the ghost and as a King left his body his power greatly appeared in this that at his own free power and will leaving his body he dyed 3 Gregory Nyssenus de Resur Chr. Orat. 1. saith Remember the Lords words what he pronounceth of himself of whom dependeth all power how with full and sovereign power and not by necessity of nature he severed his soul from his body as he said None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self I have power to lay it down and power to take it up again 4 Turtullian de Resur carnis cap. 48. saith thus The Lord though he carried about a soul fearing unto death yet not falling by death 5 Jerom in Mar. 15. saith With a faint voyce or rather speechless we dye that are of the earth but he which came from heaven breathed out his soul with a loud voyce Ibid. ad Hedibiam Q. 8. Wee must say it was a shew of his divine power to lay down his soul when he would and to take it again yea the Centurion hearing him say Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and streight way of his own accord to send forth his spirit moved with the greatness of his wonder said Truly this was the Son of God 6 Chrysostome in Mat. 27. Homil. 89. saith Therefore Christ cryed with a loud voyce that hee might shew this to be done by his own power Mark saith That Pilate marvelled if he were already dead and the Centurion also therefore chiefly beleeved because he saw Christ dye of his own accord and power 7 Victor of Antioch in Mar. 15. saith By so doing the Lord Jesus doth plainly declare that he had his whole life and death in his own free power wherefore Mark saith that Pilate not without admiration asked if Christ were already dead he addeth likewise that the Centurion chiefly for that reason beleeved because hee saw Christ give up the ghost with a loud cry and signification of great power 8 Leo in Ser. 17. de Passi Domini saith What intreaty for life shall wee think was there where the soul was both sent out with power and recalled with power 9 Fulgentius ad Transimund lib. 3. saith Where then the man Christ received so much power that he might lay down his soul when he would and take it again when he would how great power might the God-head of Christ have And therefore the manhood of Christ had power to lay down his soul because the divine power admitted him into the unity of person 10 Nonius in his Paraphrase on John on these words None taketh my soul from me saith No birth-Law taketh my soul from me no incroaching time that tameth all things nor necessity which is unchangeable counsel but ruler of my self I of my own accord yeeld up my willing soul 11 Beda on these words in Matth. 27. And Jesus crying with a loud voyce sent
forth the Spirit saith In that the Evangelist saith Christ sent out his Spirit he sheweth it is a point of Divine power to send out the soul As Christ himself said None can take my soul from me Ibid. In Mark 15. he saith For none hath power to send out the soul but he that is the Creator of souls 12 Theophilact in Matth. 27. saith Jesus cryed with a loud voyce that we should know it was true which he said I have power to lay down my soul for not constrained but of his own accord he dismissed his soul Ibid. Saith he in Mar. 15. The Centurion seeing that he breathed out his soul so like a Commander of death wondered and confessed him Ibid. Saith he in Luk. 23. for he died not like other men but as a Master of death 13 Lyra in Mat. 27. on these words Jesus crying again with a loud voyce sent forth his soul saith Whereby it appeareth that voyce was not natural but miraculous Because a man afflicted with great and long torment and through such affliction near unto death could not so cry by any strength of nature 14 Austin de Tri. lib. 4. c. 13. saith It is the death of the Spirit to be forsaken of God as it is the death of the body to be forsaken of the Spirit and this is the punishment in the death of the body that the spirit because it willingly forsook God should unwillingly leave the body neither can the spirit leave the body when it will unless it offer some violent death to the body The Spirit of the Mediator did plainly prove that he came to the death of his flesh by no punishment of sin in that he forsook not his flesh by any means against his will but quia voluit quando voluit quomodo voluit Because he would when he would and as he would Therefore he said I have power to lay down my soul and power to take it again no man taketh it from me but I have power to lay it down of my self and this those that were present greatly marvelled at as the Gospel observeth when after that loud voyce he presently gave up the Ghost for they that were fastened to the tree were tormented with a long death wherefore the two Theeves had their legs broken that they might die but Christ was wondered at because he was found dead which thing we read Pilat marvelled at when Christs body was asked of him to be buried Three things are remarkable in these words of Austin 1 That the death of the body was inflicted on all mankind for the punishment of sin in which death the soul must depart from the body against her will and not when she would or as she would 2 That the manner of Christs death was clean contrary to ours because he gave up his spirit by his own accord and power when he would and as he would 3 That his giving up the Ghost so presently upon his loud prayer was wondered at by the slanders by and by Pilat himself when he heard it 15 Bernard Feria 4. Heb. panosa saith Christ alone had power to lay down his soul none took it from him bowing his dead being obedient to the death he gave up the Ghost who can so easily sleep when he will To die is a great infirmity but so to die was plainly an exceeding power he onely had power to lay down his soul who onely had like free power to take it again having the rule of life and death 16 Ambros De Incar Dom. Sacram. c. 5. saith Christ having power in himself to lay aside his body and take it again he sent forth his soul he lost it not 17 Eusebius Demon. Evang. l. 1. c. 8. saith When no man had power over Christs soul he himself of his own accord laid it down for man Ibidem lib. 3. ch 6. So loosed from all force and Resting free himself of himself made the departure from his body 18 Erasmus in his Paraphrase in Luk. 23. saith Jesus when with a mighty cry he had said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit breathed out his soul to make it manifest to all that he did not faint as others do the strength of his body by little and little decaying but streight way upon a strong cry and words distinctly pronounced he laid down his life as of his own accord Ibid. In Mark 15. When the Centurion that stood over-right at a Minister and Witness of his death and had seen many dye with punishment when hee saw Jesus besides the manner of other men after a strong cry presently to breath out his soul said Truly this man was the Son of God 19 Musculus in Matth. 27. saith That Christ sending forth his soul with a loud voyce is a proof of a greater power than may be found in a man dying whereby he sheweth that he laid off his soul of his own accord answerable to that I have power to lay down my soul and to take it again to which end John saith that bowing his head he gave up the Ghost others first die and then their heads fall but he first layeth down his head and then of his own accord delivereth up his soul to his Father 20 Gualter in Joh. 6. 9. saith But let us see the manner of Christs death who as John writeth with bowing down his head yeelded up the spirit Luke saith he cried with a loud voyce Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Here find we manifest Arguments of his Divinity which the Centurion and others observed as some of the Evangelists witness 1 That cry and distinct pronouncing of his last words sheweth a power and vertue more than humane for we know that men dying so faint that most of them cannot speak be it never so softly 2 He dieth when he will of himself yea and layeth off his soul with authority to shew himself Lord of life and death which is an evident proof of his divine power 21 Marlorat on these words in Matth. 27. Jesus crying again with a loud voyce sent forth his spirit saith Christ declareth his Majesty in that he layeth down his soul not when men constrain him but when himself will whereupon Pilat marvelled that Christ was so soon dead and the Lord himself said None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self I have power to lay it down and power to take it again to which it appertaineth that is written he bowing his head gave up his spirit For other men first die and then their heads hang but Christ first laid down his head and then voluntarily rendred his soul into the hands of his father 22 Mr. Nichols cited in the Dialogue pag. 101. speaks pertinently to the judgements of these Divines and cites Austin concurring with him 23 Mr. John Smith of Clavering in his grounds of Religion pag. 59. asketh this Question How did Christ die Ans He dyed not with extremity of pain as others
do but he willingly yeelded up his life when he could have lived longer if he would Joh. 10. 18. 24 Dr. Ames in his Marrow on the death of Christ c. 22. comes near unto the former for in Sect. 27. he saith That Christs death was in a certain manner supernatural and miraculous because Christ did keep his life and strength as long as he would and when he would he laid it down Joh. 10. 18. And in Sect 2. he saith it was an act and not a meer suffering c. out of power and not out of infirmity onely 25 Calvin on Joh. 10. 18. saith These words may be expounded two manner of wayes First That either Christ putteth his life from him himself remaining perfect as if a man should put off his cloathes Or else secondly That he died of his own accord The first of these two ways is active and the similitude as if a man put off his cloaths I conceive is borrowed either from Austin or from Bernard for both of them use this similitude to set out the active separating of the soul of Christ from his body 26 John White of Dorchester in his Way to the Tree of Life page 186. saith at lastly When he was nailed to the Cross hee voluntarily breathed out his soul into the bosom of his Father as it is evident both in that he was dead a good space before the two Theeves that were crucified with him whereas by reason of the strength of the natural constitution of his body he might have subsisted under those torments longer than they and besides by yeelding up his life when it was yet whole in him as it evidently appeared by his loud cry which he uttered at the very instant of his death as it is testified by Mar. 15. 37 39 and by Luk. 23. 46. All which are undeniable evidences of our Saviors voluntary resigning up Luk. 23. 46. and laying down his life according to the will of his Father for his peoples sins And Mr. Perkins on the Creed p. 141. agreeth thus far That the state and condition of our Saviours body on the Cross was such that he might have lived longer yet saith he by the Council of God he must to die at that place at that time and at that hour where and when he died And saith the Dialogue in p. 97. The Angel Gabriel was sent to tell Daniel at the time of the Evening Oblation that from that very hour to the death of Christ should be 490 yeers exactly cut out Dan. 9. 24. 27 John Trap in Matth. 27. 46. saith thus Jesus cried with a loud voyce therefore saith he he laid down his life at his own pleasure for by his loud out-cry it appeared that he could have lived longer if he had listed for any decay of nature under those exquisite torments that he suffered in his body but much greater in his soul And saith Trap in Joh. 19. 33. He took his own time to die Joh. 19. 33. and therefore in vers 30. it is said He bowed his head and gave up the Ghost Whereas other men bow not the head until they have given up the Ghost And saith he he cried also with a loud voyce and dyed which shewes that hee wanted not strength of nature to have lived longer if it had pleased him 28 I might cite the words of Dr. Williams to this purpose in his Seven golden Candlesticks pag. 492. in Quarto And I could also cite divers others that speak to this effect But I hope the Judicious will think that these are sufficient to vindicate the Dialogue from Mr. Nortons over-bold and false charge But saith Mr. Norton in p. 171. Such as hold that Christ died of himself do also hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the essential curse the one opposeth not the other Reply 24. I grant that about four or five of the last cited Divines did hold so No full satisfaction was made by any thing that Christ suffered before his death was com But I say also that had they been put to answer this Question Whether did the formality of Christs satisfaction lie in his greatest sufferings before he gave up the Ghost or in the formality of his death by giving up the Ghost They would soon have answered That no formality of satisfaction was made by any thing that he suffered until he gave up the ghost in perfection of obedience by his own Priestly power and the reason is plain because his death must be made a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods attonement and there can bee no formality of a sacrifice but by giving up the ghost or in case any shall deny this Answer I beleeve they will intangle themselves in other inconveniences that they cannot escape as long as they deny the said Answer 2 I say further That the one doth most evidently oppose the other namely in the formality of satisfaction for in case Sometimes Mr. Norton doth place the formality of satisfaction in Christs spiritual death as it accompanied his bodily death and sometimes contradicts that and affirms that Christ made full satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell before he suffered his natural death Christ had made full and formal satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell before his death was compleated as Mr. Norton doth sometimes most unadvisedly affirm then the formality of his death and sacrifice was altogether needless as to the point of satisfaction which is high blasphemy to affirm Sometimes indeed Mr. Norton doth joyn his spiritual death and his bodily death together in the point of satisfaction as if his bodily death was caused by his spiritual death as in pag. 122 153 174 213 c. And thus he makes Christ to dye in a cloud for he makes the soul of Christ to depart out of his body under the cloud of Gods vindicative wrath when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit But in page 32. he doth contradict this for there he saith That Christ suffered the essential penal wrath of God which saith he doth answer the suffering of the second death before he suffered his natural death And saith he in page 150. Christ offered himself before his humane nature was dissolved by death In both these places you see that he doth hold That Christ made full satisfaction before he suffered his natural death for so he doth falsely call the death of Christ And hence it follows that he doth most dangerously affirm that his bodily death in the formality of it was altogether vain and needless as to the point of satisfaction as I have once before noted it in Chap. 4. page 79. And saith another learned Divine This reason drawn from the final cause of Christs sufferings is most derogatory to the infinit worth of Christs bloody sacrifice On the other hand when hee makes him to dye formally under the immediate vindictive wrath of God Hee makes the Father to be the
yet I cannot dye by my own will desire and power except I should use some sinful violence against my life Elijâ—b also had a great desire to dye and yet hee had not power to dye and therefore he prayed unto God saying O Lord take away my vital soul 1 King 19. 4. But Christ had a power to lay down his life of himself when the appointed hour was come to make his soul a sacrifice Fifthly Saith Christ I have the same power to lay down my vital soul that I have to take it up again and therefore I do compare my power which I have to lay down my life with my power which I have to take it up again This saith Origen afore cited neither Moses nor any of the Patriarchs Prophets or Apostles did say besides Jesus Sixthly Christ doth still make another addition to set forth the transcendent nature of his death This Commandement saith he I have received of my Father no other man ever had or shall have the like positive Command to be both Priest and Sacrifice in his own death as I have If Abraham had offered up Isaac in sacrifice by a formal death yet that Priest and Sacrifice had been in two distinct persons and so Isaac could not have been a compleat Mediator in his death But saith Christ It is my Fathers Commandement that I must bee the Mediator of the New Testament through death Heb. 9. 15 16. therefore I must be both Priest and Heb. 9. 15 16. Sacrifice in one and the same person and not in two persons This peculiar positive Commandement 〈◊〉 have received of my Father it is proper only to my person and office as I am ordained to be the only Mediator between God and man in my death and sacrifice Christ saith Mr. Ball was Lord of his own life and therefore hee had power to lay it down and take it up And this See Ball on the Covenant p. 287. power saith he he had not solely by vertue of the hypostatical union but by vertue of a peculiar Command Constitution and Designation to that service Joh. 10. 18. And saith Grotius The death of Christ was not determined by any Law but by a special Covenant with his Father And hence it follows if there had not been a voluntary Covenant See Grotius in his War and Peace part 1. 〈◊〉 36. preceding there could not have been any Commandement used by the first Person over the second Person and therefore this Commandement to lay down his life must not be understood of a supreme moral Command as Mr. Norton understands it for in page 103. he saith This act of Christ in laying down his life was an act of legal obedience And saith he in page 192. For the Mediator to suffer death as our Surety in a way of justice is an act of legal obedience but by the Commandement which Christ received from his Father I understand the Decree of God that the conditions of the eternal Covenant should effectually be performed causing such a thing to come to pass effectually and so God is said to command his own Mercy and to command his own blessed Promises to come to pass See Ains in Psal 42. 9. and in Psal 105. 8. and in Psal 133. 3. and in Gen. 50. 16. and in Lev. 25. 21. Seventhly Put these two speeches together I lay down my life for my sheep Joh. 10. 15. And secondly I have power to lay it down and power to take it up again verse 18. and they do plainly shew that the true nature of my death is to be considered both as it is a Martyrdome from my malicious Adversary Satan and as it is a sacrifice in the formality of it by my own Priestly power And therefore Eighthly In both these considerations my Father doth love me verse 17. and hee hath testified his loving acceptance both of my person and of this service of mine First By his own voyce from heaven at my extrinsecal Instalment Matth. 3. 17. And secondly Aâ— my Transfiguration when he sent Moses and Elias to inform my Disciples of my Departure which I should shortly after accomplish by my death at Jerusalem Then there came a voyce out of the Cloud saying This is my well-beloved Son in whose Combate and Sacrifice which he is shortly to perform at Jerusalem I am well pleased satisfied and reconciled for the redemption Luke 9. 31. 35. of all the Elect Luke 9. 31 35. These eight Considerations taken from the Text and laid together do cleerly evidence That the manner of Christs laying down his life for his sheep is of a transcendent nature to the manner of Peters laying down his life in Martyrdome for Christ though Mr. Norton doth most unadvisedly compare the manner of their death to be alike without making any difference by which means hee doth beguile both his own soul and his Reader of the comfort of the full sense of this blessed Scripture of John 10. 17 18. And Tindal doth declare his sense of this Scripture by him translation which goes thus Therefore doth my Father love mee because I put my life from me that I might take it again no man takes it from me but I put it away of my self I have power to put it from me and power to take it again Hence I gather from this phrase I have power to put my life from me that he held as the Ancient Divines did That Christ put his life from him as a man puts off his cloaths for so the Ancient Divines use the comparison and saith Cyril Derecta fide without constraint of any Christ of himself laid down his own soul for us It is evident that the Devil and his Instruments did use constraint as much as they could devise to force his soul out of his body But saith Cyril he laid down his soul for us not by their constraint but at his pleasure And saith Epiphaâ—ius Contra Ariomanitas Haeresi 69. The Deity together with the soul did move to forsake the sacred body But saith Mr. Norton in page 162. Christ had less strength of nature left to bear his Torments than the Theeves had Therefore they compelled a man of Cyren to bear his Cross that is to help him bear it Reply 26. It is granted by the Ancient Divines that Christ had voluntary weakness but not necessary weakness of nature by the justice of Gods curse as sinners have 2 I have formerly shewed That Christ was not appointed to combate with Satan and his Instruments by the power of his divine nature but by his humane nature alone which he voluntary assumed together with our true natural infirmities of grief fear sorrow c. that so he might bee touched with the sensible feeling of our infirmities in all his sufferings from his proclaimed Combater Satan and therefore for the better manifestation of his said voluntary infirmities for necessary infirmities as we have he had none his God-head put forth a power to
withdraw protection from his humane nature that so his humane nature might bee the more sensibly touched with the feeling of our infirmities And withall I say That though Christ had this voluntary weakness yet it did not decay his natural vigor by degrees as the like sufferings doth decay our sinful natures for the constitution of his humane nature was so perfectly orgonized and moulded that he could at his pleasure take our true humane infirmities for the accomplishing of his Combate according to the Articles of the eternal Covenant as he did in his Agony in the Garden And again at his pleasure he could re-assume his perfect strength of nature as hee did after his prayers in the Garden as I have formerly shewed more at large he dyed not saith Mr. Smith of Clavering afore cited with extremity of pains as others do And saith Mr. White of Dorchester and Mr. Perkins afore cited by reason of the strength of the natural constitution of his body he might have subsisted under his torments longer than the two Theeves And saith Erasmus afore cited He did not faint as others do the strength of his body by little and little decaying And saith Mr. Nichols cited in the Dialogue page 101. Christ dyed not by degrees as his Saints do his senses did not decay no pangs of death took hold upon him but in perfect sense patience and obedience both of body and soul he did by his infinite power voluntarily resign his Spirit as he was praying into the hands of his Father without any trembling or struggling or without any shew of the sense of his pains And several others both of the ancient and later Divines I have immediately cited that speak to this purpose which proves that Christ had no necessary weakness to bear his Cross but voluntary weakness hee had at his pleasure that hee might bee truly touched with the feeling of our infirmities And take also into consideration what Austin saith de Trinit lib. 13. c. 14. where he expounds 〈◊〉 Cor. 13. 4. thus even of that infirmity wherein Christ was crucified the Apostle also saith 2 Cor. 13. 〈◊〉 The weakness of God is stronger than men Whatsoever seemed weakness in Christ saith he is so called in comparison of his divine power And again his weakness was such that it far passed the power and strength of us men and therefore in 1 Cor. 1. 24 25. Christ crucified is called the power of God because he was both God and man in one person and therefore as soon as he had finished all his sufferings wherein he shewed 1 Cot. 1. 24 25. his true voluntary weakness hee breathed out his soul even whiles he was in the full strength of nature by the joynt concurrence of both his natures To dye saith Bernard is a great infirmity but so to dye saith he is an exceeding power Hence then I conclude That when the Executioners did compel a man of Cyren to bear his Cross that is to help him bear it It doth not prove that Christ had less strength of nature left to bear it than the Theeves had as Mr. Norton doth argue it proves no more but this either that Christ had voluntary weakness or else that they thought him to have such necessary weakness appertaining to his nature as other sinful men have that are over-burdened for they could not discern his voluntary weakness from necessary weakness unless they had known him to be God and man in one person and therefore they compelled a man of Cyren to help him bear his Cross And who can tell but that the Theeves had some to help them bear their Cross as well as Christ had and therefore it is a weak argument to prove that Christ had less strength of nature to bear his Cross than the two Theeves because they compelled a man of Cyren to help him bear his Cross seeing the Scripture is silent whether the two Theeves did bear their own Cross without any help from others But saith Mr. Norton in page 168. 'T is true no Torments though in themselves killing could kill Christ until he pleased and it is also true that Torments killing in themselves could kill him when he pleased And saith he in page 86. Though Christ by his absolute power could have preserved his life against all created adversary power Joh. 10. 18. yet saith he by his limited power be could not But as our Surety be was bound to permit the course of Physical causes and the prevailing power of darkness for the fulfilling of what was written concerning him Luke 22. 53. The Jews therefore doing that which according to the order of second causes not only might but also through his voluntary obliged permission did take away his life they did not only endeavour but also actually kill him c. Reply 27. I have often warned to have it the better marked That the death of Christ is set out to us two wayes in the blessed Scriptures First Either more largely by his suffering the pains of death as a sinful Malefactor from his envious Combater Satan Or secondly more strictly by setting out the formality of his death as it was made a sacrifice when his soul was separated from his body by his own Priestly power But Mr. Norton is much displeased with this distinction because it crosseth his Doctrine of Satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell as our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam Now in the first sense it is true That Christ was ordained to be the seed of the sinful deceived woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true humane infirmities hee was to combate with our malicious Enemy Satan and in that respect he must permit the course of Physical causes and the prevailing power of the Prince of darkness to do him all the mischief he could to provoke his patience and to disturb him in the course of his obedience according to Gods Declaration of the Combate in Gen. 3. 15. 2 But yet notwithstanding it is not any where written that Christ covenanted to let the powers of darkness to take away his life formally I do not find that Christ had limited himself by his obliged permission to let the Jews and Romans take away his life actually and formally as Mr. Norton holds Nay I say the blessed Scriptures do plainly deny this as I have opened Job 10. 17 18. in Reply 25. Secondly It is also further evident that none but himself was ordained to bee the Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice because God made him a Priest for ever after the order of Melchlsedek by an oath which declares That according to the eternal Decree and the unchangeable Council Heb. 7. 21. and Covenant of God he should be the only Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice and in that respect Christ saith None taketh my vital soul from me I lay it down of myself I have power to
this ignorance both of the Jews and Romans did no whit exempt them from being the true murderers of the Lord of life in as high a degree as if his God-head had not interposed to hinder their killing power as we may see by that eminent example of Justice that was done by Darius upon such like murderers of Daniel for after that Darius was come to the Lyons Den and perceived that God had interposed his power between the fierce devouring nature of the ravenous Lyons and their executive power and that Daniel was not formally killed by them he did not in that respect excuse Daniels accusers from being the true murderers of Daniel but on the contrary he did adjudge them to be Daniels true murderers 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 Job 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 favour Heb. 10. 10. The word 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 disâ—curse 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 with 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 sinâ— 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 cleansing 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 sanctifie them or make them holy from the defilement of all their 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 the 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 tâ—at 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 Reconciliation or his forgiveness by his Reconciliation doth make a beleeving sinner not onely without blemish and spotless but holy also And so the word sanctifie and cleanse in Ephes 5. 27. is synonimos with the word holy and without blemish in the same verse Sixthly I pray note this also That the holiness of Christs person cannot be imputed to us for our formal holiness as it is affirmed by some unless it could be proved that God doth first make us one with Christ in the personal unity of both his natures as the Dialogue doth reason the case in p. 146. And so Mr. Baxter doth reason with Molinaeus in p. 183. Christs Righteousness formally saith he is incommunicable to any other our union with Christ saith he makes us not the same person with him to be the same subject of the same accident Righteousness This Section I have added onely by way of Parenthesi Seventhly Seeing it is acknowledged that perfection doth consist in action and seeing it is also acknowledged that the perfection of all Christs obedience was to be evidenced not onely by his perfect patience in all his sufferings from his Combater Satan but especially in the formality of his death and sacrifice why should it not be formally done by his own priestly action And why then doth Mr. Norton detract so much from the perfection of his Priestly action in the formality of his death and sacrifice by ascribing the formality of it to physical causes onely as his words repeated a little before do testifie But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. The Scripture mentioneth no other death than what is inflicted justly for sin c. Reply 28. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton should detract so much from the perfection of Christs Priestly action in making his death to be a sacrifice as to make it to be nothing else but a co-acted death according to Gods sentence denounced on fallen Adam as the punishment of his original sin in Gen. 3. 19. For as Lupset saith well In our death the body doth in a manner leave the soul before the soul leaveth the body For saith he it is the body by it self forsaking life that causeth the soul to depart Hence I infer What perfection of Christs Priestly active obedience can there be in such a kind of forced death as this is But on the other hand look upon the death of Christ as it was to be made a sacrifice in the formality of it by his own Priestly power and then we may see it to be a death of Covenant onely and so consequently to be an active mediatorial death and sacrifice because hee must bee our Mediator in his death But in Reply 16. I have spoken more fully to this objection Therefore for a conclusion I will yet once more distinguish upon the death of Christ 1 The long action of his bloody combate with Satan and his Instruments gave the name to his being killed and slain 2 His last short act in breathing our sending out or puting out his immortal spirit when he cried with a loud voyce Father into thy hands I commend my spirit gave the name of formality to his death and sacrifice by his own Priestly power When Christ said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. he did not breath out his soul through the decay of his natural spirits as the Saints do when they say the same words as in Psal 31. 5. Nor as Stephen did when he said Lord Jesus receive Psa 31. 5. my spirit Act. 7. 59. For their death is co-acted by Gods Justice on original sin Gen. 3. 19. But Christ made it evident that his death was not co-acted by weakness of Nature by his crying out with a loud voyce when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and at that instant gave up the Ghost by which loud out-cry he made it evident that he was in full strength of nature when he died as it is noted before by Mr. White of Dorchester and by Mr. Trap and others and this last act gave the formality 1 To his Obedience 2 To his Death and Sacrifice 3 To the price of full satisfaction For as I have formerly shewed from Exod. 30. 12. It was Gods voluntary Covenant that Exod. 30. 12 15 16. The death of Christ as it was made a sacrifice of reconciliation by the voluntary Covenant between the Trinity was the full price of mans redemption made the half shekels to be the full price for the redemption of the lives of the Israelites and this price was imployed or part of it at least to buy publick Sacrifices which were ordained to make an Attonement for their lives as I have opened it in the Dialogue p. 86. namely this price was accounted by God to be in the place and in the stead of their lives as vers 15 and 16. doth declare And thus their lives were redeemed with a price and yet materially it was not the full price of their lives but formally it was the full price of their lives by vertue of Gods free Covenant In like sort Gods voluntary Covenant and Decree made the obedience of Christ in his Combate of sufferings and in the formality of his death and sacrifice to be the full price of the redemption of all the elect Israel of God namely in their place and stead But saith Mr. Norton in page 143. No â—ice can dispence in case of the Antitype Reply 29. And why not Is God by necessity of nature bound to punish sin to the utmost extent of his Justice Is not he a Supreme to do with his own what he pleaseth The Lord in mercy open his eyes and all our eyes to see better into the force of Gods voluntary Covenant for it is his voluntary positive Law and Covenant that doth make any thing to bee a full formal price in his own sight and on the contrary that nothing that is never so valuable in our eyes can be made a ful price formally in his esteem without his voluntary positive Law and Covenant doth concur thereto Conclusions from my several Replyes to the said third Question 1 Hence it follows That God did not forsake Christ in the formality of
Chap. 2. And this forgivenesse both as it relates to his Covenant with Christ and to his new Covenant with the Elect is called God Righteousnesse in Rom. 3. and in 2 Cor. 5. 21. for God must needs be as just and righteous when he performs his Covenant of Forgivenesse made first to Christ in reference to his satisfaction and so made also to all the members of his new Covenant As when he doth execute his vindicative threatnings upon the impenitent and therefore such poor humble sinners may by faith call upon God to make them partakers of his Righteousnesse namely of his gracious forgivenesse This Exposition How God is just hath a more firm foundation in this Text of 1 Ioh. 1. 9. than Mr. Nortons Exposition hath The Examination of Rom. 3. 26. To declare at this time his Righteousnesse or his Iustice That hee might be just and the Iustifier of him which beleeveth in Rom. 3 26. Iesus This Text Mr. Norton doth put both in the Frontispiece and also in the conclusion of his book and he doth repeat it sundry other times also in his book as 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 but 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 of the Holy Ghost in Heb. 9. 5. Hilasterson that is a Psal 65. 4. Propitiatory or a Covering Mercy-seat and saith he this is applied by the Apostle to Christ Rom. 3. 25. See more of Gaphar 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 c 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 thus in Heb. 8. 12. 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 Question Why did God declare his Justice or his Righteousness at this time 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 justice declared 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
righteousness according to Gods Law and then God accepted them and granted his Attonement according to his Covenant and that was his righteousness and then when he was attoned to sinners it was their righteousness this is suitable to legal righteousness by which God did exemplisiâ— our moral righteousness Conclusion Gods Attonement or Reconciliation hath these two parts 1 His not imputing sin 2 His receiving into favour or both these may bee joyned into one namely Gods gracious pardon and all this is the effect of Christs sacrifice for it is for his sacrifice sake that God the Father doth absolve or acquit a beleeving sinner that is in Christ from the guilt of all his sins and so receives him into favour by adoption or thus Gods Attonement for the sake of Christs Sacrifice is not a bare legal forgiveness as when a Judge acquits a Malefactor and so leaves him but it is a gracious acquital as when a Father forgives his Son and receives him into favour And this truth the Dialogue doth fully express and therefore Mr. Norton doth argue sophistically and absurdly against the rules of Logick and his own conscience for hee knows that in his antecedent this phrase By Christs Sacrifice of Attonement is meant both of the cause and effect Christs sacrifice being the cause and Gods attonement the effect and therefore seeing the sacrifice of Christ is all along so plainly intended by the Dialogue to be the only meriting cause of the formal namely of Gods attonement for a sinners righteousness or justification It follows that the consequence which Mr. Norton draws from it viz. neither then can attonement bee a sinners righteousness is a senseless non sequitur And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whother Mr. Norton had any just cause to thunder out such reproachful censures against this kind of attonement in the Dialogue as he hath done in page 210 223 224 237. and saith hee in page 228. the attonement of the Dialogue is not Gods attonement but a pestilent fiction and abomination My heart trembles at this high blasphemy the Lord in mercy open his eyes to see better And saith Mr. Norton in page 210. Tâ—e Reader is desired to take full notice of the Dialogues corrupt sense being the Helena c. Reply 8. The Reader is also desired to examine throughly who hath the truth on his side and also to take full notice whether he can find such an active moral righteousness imputed as Mr. Norton doth substitute in page 210. for the formal cause of a sinners righteousness I have made search into the method of righteous-making by the typical sacrifices and cannot find any such righteous-making as Mr. Norton holds examine therefore whether I have not both in the Dialogue and in this Chapter rightly opened the types thereof both in the meritorious and formal causes But saith Mr. Norton page 209. The Hebrew translated Attonement properly signifieth to cover some thing yet not with a garment or the like which may bee taken off again but with some cleaving and tenacious matter as Pitch Lime Morter c. Reply 9. This exposition of the word Attonement may I conceive mis-lead the Reader as well as himself because hee restrains it to Pitch or such like tenacious matter that cannot be taken off again and therefore I will open the use of the word for the advantage of the Readers 1 I find by Kirkeroes Hebrew-Greek-Lexicon That the Hebrew Caphar doth signifie to cover This is the general sense of the word But what kind of covering is to bee understood by the word must bee fetched from the circumstances of each particular text where it is used As for example in Gen. 6. 14. it is used for such a covering as is made with Bitumen Pitch Tar Rosin and such like cleaving things because that kind of covering was onely fit to stop and cover the chinks and cracks that were in the Ark to preserve it from perishing in the waters a figure of Gods Attonement in our Baptism that covereth our sins and so saveth us but saith Ainsworth in Gen. 6. 14. there are two other Hebrew words in Exod. 2. 3. which are the proper words for Pitch and Plaister and therefore Caphar is used for Pitch in Gen. 6. 14. but in a metaphorical sense and in that respect Tindal in 1 Joh. 2. 2. doth apply it and that most fitly to mollifying Plaisters that are laid on angry fores to molifie and asswage their angry pain 2 This Hebrew word is also used for the Hoar-frost in Exâ— 16. â—4 because the Manna did lye upon or cover the ground after the dew was exhaled just like as the Hoar-frost doth cover the ground It is also put for the Hoar-frost in Job 38. 29. and in Psal 147. 16. but there the Septuagint do translate it Clouds and indeed it is not unfit because Clouds do cover the face of the Skie and do also scatter the Hoar-frost Hail and Snow which do often cover the face of the earth but these kind of coverings are soon taken off again therefore it doth not alwayes signifie such a covering as may not be taken off again and it is applied to Cypress trees because it is a pleasant shady cover against the scorching Sun Cant. 1. 13. 3 Caphar is applied to the covering of an angry countenance by some acceptable present And thus Jacob did cover Ejaâ—'s angry face I will said Jacob cover or appease his face with the present that gâ—eth before me and afterward I will see his face Gen. 32. 20. And in this sense a wise man will cover the Kings angry face Prov. 16. 14. 4 Caphar is put for a Bribe because a Bribe doth cover the eyes of the Judge and causeth him to pervert Justice Amos Exod. 30. 12. A further description of Gods Attonement in respect both of the meritorious formal causeâ— 5. 12. but said just Samuel to the people Of whose hand have I received any present namely by way of a Bribe to cover mine eyes therewith in the case of Justice 1 Sam. 12. 3. 5 Caphar is put for a price of Redemption because it doth cover the offended face of the Supreme and reconcile him Esa 43. 3. But jealousie saith Prov. 6. 35. is outragious it will not regard the presence of any cover or ransom See also in Numb 35. 31. and Psal 41. 81. and in Exod. 21. 30. and in Exod. 30. 12. They shall give every man the ransom of his soul or the cover of his soul namely half a shekel for every man to cover Gods angry face that there be no plague among them to take away their lives as he had done from the former Six hundred thousand But mark this price which God appointed them to give for the That onely is the full and formal price of our redemption that was constituted so to be by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant ransom or cover of their souls from death which else
in Mar. 14. 3. and in Luke 22. 44. in these places it is translated into Syriak Vau into Latine Dum and into English When he was in Bethany and When he was in an Agony and therefore by the like reason it may as well bee translated When hee was made a Curse for us 8 It seems to mee therefore that Mr. Norton doth find faulâ— with the Dialogue from no other cause but because the word When doth utterly spoyl the visage of the Argument for it is no way suitable to his typical sense on which the foundation of his Argument doth depend and therefore it is no marvel that he doth censure the Dialogue for putting it into the Text. 9 All Christs greatest sufferings are comprised under the word Chsstisement in Isa 53. 5. The Chastisement of our peace was upon him namely When he was wounded for our transgressions and when hee was bruised for our iniquities But if the moral Curse had been upon him when he was thus wounded and bruised on the Cross then the word Chastisement had not been fit to express it for we cannot sind in all the Scriptures where the vindicative wrath of God and the torments of Hell are called Chastisements If Mr. Norton had not been transported with a high conceit of his own erronions Tenents he would never have stumbled so as he doth at the word When in the Dialogue But Mr. Norton goes on in page 93. to prove his minor by the causal particle For by which saith he the Apostle doth prove the foregoing part of the Text. Reply 3. But I demand which foregoing part of the Text doth Mr. Norton mean that the Apostle doth prove for I have formerly shewed that there are two distinct clauses in the former part of the verse 1 It is said That Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law 2 It is said That he was made a curse for us If hee mean it of both these clauses then I deny that the causal particle For was so intended by the Apostle for I have before shewed that the Apostle did intend it only to confirm the last clause namely That Christ was made a curse for us in the outward manner of his death 2 Mr. Norton in page 94. proves his former exposition thus 〈◊〉 If those words in Gal. 3. 13. Cursed iâ— every one that hangs on a tree and that text in Deut. 21. 23. Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree have both but one and the same sense Then saith hee what binders that the foregoing part of the verse namely Redemption c. Reply 4. What hinders saith Mr. Norton hee knows well that Interrogations are no Arguments to prove what hee affirms he should have proved his affirmative and not demanded the question What hinders Tâ—an which Inference saith he in page 94. what is more abominable the typical reason excepted of signifying or typisying Christ bearing the moral curse upon the tree Reply 5. The Reader must here take special notice that Mr. Norton doth lay the weight of all his Arguments on the typical sense but you shall see ere long that his typical sense drawn from Deut. 21. 23. will as much fail him as his typical sense of the Tree of life hath done as I have already shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. and then all his Arguments that are built upon it will prove but groundless fantasies or to use his own language hee will put an abominable inference on the Apostle and on the Spirit of God speaking by him SECT II. But saith Mr. Norton in page 94. There can be no sufficient or probable reason given why hanging upon a tree should infame and fasten upon the person hanged this special Curse Whence followed the defiling of the land in case the body continued unburied after Sun-set above all other capital sufferings And saith he in page 96. in case they be not buried before Sun-set they shall defâ—le the land And saith he in page 102. the principal scope of this text of Deut. 21. 23. is to give a Law concerning him that is hanged that he should in any wise be buried that day with the reason thereof annexed And in page 95. hee cites Junius to his typical exposition 1 I will give a reason why hanging on a tree is the greatest curse of all death And secondly that his not burial afore Sun-set doth not defile the whole land Reply 6. The Dialogue hath given a probable reason yea a certain reason why the Malefactor that was hanged upon a tree was infamed with a greater curse than any other Stoning to death was counted the heaviest kind of death of all deaths in relation to the infamy of hanging up the dead body to be gazed on for their greater reproach for the hanging of the dead body was usually annexed to stoning to death death 1 Saith the Dialogue in page 68. Not every sinner that deserved death by Thou the Sanhedrim is meant of this high degree of curse in their death but such sinners only as deserved to have their bodies hanged on a tree after they were stoned to death for God had given power to the Sanhedrim when they stoned Malefactors to death if the circumstances of their sin were of a high consideration to hang up their dead bodies on a tree for their greater reproach shame and ignominy and to be a spectacle to others as long as the Sun gave light but yet in any wise to bury him that day and thus Calvin on Deut. 21. 21. and Goodwin on Moses Rites and Mr. Ainsworth on Deut. 21. 22. do accord with the Dialogue that hanging is for the greater curse after stoning to death 2 Saith the Dialogue the rebellious Son in Deut. 21. 21. is brought as an instance of this double punishment First He was stoned to death And then secondly His dead body was hanged on a tree to be gazed on for his further reproach and insamy and so for a higher degree of curse than his stoning to death was and from this particular instance Moses doth infer in vers 22. That if there be in a man that is to say in any other man besides the Rebellious Son a sin that is to say any other capital sin that is â—orthy of death that is to say of this double kind of death And Thou namely Thou the high Sanhedrim do hang him upon a tree that is to say after he hath been stoned to death his body shall not remain all night upon the tree but thou shalt bury him that day because he had satisfied the curse of God 3 It is manifest That this kind of death was accounted not only of the Jews but of other Nations the most infamous of all kind of death Mâ—ses in Num. 25. 4. said Take the Princes and hang them up before the Sun The Seventy translate it make them open spectacles of shame for though other kinds of death were dreadful yet none so shameful as this kind of death and
the second Adam and publick head of his Elect Church as Mr. Ruthersurd on the Covenant page 312. hath rightly expounded the word Seed in Gal. 3. 16. and his reasons there alleged may serve to prove the like sense of the word Seed in Gen. 3. 15. Moreover God told the Devil that hee might look to himself as well as hee could that this seed of the deceived woman should by his perfect obedience to the Laws of the Combate conquer him in all his designs and at last make his soul a most perfect obedient sacrifice by which perfection of his obedience both in his Combate and Sacrifice he should break in peeces his first grand Head-plot for his first grand Head-plot was to intice Adam to eat the forbidden fruit contrary to Gods voluntary positive prohibition and thereby to inwrap him and all his natural posterity into the same spiritual death of original sin But yet for all this God told the Devil that hee would raise up a seed from this deceived sinful woman that should conquer him by his most perfect and exact obedience to another voluntary positive Law that should be more hard and difficult to be performed than Adams was by infinite degrees and that was first to enter the Lists with Satan and his instruments and not to bee disturbed in his patience but to observe the laws of the Combate in all obedience and at last when the Devil had done his worst he should then make his vital soul a sacrifice in breathing out his immortal soul by his own Priestly power and all this is comprehended in this sentence Hee shall break thy head and by this speech God did fully forewarn the Devil that he might use his best skill without any restraint to do what he could to disturb the patience of this seed of the woman either by his sinful imputations or by his ignominious usage or by his cruel tortures and so might do his utmost to interrupt his obedience that so his death might not be a sacrifice and that so by this means he might save his Head-plot from being broken and accordingly the Devil did often stir up his Arch-instruments to disturb his patience but especially when he entred into Judas to fetch a band of armed men with swords and staves to apprehend him as a notorious Malefactor and stirred up the Scribes to accuse him as a most sinful Malefactor worse than the murtherer Barabas and he stirred up Herod and his Souldiers to mock him and Pilate to condemn him to the most shameful cursed death of the Cross and all this evil usage is included in this sentence Thou Satan shalt peirce him in the foot-soals And in this Combate this is chiefly to be marked That the Devil did use all the foulest play that hee could devise to disturb the patience of this Seed of the woman that was compassed about with our true natural affections and passions and with a tender sense of every evil for the Devil knew that if he could by all his foul play but once have disturbed his patience that then he had perverted him in the course of his obedience and then hee knew that hee should have spoyled his death from being a sacrifice and then he knew that hee should have preserved his first grand Head-plot from being broken and then the Devil would have triumphed over Christ upon the Cross and over all mankind as he did when he first brought Adam to disobey Gods positive prohibition in eating the forbidden fruit 2 God was pleased further to declare That it was the plot of the Trinity that the second person should take unto him the seed of the deceived sinful woman and that he should enter the Lists with his enemy Satan in that nature as it was accompanied with true natural passions and not in the power of his divine nature and therefore it was of necessity that he must manifest the truth of his humane nature by his true natural affections and passions in fearing and sorrowing and abhorring his vilde ignominious usage by his Combater Satan and if it be marked Christ doth as much complain of his shameful usage as of his painful usage and that he saith in Psal 69. 20. Reproach hath broken my heart and yet still that notwithstanding all Satans vilde usage hee should continue obedient to the very last even to the most shameful death of the Cross and that hee should then make his vital soul a sacrifice of Redemption and Reconciliation for all the Elect. And thus as by the demerit of Adams disobedience to a meer positive Law The Many even the Elect as wel as the Reprobate were made sinners so by the merit of the obedience of the second Adam to Gods meer positive Law in his combate with Satan and in his death and sacrifice The Many are made righteous Rom. 5. 18 19. that is to say Rom 5. 18 19. They are justified from the condemning power of sin by Gods Reconciliation for the sake of Christs obedience in his combate of sufferings and in his death and sacrifice And indeed how else could his humane nature be better proved and exemplified than by his fear and heaviness at the nigh approach of his ignominious and must cruel unnatural death and how else could his obedience be better proved and exemplified to be most perfect than by his most perfect patience under such an ignominious and cruel usage and therefore by his constancy in his patience and obedience through the whole combate with Satan he got the victory over Satan and won the prize that was set before him by the Masters of the combate Phil. 2. 8 9. and this God declared first in Gen. 3. 15. He shall break thy head-plot In these words God declared that the Phil. 2. 8 9. Gen. 3. 15. Heb. 2. 10. All Christs greatest sufferings were by Gods appointment to bee from his combater Satan as in Reply 12. and 6. seed of the woman should be a victorious combater and conqueror of his enemy Satan by his patience and obedience through the whole combate And that Christs sufferings are set out by his combater Satan it is the Scripture phrase and language by which Christs sufferings and his victory is described and deciphered as it is evident by Gen. 3. 15. and so in like sort by Heb. 2. 10. he is there called the Captain of out salvation and it is there said that it became God to consecrate him or to make him perfect as he is our Captain in the combate through his victorious sufferings from his combater Satan and see also Exod. 32. 29. And Christ is called our Captain because all good Christians are called his Souldiers 2 Tim. 2. 3 4. And therefore in Col. 2. 15. Christ is said to have spoiled Principalities and powers and as a conqueror to make a shew of them openly Col 2. 15. and to triumph over them in it namely in his patient and obedient death on the cross and he is