Scape-goat it is sure enough that it must bee done before its escape for after it was escaped it was too late to lay on hands upon the head of it But saith the Dialogue It escaped with that act of imposition upon the head of it and therefore that act of imposition did typifie that Christ doth still bear our sins by Gods imputation in heaven as much as on earth But saith the Dialogue The Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition to typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ but on the contrary they understood it to bee a typical sign of their faith of dependence depending upon Christs sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement for the sins they had confessed over the head of it and so much the prayer of the high Priest doth import for when he imposed his hands upon the live Scape-goat hee said thus O Lord make Attonement now for the sins and for the iniquities and for the trespasses of thy people Israel See Ains in Lev. 16. 21. And in this sense the Lord made the iniquity of us all to meet upon him because his once offering was sufficient to procure Gods Attonement for all our iniquities Mr. Norton answers thus in page 52. Mr. Ainsworth on this very place saith That this act shewed how our sins should be imputed to Christ It is not likely therefore that he so understood the Hebrew Doctors otherwise we might well think hee would have forborn a needlesse citation Reply 17. The studious in Mr. Ainsworth cannot but take notice that Mr. Ainsworth doth often cite the Hebrew Doctors in a differing sense from himself and so leaves the Reader to his choice 2 The Dialogue did not cite Ainsworth in Lev. 16. 21. for his own judgement but for the judgement of the Hebrew Doctors cited by him as I shewed in the Dialogue page 39. and in the Epistle to the Reader page 3. I have shewed that Mr. Broughton who was well read in the Hebrew Doctors did often affirm that the Jews generally do stumble at these two Positions of ours 1 Because we make Christ to stand before God as a guilty sinner by his imputing our sins to him And secondly Because wee make the Messiah to suffer the vindicative curse of the Law for our Redemption But if the Hebrew Doctors had held that imposition of hands with confession of sins upon the head of the sacrifice had typified Gods imputing our sins to the sacrifice they could not have so stumbled at our said Tenents as they do they despise the imputed righteousnesse of Christ saith Mr. Weams in his four Regenerations page 318. and they jest at this that one should bee punished in a legal way for anothers fault 3 It may be worth the while for such as are able to search into the Hebrew Doctors to see how they do understand the signification of this Imposition with confession of sin 4 Saith the Dialogue If Gods imputing the sins of the Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them upon earth Elect to Christ was the meritorious cause of Gods extreme wrath upon him then by the same reason Christ doth still bear the said wrath of God for Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much as ever he bare them here upon earth according to the type of the Scape-goat Mr. Norton Answers thus in page 52. Christ on earth suffered the wrath of God that is The execution of Divine Justice because he then stood as a Surety to satisfie the curse due for sin Isa 5. 3. 10. but having satisfied it Joh. 19. 30. Col. 2. 14. the same Justice that before punished him now acquits him Rom. 8. 34. If the Debtor be discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free Reply 18. I shall not need to examine the particulars of this Answer at this time because it is no answer but a plain evasion to the Dialogues Argument which is this Christ by his Intercession is still satisfying the justice of God for the sins of the Elect even as long as the Elect are under sin in this world and thence the Dialogue infers that in case Christ bare our sins here on earth by Gods imputation then hee doth still bear our sins in heaven by Gods imputation for hee doth still bear away our sins by his intercession in heaven according to the type of the Scape-goat This Argument Mr. Norton hath not answered but evaded with a by-answer but saith Mr. Norton If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free I have oft replied That seeing Mr. Norton doth hold that Christ as our legal Surety hath made full satisfaction in kind both by fulfilling the Law of Works and suffering the eternal curse thence it follows according to his own conclusion That the Surety having paid the full debt and cancelled the Bill the sinner is free from all sin ipso facto and so not liable to ask any pardon for sin at Gods hand nor liable to any temporal plague no more than Adam in his innocency But say I because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it is otherwise even as I have shewed in Chap. 4. 2 This conclusion of Mr. Nortons If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled then doubtlesse the Surety â—s free seems to bee drawn from Col. 2. 14. as hee hath cited it above Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us he took it out of the way nayling it to the Crosse I say his conclusion from this Scripture is a grosse abuse of this Scripture for though Christ hath blotted out the hand-writing of the Ceremoaial Laws that was against us yet for all that the moral Law doth still continue against us and doth 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 Promised 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
for they do not generally so speak Reply 11. This speech they do not generally so speak is an acknowledgement that some do so speak And indeed many late Writers do say That imposition of hands with confession of sin did typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ See Taylor on Types and Weams on the Ceremonial Laws saith thus on the Sin-offering They were commanded to lay their hands upon the head of the Sin-offering Lev 4. to signifie that they laid over their sins upon the Beast which was a type of Christ who was made Asham an offering for sin Isa 53. 10. and was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. that is The guilt of our sins was imputed to him he was not made a sacrifice only for our sins but hee was made sin for us In these words of Mr. Weams and more also which I omit hee hath not a word of our faith of dependance which was truly typified by Imposition of hands but he doth only say that it typified Gods imputing our sins I could cite many others that run that way on Exod. 29. 10. c. but I had rather though they bee obvious cover their names than publish them But the Dialogue in page 33. disproves their Exposition thus A private mans Imposition cannot represent Gods act The Imposition of the hands of the Elders cannot because the Elders action represents the Churches action neither can the Imposition of the Priests and the High Priests because they were types of Christs Priestly Nature and not of the Father Mr. Norton returns this Answer in page 49. If these Reasons were good for what they are alleged yet they are impertinent as not reaching the mind of Expositors at least generall upon the place Reply 12. It is an easie answer to say they are impertinent but the indifferent Reader may see they are pertinent 2 Saith hee Expositors at least generally do not so expound I wish that fewer did but I do also confess that I do not find though I have made diligent inquiry that any of the Ancient Divines did hold that God imputed our sins to Christ in Mr. Nortons sense as I have shewed in the next Chapter yea I find that many late Writers also have no such imputation but too many have some I have named and many more are obvious to the intelligent and it is evident that generally the Antinomians do hold as Mr. Norton holds I say it is obvious to the intelligent that many do make the imposition of hands on the head of the sacrifice with confession of sin to signifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ and therefore the reasons of the Dialogue above-named are sound and good for what they are alleaged namely That imposition of hands by the said persons could not represent Gods action But saith Mr. Norton in page 49. There is nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing but that the act of a private person was capable if God so pleased to become a type of Gods act which is also true concerning the Elders and Priests Reply 13. It is well he hath put in If God so pleased I say to him as he said to me in page 103. if hee should not put in that he could expect no other but utmost abhorrence c. But hee had spoken more full to the point if hee had proved that God had ordained such persons in that act of Attonement to represent God the Father but because hee doth no more but barely say so it will not satisfie a doubting conscience But saith Mr. Norton in page 50. The act of an Israelite though a private person in letting his Hebrew servant go free for nothing either at the seventh year Exod. 21. 2. or at the year of Jubilee Exod. 25. 40. figured or represented God the Fathers gift of free Redemption by Jesus Christ Reply 14. Good reason there is for it because God ordained it so to bee and therein the Master being also a Father to his servant in letting his servant go free was a type of the father of mercies in that case 2 As to his instance of Cyrus in making him both a type of Christ in page 101. and also a type of the Father in his 50 page by his free deliverance is a very doubtful instance for it is questioned by learned Divines whether hee were a type but in case it were proved that hee was indeed a type yet it reacheth not to prove that all those that imposed hands on the head of their sacrifice were types of Gods imputing our sins to Christ which is the very point on Mr. Nortons part to be proved but he slides from that to instances of by matters But saith the Dialogue If you make the act of laying on of hands on the Sin-offering to signifie Gods laying our sins upon Christ by his imputation then the same act with confession of sins upon the Scape-goat must also signifie that God did impute our sins to Christ as well after he was escaped from death by his Resurrection and Ascension as when he made his oblation here upon earth And so by this Doctrine Christ is gone as a guilty sinner into heaven 2 The Dialogue propounds another Argument which Mr. Norton skips over and that is this If you make this imposition of hands upon the head of the Sin-offering to represent Gods laying the sins of the Elect upon Christ by his imputation then the same act of imposition upon the head of their sacrifices of praise must have the same signification for every owner must impose both his hands with all his might upon the head of his sacrifice of praise with confession of his particular mercies received This act must needs signifie the laying of their persons by their faith of dependence on the sacrifice of Christ for the procuring of Gods favourable acceptation of their praises and therfore their laying on of hands on the head of their Sin-offering did likewise signifie their faith of dependence on Christ typified Mr. Norton doth thus answer in page 51. We have already said that we make not this act a type of Gods laying sin upon Christ Reply 15. This is a good confession and I wish that others would take full notice of it namely that there is not a suffient ground from the typical act of imposition of hands on the sacrifice with confession of sin to typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ and therefore it follows hence that the translated phrase The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all in Isa 53. 6. is not a sufficient proof of it though it be alleaged for that purpose 2 Seeing Mr. Norton doth at last make this confession why then hath hee laboured to defend the imputation of sin from the said imposition of hands with confession of sin as he hath done But saith Mr. Norton in page 51. Sin was laid upon the Scape-goat not after but before its escape Reply 16. If sin was imputed at all to the
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 affirmeth that Christ as the next and formal cause shed his blood but on the contrary plentiful Texts and Testimonies that he was put to death killed and slain and that by the Jews Luke 18. 33. 1 Pet. 3. 18. Mar. 12. 8. Act. 3. 15. 1 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 câ—nt 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 1â— 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 this 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 lite 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 was 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.