sin as well as in his guilt and therefore the guilt of his sin is justly imputed to Infants as well as unto others and this example doth stâ—ew us that sin and guilt are relates in the same subject and not in two distinct subjects and this David did acknowledge in Ps 32. 5. I said I will confess my transgressions to the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin Mark this he doth acknowledge that God did not onely forgive his sin but the iniquity guilt or punishment of his sin namely condemnation but not all outward punishments In these words I say it is evident that David doth acknowledge that sin and guilt do cleave as close together as the skin and flesh do to the bones and the like he doth acknowledge in Psal 41. 5. and therefore if the guilt of our sins was imputed to Christ then out of doubt sin it self was imputed to Christ also and so Mr. Norton doth dangerously affirm just as the Antinomians do Secondly touching the point of Gods imputation I beleeve it cannot be shewed out of the Scripture that God doth impute either guilt or any other thing to any person unless the thing imputed have first a real existence in the subject as for example God did not impute saith to Abraham for righteousness until faith had a real existence in him as the subject and the like must be said of any thing else that God imputes therefore if God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ then it follows that he was indeed guilty of sin So that by Mr. Nortons unadvised collections either Christ was a true inherent sinner or else the Father was a true sinner in making a false imputation I wish that Mr. Norton may finde sound light from the Scriptures to get himself fairly out of this dilemma But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 33. To impute in Court-language is judicially to reckon unto a person either that which is his properly and not onely as a legal Surety so sin is imputed to the offender Lev. 17. 4. Or that which is not his properly but as a legal Surety onely so Philemon may put Onesimus debt upon Paul ver 18. Or by Way of grace so the word impute is rased ten times in Rom. 4. Reply 4. To impute in Court-language I wonder where that Court-language is used in Scripture about Gods proceeding with Christ in point of satisfaction Surely the blessed Scriptures have no such language and therfore surely he had need to get better proofs than any he hath hitherto produced to prove that Christ was a Delinquent-surety in law which I beleeve he will never be able to prove or else his Court-proceedings in point of satisfaction will fail him but I conceive I have sufficiently shewed in Chap. 2. that Christ was not in the same obligation with Adam in the first Covenant and the matter is so plain that he that runs may read it in the very letter of the Text In the day thou eaâ—est thereof thou shalt dye Thou as the head of mans nature in general thou shalt die as I have shewed in ch 2 Sect. 3. Christ cannot be comprehended as Adams Surety in this word Thou unless Mr. Norton will make him to be one of Adams natural posterity according to the manner of other men Christ was not Adams Sureâ—y to the fiâ—st Covenaâ—t none but Adam as he was the head of mans â—aâ—â—â—e in general was in the first Covenant See also Reply 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 17. In his appendix to justif p. 143 besides the threatning to be suffered is plainly directed to the sinner himself in person and therefore Christ was not in that obligation and therefore also Mr. Nortons Court-language of imputation of guilt to Christ as to our legal Surety is no Scripture-language it is but human language By reason of the obligation upon us saith Mr. Baxter we our selves were bound to undergo the punishment therefore saith he Christs punishment was not in the obligation but onely ours and so the Law was not fully executed but relaxed and whereas the satisfaction of Christ saith he is called a gracious acceptation a gracious imputation c. How can any man saith he call it so if it were the same thing that the Law required that Christ paid to pay all according to the full exaction of the obligation needeth no favour to procure acceptance This very acknowledgement that Christs satisfaction was accepted of grace doth clearly intimate that Christ was not in the same obligation with Adam or else it had been no favour to accept it of him The Father saith Mr. Blake might have refused his discharge from the hand of Christ and might have exacted it of the See Blake on the Covenant p. 18. principal and Christ also might have refused to make such payment because he was not in the obligation These Reverend Divines and divers others do plainly see and acknowledge that Christ was not our Surety in the same obligation with Adam Secondly as Mr. Norton hath found out one clear Scripture namely Lev. 17. 4. to prove that God doth impute sin properly to the offender so if he could have sound out another Scripture as clear to prove that God doth impute guilt to one that is no sinner then he had hit the nayl upon the head But as for that place he brings of Philemon ver 18. saying So might Philemon Phil. v. 18. put Onesimus debt upon Paul it is not to the purpose because it is but an instance of a civil imputation not divine from the meer voluntary cause in Paul and not from the revenging justice of Pbilemon of which voluntary offer much question might be made in a Court of Justice how far Paul was obliged to suffer for Onesimus whether any corpora punishment in kind or whether a great sum of money seeing Paul had a good warrant from Gods Law to moderate in this case Deut. 23. 15. Suppose that Philemon had demanded of Paul a thousand pound damage would Philemons imputing this debt of a thousand pound to Paul in the behalf of the wrong done by Onesimus have been accounted a just debt in a Court of Justice who is able to cleer the intricacies of this instance I beleeve this is no cleer instance for a Court of Justice to proceed by in such like cases much lesse is it fit for the present dispute For our dispute is about Gods imputing sin and guilt to man or to the Mediator on mans behalf and not about one mans imputing to another which is but humane and civil If Mr. Norton had given but one Scripture-instance of a divine Imputation in the sense hee pleads for hee had a fair opportunity to have done it when he cited the other two places But seeing hee hath not done it neither there nor any where else I beleeve he is not able to do it and therefore for him to build so great weight upon this of Philemon to prove that Christ was
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
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
of the greatest value can be called a satisfactory price until it be muâ—ually agreed on between the person offended and the person offering to make satisfaction Aâ—ab was a person of dignity and he offered a valuable consideration to Naboth for his Vineyard for he offered as much 1 King 21 〈…〉 for it 〈◊〉 it was worth or as good a Vineyard in the place of it but neither this eminent person nor this valuable consideration could be a sufficient price to purchase Naboths Vineyard because Naboth did not nor by the Law could not consent to make it a price as I have shewed in Chap. 8. Sect. 1. Even so had not the Father Covenanted to accept of the person and of the death and sacrifice of Christ for our redemption it had not been a price but because God did voluntarily Covenant to accept it therefore it is now the onely full price of satisfaction to Gods Justice But it seems the difference lies in the conditions of the Covenant The difference in stating the voluntary Covenant betwixt Mr. Norton and my self for Mr. Norton holds that Christ Covenanted to do according to the will of his Father and that his Father willed he should obey the Law of Works and suffer the Essential punishment of the Curse for the exact fulfilling of the first Covenant as our Surety as his first Proposition speaks and hence he makes all Christs sufferings to be inflicted upon him from Gods vindicative Justice as from the supreme Law-giver and Judge because Christ was our Surety and so a sinner by Gods imputation and so he makes the Rule of Gods proceedings in justice against Christ to be legal according to the natural order of Courts of Justice against Delinquents and therefore he makes all Christs obedience both in his incarnation life and death to be all legal and to be all grounded on the moral Law But in Cap. 2. I have shewed not only sufficient Reasons but also the concurrence of eminent Orthodox Divines that I beleeve will sufficiently satisfie a judicious Reader that the whole order of Christs satisfaction is from the voluntary cause and from other conditions in the voluntary cause and that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsory power as I have here and there expressed in sundry parts of my Reply It is true saith a learned Divine That Christ merited as well as satisfied for us but saith he that by which he merited was not his never sinning or perfect obedience for that was due to the Law under which he was born but his free and voluntary giving up himself to death without any obligation to that duty lying upon him as man so to do according to that of Heb. 10. 7. and Phil. 2. 6. Being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto the death even the death of the Cross which obedience is there set as the foundation of his merit wherefore God that highly exalted him But all this you see is quite another matter from his active obedience or fulfilling the Law as being so imputed to us But touching the difference of his mediatorial obedience from his humane legal obedience See more in chap. 3. I have also I think sufficiently shewed that nothing though never so excellent in it self can be called a price till it be made a price by a mutual covenant and contract and therefore when the blood death of Christ is called the price of our redemption even before the foundation of the world 1 Pet. 1. 19 20. it is a sure and certain proof to our conscience that it was formally made to be the ful price of our redemption by a mutual Covenant and Contract between the Trinity before ever the foundation of the world was laid 3 His Minor is also faulty as it is to be understood in his sense but let others of a differing judgement take this sentence of his in point of Iustice in their sense and then such persons will not stumble at the minor But take it as Mr. Norton doth expound the Justice of the first Covenant in Gen. 2. 17. and then the minor must be denied and the Scriptures produced by him to prove it must be shewed to be corruptly cited And therefore for the better clearing of the truth I will search into the clear sense of those Scriptures First That of Rom. 3. 31. hath already been tried in the ballance of the Sanctuary and found too light in his sense in the eighth Argument of the former Chapter Secondly As for that in 1 Ioh. 1. 9. If we consess our sins he is 1 Joh. 1. 9. just to forgive us our sins Reply 1. No man will deny that God is just in forgiving sins to such as do truly confess them because the Text in terminis doth affirm it But the great matter of the dispute is in what sense is God said to be just in forgiving sins to such as do confess them Mr. Norton saith That God is just in forgiving because he had the satisfaction from Christ by suffering the same Essential torments of Hell that were threatned to Adam in the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. But I have made a sufficient Reply to this in Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Reply 5. namely that full satisfaction in kind and free forgiveness cannot possibly stand together because they are contrary to each other But because the blessed Trinity in their voluntary Covenant did agree that such a performance by Christ should be accepted of God for the procuring of his Attonement or Reconciliation to such sinners the Holy Ghost for Christs satisfaction sake did undertake to unite to Christ by faith as the conditoinal promises in the New Covenant do testifie Therefore God cannot but shew himself to be just according to his said Covenant with Christ by forgiving the sins of such sinners and so cleansing them from all unrighteousness And thus God is just both according to his Covenant with Christ and also according to his new Covenant to beleeving sinners revealed to them from his Covenant with Christ And this was clearly typified in the Law by the practice of confession of sin and by laying their hand on the head of the sin-offerings for the procuring of their Attonements in Lev. 1. 4. and 4. 29. c. as I have rightly explained the matter in the Dialogue p. 32 33 35 36 and 155 and in this Reply also in Chap. 13. So then the ground of Gods Justice wherby he hath made himself a Debtor to forgive the sins of beleevers is his voluntary Covenant with Christ namely that upon his undertaking to perform the Combate with Satan without any disobedience to the Laws of the Combate and at last to make his soul a Sacrifice then he would be reconciled and forgive the sins of such sinners as did beleeve their Attonement thus procured through Christs death and sacrifice as I have formerly hinted it in my Reply to his fourth Proposition in
greater curse of reproach than was by any other sort of capital death that was in use among the Jews or Romans Secondly I come now to examine the time of their burial And thirdly Whether the Land was defiled in case they continued unburied till after Sun-set For Mr. Norton saith That in case the body that was hanged did continue unburied till after Sun-set it caused the whole land to be desiled ceremonially Reply 7. The time of the burial of the person hanged is not by the Text Deut. 21. 23. limited to sun-set as Mr Norton The time of the burial of the person hanged might be after sun-set provided it were done within the compass of the same natural day which lasted till midnight doth wrest the words of the Text to speak But the time limited in the Text is this He shall not hang all night upon the tree but thou shalt bury him the same day Mark the phrase He shall not hang all night Hence it follows that he might hang some part of the night so he did not hang all night that is to say he might hang some part of the night provided they did bury him within the limits of the same natural day for the words of the Text are thus He shall not hang all night but thou shalt bury him the same day And I have at large shewed in my Treatise of Holy Time that the same natural day was not ended till midnight and see more in Sect. 8. In like sort the Peace-offerings were commanded to be eaten the same day in which they were offered Lev. 7. 15. and yet they might be eaten after sun-set as the speech of the Harlot doth shew in Prov. 7. 9. and for this see Ains in Lev. 7. 15 18. and in Lev. 22. 30. Prov. 7. 9. Secondly in this particular case of hanging we see that Joshua did permit the King of Ai to continue hanging on the tree until the Sun was down Josh 8. 29. and therefore seeing he did not command his carkass to be taken down from the tree untill Josh 8. 29. the sun was set it follows that his carkass could not be buried before sun-set And thus his crutch is fallen and therefore all his conclusions that are built thereon are fallen with it sa his language is to me Thirdly Though Mr. Norton do cite Junius to his typical sense yet I find by conference that Junius not many lines before those words cited by Mr. Norton doth plainly deny that the carkass See Junius paralel l. 2. paral 51. thus hanged did defile the land although it remained unburied after sun-set he doth rather place the defiling of the land in the act of the Judges in case they suffered the carkass to continue unburied that day after the justice of the Law was satisfied which was ordinarily satisfied with that days infamy and to this purpose also doth the Geneva note speak But I will presently produce another reason why the Judges were exhorted not to defile the land Fourthly It is very probable by his words in pag. 102. that Mr. Norton doth steer his judgement in this point of defiting the Land by following the sense of a corrupt Translation I mean by following the latter Editions of King Jameses Translation The latter Editions of King Jameses Translation of Deut. 21. 23. is corrupted from the integrity of the first Editions for the latter Editions are corrupted from the integrity of the first Editions It is most likely that some left-handed person that happily was of Mr. Nortons judgement did venture too boldly to alter the Translation from the integrity of the first Editions for the first Editions both the Church Bible and some others do run thus His body shall not remain all night upon the tree But thou shalt in any wise bury him that day for he that is hanged is accursed of God At the end of this sentence He that is hanged is accursed of God they set a colon or two pricks And then follows another distinct sentence thus That thy Land be not defiled But in the latter Editions there is a great corruption made for first The colon is omitted And secondly There is a parenthesis added to inclose the former sentence thus For he that is hanged is accursed of God This sentence thus inclosed doth quite alter the sense and makes the exhortation to the Judges to concur with Mr. Nortons sense thus Thou shalt in any wise bury him that day that thy land be not defiled Now according to this corrupt Translation and the onely reason given why the person hanged must be buried the same day is because else the land would be defiled But put out the parenthesis and put in the colon as it was in the first Editions and then the words will have a quite differing sense I grant that the leaving out of the colon might happen through the Printers over-sight but the inclosing of that sentence in a parenthesis could not be done by the Printers oversight but doubtless that was done on purpose by some left handed person as I observed before I doe therefore earnestly intreat the judicious Presbytery to make search into this matter and to cause a Reformation in the next Editions according to the integrity of the first Fifthly Let the Text in Deut. 21. 23. be read according to the first Editions and then it will follow that the onely true reason why he that hanged on a tree must be buried the same day is not because else the land would be defiled but because he that is hanged the curse of God so the Hebrew is translated in the margin But there is in this sentence a defect or a want of some word which our Translaters have supplied in the Text by the word is and so they make the Text to run thus He that is hanged is the curse of God But the Seventy with Aquila and Theodotian read it thus He is the curse of God See Torshel on Justif p. 131. that is hanged and Symachus reads it thus because for the blasphemy of God he is hanged And the Chalde paraphrase doth render it thus for because he sinned before the Lord hee is hanged These several Translations and Expositions are considerable But yet still for all this it is a question of some moment in what sense hee that is hanged is called the curse of God 〈◊〉 he still the object of Gods curse upon the land as he was whilst he lived in the practise of his sin before his hanging surely that cannot be seeing justice was executed and therefore it follows that he is now called the curse of God because his hanging so long upon a tree to be gazed on as a visible curse was to shew their greater detestation of his sin and so to satisfie the curse of Gods Justice and so to pacifie his wrath and so to avert the curse which else would certainly have been poured out upon the land in case the Magistrates had
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
The Meritorious Price OF MANS REDEMPTION OR Christs Satisfaction discussed and explained 1 By shewing how the Sufferings and the Sacrifice of Christ did satisfie Gods Justice pacifie his Wrath and procure his Reconciliation for mans Redemption from Satans Head-plot 2 By vindicating the Sufferings and the Sacrifice of Christ from that most dangerous Scripture-less Tenenâ— that is held forth by Mr. Norton of New England in his Book of Christs Sufferings affirming that he suffered the Essential Torments of Hell and the second death from Gods immediate vindicative wrath 3 By shewing that the Righteousness and Obedience of Christ in relation to his Office of Mediatorship is a distinct sort of obedience from his moral obedience in Chapter the third and elsewhere 4 By shewing that the Righteousness of God so called in Rom. 3. 21 22 26 in Rom. 10. 3 in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in Phil. 3. 9. is to be understood of God the Fathers performance of his Covenant with Christ namely that upon Christs performance of his Covenant by combating with Satan and at last by making his death a sacrifice he would be reconciled to beleeving sinners and not impute their sins to them And therefore 1. This Righteousness of God must needs be the formal cause of a sinners justification And 2. It must needs be a distinct sort of Righteousness from the Righteousness of Christ contrary to Mr. Nortons Tenent This is evidenced in Chap. 14. and elsewhere 5 By explaining Gods Declaration of the combate between the Devil and the seed of the woman in Gen. 3. 15. from whence as from the foundation-principle this present Reply doth explain all the after prophecies of Christs Sufferings 6 By clearing several other Scriptures of the greatest note in these Controversies from Mr. Nortons corrupt Expositions and by expounding them in their right sense Both according to the Context and according to sundry eminent Orthodox Writers By William Pynchon Esq late of New England London Printed by R. I. for Thom. Newberry and are to be sold at his Shop in Cornhil over against the Conduit near the Royal Exchange 1655. To the Honorable OLIVER S T. IOHN Lord Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas Peace be multiplied SIR I Humbly present this insuing Controversie to your Honor because I deem you to be an able Judge not onely in those Controversies that concern the common Laws of this Land but also in Divine Controversies and especially in this insuing Controversie because it hath so much dependance on sundry sorts of Scripture-Laws and Covenants in all which you cannot chuse but have a judicious inspection as well as into the Laws of this Land and the rather because the Laws of England have either in their rise or in their use some relation to the said Scripture Laws and Covenants 1 This insuing Controversie hath some relation to the moral Law of Nature in which Adam was created And this Law though I call it the moral Law of Nature yet I do not call it the Covenant of Nature which God made with Adam touching mans nature in general as my Opponent doth 2 It hath some relation to that special positive Law and Covenant which God made with Adam concerning mans nature as he was ordained to be the head of mans Nature in general For God gave unto Adam two symbolical Trees unto which he annexed a Promise as well as a threatning namely That in case he did first eat of the Tree of Life then his Promise and Covenant which was necessarily implyed was That he and all his natural posterity should be confirmed in his created natural perfections for ever But in case he did first eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil then his threatning was That both he and all his natural posterity should die a spiritual death in sin 3 It hath some relation to the Laws of a Combate for the trial of the mastery for at the first the Devil thought that he had got the ful victory over all mankind by drawing Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit but God told the Devil in Gen. 3. 15. That he would put an utter enmity between him and the sâ—ed of that woman which he had deceived and conquered and that one of her seed should combate with him and break his cunning Head-plot by continuing constant in his obedience through all his ill usage until he had made his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation And moreover God told the Devil that he should have his full liberty to provoke his patience and to hinder him in the course of his obedience by his ill usage and that he should have so much power granted him as to pierce him in the foot-saols for a sinful Male factor on the cross to try if by any ill usage either by fraud or force he could provoke his patience to make him sin against the Laws of the Combate And God also warned the Devil by his proclamed Declaration That in case he could not prevail by all his ill usage to disturb the passions of the seed of the woman nor any other way to divert him in the course of his obedience then this seed of the woman by the onely weapon of his righteousness should break his Head-plot in peeces and so should get the victory of the Victor and rescue the spoil from his power or at the least the best part of the spoil namely the Elect and so it was prophecied of this blessed seed in Isa 53. 12. That he should divide the spoil with the strong namely with the strong enemy Satan 4 It hath some relation to the Laws of the Eternal Covenant between the Father and the Son for mans Redemption for God could not have declared the said Laws of the Combate for the Victory except there had gone before hand an eternal consent decree and Covenant between the Father and the Son for the trial of this Combate in order to the redemption of the Elect from Satans head-plot Therefore from this declared combate in Gen. 3. 15. it follows by necessary consequence that the second person did from eternity Covenant to take unto him mans true nature from the seed of the deceived sinful woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities of Fear Sorrow c. to enter the Lists and to combate with Satan for the end aforesaid And 2. Hence it also follows by necessary consequence That God the Father did Covenant to and with his Son that in case the Devil could not by all his ill usage prevail to disturb his humane passions nor could by any other way divert him in the course of his obedience until he had finished all his sufferings and until at last in that obedience he had made his soul a sacrifice then he would accept of the perfection of his righteousness and obedience both in his combate and also in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power as a sweet smelling sacrifice and thereupon would be
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
before he could make his death to be a Sacrifice of Reconciliation p. 92 309 CHAP. VII IT must needs be but a meer fantasie to bold that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell in this world seeing Mr. Norton doth acknowledge that the very Devils are not in sull Torments as long as they remain in this world p 105 If the humane nature of Christ had partaken of the essential joyes of heaven before his death as Mr. Norton holds then doubtless be had been confirmed against the sufferings of death p 107 * Add this Marginal Note to p. 107. Mr. Rutherfurd on the Covenant saith in p. 29 30 34 that Gods declarative glory is not essential to God Mr. Norton doth often fall from his foundation principle which is That Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell to that which is equivalent p. 107 113 72 The Metaphorical sense of Sheol and Hades is opened p. 108 It is to admiration that Mr. Norton doth interpret the same word in the same Scripture first to signifie Hell-torments and then secondly To signifie only the grave p. 109 * Add this as a Marginal Note to p. 109. In this Mr. Norton doth contradict his own rule in p. 76. which is That one and the same word especially not being typical is capable but of one sense in the same place The word Psuche for soul in the New Testament is most often put for the vital soul p. 111 320 CHAP. VIII MR. Norton doth often leave the point of satisfaction in an uncertainty because he doth one while affirm That Christ suffered the essential Curse and only that and another while that he suffered only that which was equivalent p. 113 1â—7 72 291 After Adams Fall outward obedience to the Ceremonial Statutes and to the Judicial Ordinances is called the First Covenant of Works p. 11 8 p. 16 The word Law in Rom. 8. 4. is no proof that Christ kept the moral Law for our righteousness by Gods imputation as Mr. Norton bolds because it alludes chiefly to the Ceremonial Law p. 119 p. 238 26 Add this Note to p. 121. 1. 2. The Decalogue was given to faln man as a Covenant of Grace and therefore it requires spiritual obedience to the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws as well as to the Moral Ainsworth on Num. 6. 12. faith One little pollution of the Nazarile at unawares did nullifie many dayes purity For faith he the Law requireth a perfect observation and curseth him that continueth not in doing all things commanded Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Deut. 29. 12. Ja. 2 10. But this is to be noted that if the said Law had not comprehended the Covenant of grace under it it had not so cursed the non-observers And faith Ainsworth in Deut 30. 19. the life which Mofes set before them was by faith in Christ c. And see more what he faith in Dâ—uâ— 6. 1. and 7. 17. And see what Rutherfurd on the Covenant faith in p. 62. of the better Covenant The justice of the Law is sometimes satisfied by payment in kind and sometimes by that which is equivalent p. 121 256 202 167 33 Christ did not make satisfaction by fulfilling the Covenant made with Adam as Mr. Norton holds but by fulfilling another voluntary Covenant that was made between the Persons in Trinity from Eternity namely that he should ossame the seed of the deceived Womon in personal union and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmitieâ— â—o combate with Satan for the victory by continuing constant in his obedience under all Satans ill usage and that at last in that perfect obedience he should make his vital soul a sacrifice and the Father covenanted that his death so performed should procure his reconciliation to all the Elect p. 122 p. 9 130 162 167 55 96 182 183 256 308 CHAP. IX THe ground of satisfaction or of that price that merits Gods reconciliation to the Elect is from the conditions of the voluntary Covenant p. 130. 139 55 82 83 96 102 122 257 Perfect ohedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenant and Combate do merit the prize p. 130 * Add this Note to p. 130. When a prize is merited by an exact and righteous observation of the Laws of the Combate such a prize so obtained may well be called the Prize or the Crown of Righteousness which the Righteous Judge will give and cannot deny to the lawful Victor 2 Tim. 4 8. But Christ was such a Righteous Victor in his 〈…〉 bate with Satan notwithstanding his ill usage to distur 〈…〉 patience and therefore the Ancient Divines do often say truly That Christ conquered Satan by Rightteousness as I have noted some of their speeches in Ch. 16. The difference in stating the voluntary Covenant betwixt Mr. Norton and my self p. 131 * Add this Note to p. 132. A Covenant from the voluntary Cause doth never yeeld to be over-ruled by the supreme compulsary Cause as Mr. Norton holds as I have often instanced in the Trial of Masteries Christ is Gods Mercy-seat in point of Satisfaction p. 136 Christs Sacrifice is called a Sacrifice of Attonement because it doth appease Gods aâ—gry face and procure his Attonement to all poor humbled and beleeving sinners p. 137 191 251 252 259 * Add this Note to p. 1. â—7 at Heb. 9. 14. Seeing the Altar was a type of the God-head of Christ the fire of the Altar must by the like reason be also a type of the God-head of Christ And therefore when Isaiah cryed out I am undone because mine eyes have seen the King the Lord of Hosts namely Christ in his glory as John expounds it Joh. 12. 41. then faith he One of the Zeraphims came slying unto me having a live coal in his hand which he had taken with the tongs from the Altar and he laid it upon my mouth and said Lo tâ—â—â— hath touched thy lips and thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin is purged Isa 6. 6 7. or as the Hebrew is thy sin is expiated by Attonement procured as Lev. 1. 4. and Rom. 3. 25. this fire was a type of the God-head of Christ which sanctified the offering Mat. 23. 19. Heb. 9. 14. 21 24. for Attonement to his lips The end why God declared his justice to be satisfied in the faid obedience of Christ from his Mercy-seat was first That he might be just according to his Covenant made with Christ And secondly That he might be just according to his New Covenant made with the Elect And thirdly That he might be the Justifier of beleeving sinners p. 139 As the Greek word Dicaios Just is put for one that is pious and merciful so the Hebrew word Chesed Mer 〈…〉 is put for one that is pious and just p. 141 CHAP. X. THe death of Christ could not be a penal death from Gen. 2 17. because God doth threaten none with a penal death neither in that Text nor any other but sinners
25 136 233 258 ib. 26 134 140 180 228 ib. 27 15 244 ib. 31 125 4 Â 88 ib. 25 312 5 9 10 229 ib. 12 31 ib. 14 31 153 ib. 16 240 and so it is translated justified in Syracides 14 20. ib. 18 135 211 228 233 240 ib. 19 16 153 211 233 343 8 3 49 226 237 and see the Dialogu p. 116 ib. 4 119 237 238 260 ib. 23 29 ib. 32 95 179 312 350 9 31 244 10 3 138 232 237 ib. 4 242 15 30 335 1 Corinth 1 24 25 424 6 11 237 259 260 ib. 20 256 9 24 178 340 15 29 306 ib. 30 53 29 2 Corinth 5 21 207 13 4 423 3 13 262 ib. 16 342 4 4 5 47 5 11 270 Philippians 1 30 340 2 6 132 139 ib. 8 9 124 344 ib. 9 10 11 177 3 9 120 123 233 Twice ib. 10 11 370 4 3 340 Colossians 1 21 22 434 ib. 29 340 2 14 15 124 146 344 234 419 1 Tim. 2 6 256 4 10 340 2 Tim. 2 5 178 4 7 8 178 340 Titus 2 14 p. 50 259 Philemon v. 18 Â 87 219 and see Peter Martyrs Com. pl. part p. 4. 263. Hebrews 1 3 p. 252 2 10 17 90 92 93 344 386 427 430 ib. 14 90 294 357 419 ib. 17 18 165 170 194 4 16 136 140 5 6 169 ib. 7 299 303 334 336 7 22 115 118 ib. 21 426 ib. 28 90 8 3 430 ib. 12 139 233 258 9 110 49 118 235 260 ib. 13 48 51 120 214 235 260 432 ib. 14 90 137 214 43â— ib. 15 16 90 137 181 420 4â—8 ib. 18 23 120 ib. 22 124 ib. 24 196 ib. 26 49 195 ib. 27 28 147 358 10 4 433 ib. 5 294 ib. 7 43 ib. 10 46 122 124 237 259 ib. 32 340 12 2 146 178 269 339 13 13 270 1 Peter 1 19 20 132 256 2 24 103 181 3 18 184 1 John 1 7 50 259 ib. 9 133 180 Rev. 5 9 12 428 Christs Satisfaction Discussed and Explained CHAP. I. Touching the nature of Christs Satisfaction Mr. Nortons first Proposition in this THe Lord Jesus Christ as God-man Mediator according to the will of his Father and his own voluntary consent obeyed the Law doing the Command in a way of Works and suffering the Essential punishment of the curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto Divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant which active and passive obedience of his together with his original Righteousnesse as a Surety God of his rich grace actually imputeth to beleeving Sinners for their Righteousnesse Reply I deny several things in this Proposition to be true But because all the particulars are but barely affirmed here though some proofs are hereafter alleged therefore I shall defer my Reply to the particulars to the places where I shall find them repeated with their proofs annâ—xed In the mean time the Reader may please to take notice That I deny first That Christ made any such Covenant by his voluntary consent with his Father as to be bound in the same obligation with Adam to fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction Secondly That the first Covenant made with Adam was not touching his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law but it was touching his obedience or disobedience to a positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature CHAP. II. And first the true Nature of the first Covenant is Discussed SECTION 1. Where also Mr. Nortons second Proposition is examined which is this GOD in the First Covenant the substance whereof is Do this and thou shalâ— live Lev. 185. But in the doy thou eatest thereof thou shalâ— dye Gen. 2. 17. proceeded with man in a way of Iustice Mr. Norton proves by these two Scriptures that the nature of the first Covenant made with Adam was in relation to his obedience and disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature and he doth make great account of both these Scriptures because he cites them very often to that sense And in Page 186. He affirms that God propounded the Law of Works to man before his fall with the promise of justification and life in case of Legal obedience And in Page 189. He saith That the summe of this Law is the two Tables and saith he it is called the Law of Works in Rom. 3. 27. because it required personal obedience to life Lev. 18. 5. And this Law he calls Moral positive the habitual writing whereof in our hearts by nature together with its obligation were both from the first instant of the Creation this binds perpetually and it is immutable And in Page 190. he saith The Transgression them of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit was a breach of the said Law of Works which was given to Adam and afterwards to Moses Reply 1. In opposition to Mr. Nortons description of the nature of the first Covenant I shall labour to prove that the true nature of the first Covenant was in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to a positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature and not aâ—out the Moral Law of nature My first Reason is this If God made a Covenant with Adam concerning his obedience The first Covenant was not made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the Moral law of nature but in relation to his obedience or disobedience to a positive Command about things indifferent in their own nature or disobedience about his eating of the two Trees the one called the Tree of Life and the other the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil which was indifferent to be eaten or not eaten in their own nature then the first Covenant was not made concerning his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature unlesse Mr. Norton will affirm that God made two Covenants of works with Adam in his Innocency of a differing nature the one of positive and the other of moral Commands But it is absurd to affirm that God made two Covenants of works with Adam of such a differing nature Therefore one of the two must needs be null But the Covenant concerning the two Trees cannot be null because that Covenant is expressed in the Text therefore hence it follows that the moral Law of nature was not propounded to Adam as the first Covenant of works with the promise of justification and life in case of legal obedience as Mr. Norton affirmeth upon Scriptures mis-interpreted and on this sandy foundation he builds the greatest part of his Answer to the Dialogue The first Covenant was made with Adam concerning mans nature in general as he was the head of all mankind and that Covenant was this Eat of the Tree of life in the first place for I have ordained it as thou mayest perceive by the name given to it for the confirmation of thy created natural perfections to thee and to all thy seed for ever as these places conferred together do prove Gen. 1. 29. Gen. 2. 9. Gen 3.
obedience to the moral Law of nature whiles he stood in his created perfections and therefore Rom. 3. 27. doth not prove that the moral Law was ordained to be the Covenant of works for Adams justification much lesse was it ordained to that end for fallen man For saith Mr. Burges God did not since the fall of man ever transact with him in any other Covenant but that of Grace In Vindiciae â—lâ—gis â—ect 22. p. 113. 132. And Blake approves him See also Ball on the Covenant p. 102. 130 135 166 178. The safest way is to hold That God did never ordain the moral Law neither in Adams Innocency nor since his Fall to be a rule of justification by works See Wotton de Recon peccatoris part 2. l. 1. c. 6 7. Seventhly Hence it follows That sinners cannot be justified formally by Gods imputation of Christs obedience to the first Covenant of works unlesse it can be proved that Christ did 〈◊〉 make a voyage into the earthly Paradise of Eden there so not actually of the Tree of life as our Surety in our room and 〈◊〉 to the end that God might impute his fulfilling of the first Covenant to us for our formal justification Such absurd consequences as these will often necessarily follow from Mr. Nortons Doctrine of Gods imputing Christs obedience to the first Covenant of works for our justification Eighthly Hence we may learn how to understand Rom. 5. 19. namely as by one mans disobedience to a meer positive Law the Rom. 5 19 Many as well as the reprobate were made sinners So by the obedience of one to a meer positive Law in his death and sacrifice shall the Many be made righteous Ninthly Hence it follows That it is altogether untrue which Mr. Norton affirms in his first Proposition that Christ did covenant with his Father both to fulfill the Law of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that thereby he might exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction to Gods justice for mans justification Tenthly Suppose the first Covenant was made in relation to the moral Law which is not granted nor cannot be proved yet in that sense there is an answer ready in the words of Pareus That God did never require such a double fulfilling as Mr. Norton layes down in his first Proposition namely that Jesus Christ did enter into a covenant with his Father both to do the Command in a way of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that so he might thereby exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction for our Righteousnesse It was never heard saith Pareus that the Law did oblige In his Epist to Wbitgenstenius at the end of vrsinus Catechisme p. 797. both to obedience and punishment at the same time but every Law obligeth dis-junctively and not copulatively either to obedience or to punishment for so long as obedience is performed the Law obligeth not to punishment that is it pronounceth no man guilty of punishment But when obedience is violated then the Law obligeth the sinner to punishment This is generally true saith he both of divine and humane Laws Therefore their Suppositions saith he which they do here assume are untrue and repugnant to Gods justice namely that man after his Fall and so the Mediator for man was obliged both to fulfill the Law and to suffer punishment When obedience indeed is violated the sinner is bound to make satisfaction by suffering punishment This being performed he is no more a sinner and he is tyed to obedience not to that for the violation of which he hath suffered punishment but to another new obedience or if again he violate this to a new punishment I have cited this of Pareus for the sake of such as hold the true nature of the first Covenant to consist in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law and so hold as Mr. Norton doth That no satisfaction can be made to Gods justice except Christ be our surety to fulfill the first Covenant by doing the Command in a way of works and by suffering the Essential punishment of the Curse in a way of Satisfaction But I have described the true nature of the first Covenant to lye in Adams obedience or disobedience to the positive Command only and shewed from the Orthodox that Christs obedience in his Incarnation and Death was not to the moral law but to a positive Law for satisfaction to Gods justice for our Redemption and Justification SECTION 2. The Examination of Lev. 18. 5. I Will now examine how Mr. Norton doth prove That the first Covenant was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of Nature and that is by Lev. 18. 5. and Gen. 2. 17. Reply First I will examine Lev. 18. 5. This do and thou shalt live whether it have his sense or no for he makes high account of this Scripture for his purpose because he doth often ciâ—â— as in page 14 140. 149 189 191 225. c. But I must needs say I cannot but wonder at his unadvised citing of this Text to prove the first Covenant of works to belong to the moral Law of nature seeing it is so clear a proof of the Covenant of Grace These words saith Mr. Ball Do this and live must not be interpreted as if they did promise life upon a condition of perfect Lev. 18. 5. See Bell on the Covenant p. 136. obedience and for works done in such exactnesse as is required But they must be expounded Evangelically describing the subject capable of life eternal not the cause why life and salvation is conferred And by doing is to be understood sincere uniform and unpartial obedience not exact fulfilling the Lawin every tittle Do this and live saith he what is it more then this If ye will obey my voyce and do my Commandements ye shall be to me a peculiar treasure Exod. 19. 5. and to this purpose he citeth Psal 119. 1 2. Psal 106. 3. Psal 112. 1. James 1. 25. Rom. 2. 7. Luke 1. 6. All these places saith he are to be understood of sincere and upright walking to shew who are justified and to whom the promises of life do appertain but not why they are justified In like manner saith he that speech of the Apostle The Doers of the Law are justified Rom. 2. 13. may be expounded Rom. 2. 13. Evangelically not of them that fulfill the Law to be justified by their works but of them that soundly obey who are justified of grace by faith And hence it appears what works the Apostle opposeth to faith in the matter of justification not only perfect works done by the strength of nature of which sort there be none at all but works commanded in the Law as it was given to Israel such as Abraham and David walked in after they were effectually called These works cannot be causes together with faith in justification 2 It
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
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
to the peculiar Law of Mediation for this Law set apart he was not bound by any other Law to the oblation of himself And hence it follows that if Christ made satisfaction by his obedience to another Covenant then not by his obedience to the moral Law 5 If God had commanded Christ to dye by the Justice of the moral Law then his desire That the Cup might passe from him in Matth. 26. 39. had been a sinful desire But saith Mr. Rutherford because it was a positive Law only by which God commanded him to dye therefore that desire was no sin as I have noted his words more at large in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 6 Saith Mr. Thomas Goodwin The death of Christ was not manded by the moral Law but it was commanded over and besides the moral Law as I cited him in the former Section 7 It seems that Mr. Norton hath an art beyond others by which hee can make the miraculous work of Christs Incarnation to be moral obedience or else he would never say as hee If the Incarnation of Christ had been an act of obedience to the moral Law then Christs God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Fathers supreme Command doth That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience in page 192. The Arians will be much beholding to him for this Tenent for if his Incarnation which was an act of his God-head was an act of his obedience to the moral Law then it follows that the God-head of Christ was in an absolute subjection and so in an absolute inferiority to his Father for the moral Law is supreme compulsory Law given to inferiors But Mr. Norton labours to prove That the Incarnation of Christ was an act of legal obedience in page 192. by Gal. 4. 4. and in page 196. saith he Christ was subject to the Law not as man only but as God-man Mediator Gal. 4. 4 5. And saith he in the same page The Law whereto â—e was subject is the Law whereunto wee are subject Reply His proof from Gal. 4. 4. I will now examine because he doth cite it to prove that the moral Law was given to the Mediator as the Law of his Mediatorship as in page 103. 192 196 197 200 240 267. The sense of this Text must bee sought out by comparing it with the Context the third verse runs thus Even so we when we were children were in bondage under the Elements or Rudiments of the world Hence the Apostle infers in vers 4. 5. That when the fulnesse of the time was come God sent forth his Son made of a woman made under the Law to redeem them that were under â—he Law Any man that hath but half an eye may see that the Apostle in this place speaks only of the ceremonial Law by which it appears that Mr. Norton took but little heed to the Context and therefore it is sufficient to answer him in the words of Mr. Gataker to the seventh Reason of Wigelin his 15. Thesis This place to the Galatians saith he speaks of the Law of Rites therefore it comes not here to bee handled namely not in Mr. Nortons sense for Mr. Norton saith That the Law here whereunto Christ was made subject is the Law whereunto wee are made subject But Mr. Gataker according to the Context doth call it the Law of Rites and Dr. Hammond doth Analyze the Text to that sense onely And so doth Mr. Ball on the Covenant page 141 and 166. But for the better clearing of this sense I will expound the several branches of Gal. 4. 4. 1 When the fulnesse of time was come This fulnesse of time must be understood chiefly of the time of Christs death though it doth also comprehend the time of his Incarnation namely in order to his death for untill that full time of Christs death the Jews were under ceremonial Types as under Tutors and Governors And the exact period of this full time was foretold unto Daniel by the Angel Gabriel just four hundred and ninety years before-hand for saith Daniel in Chap. 9. 21. The Dau. 9. 24. 27. Angel Gabriel came flying swiftly and touched me as I was at prayers about the time of the Evening Oblation and in vers 22. he said O Daniel I am come forth to give thee skill and understanding namely of the fulnesse of time appointed of the Father therefore understand the matter and consider the Vision for seventy weeks are determined Dan. 9. 24. upon thy people and upon thy holy City to finish trespass namely to finish Trespasse-offerings and to end Sim See Broughtous Translation printed at Hanaw namely to end Sin-offerings and to make reconciliation for Vnrighteousnesse and to bring in everlasting Righteousnesse instead of Ceremonial Righteousnesse by legal purifications and by legal Reconciliations and Attonements by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9. 13. this kind of Righteousnesse was but a figure for the present time that could not make holy concerning the conscience him that did the service Heb. 9. 9. For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away moral sins Heb. 10. 4. But the Sacrifice of Christ which was typified by these Rites being made in the fulnesse of that time that was fore-appointed of the Father had a true vertue and efficacie by vertue of Gods Covenant with the Mediator to cleanse the conscience from the guilt of moral sins and to bring in a moral Righteousnesse and so then the ceremonial Righteousnesse must cease and thus the Angel Gabriel told Daniel that the Messiah by his death should make reconciliation for unrighteousnesse and so bring in an Everlasting Righteousnesse and then saith the Angel Gabriel in vers 27. He shall confirm the Testament for the many the last Seven when in half that Seven he shall end Sacrifice and Oblation The words are thus opened by Paul in Heb. 9. 26. But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin Heb 9 26. namely to put away the Ceremonial use of Sin-offerings by the sacrifice of himself and in Rom. 8. 3. God sending his own Son in Rom 8. 3. the likenesse of sinful flesh and for his sacrifice for sin in the flesh Hee condemned sin that is to say the use of Sin-offerings because his Sin-offering was of efficacy sufficient to make an Everlasting Reconciliation and Redemption and to bring in an Everlasting Purifying from sin which Daniel calls an Everlasting Righteousnesse And thus in the fulnesse of time God sent his Son to fulfill the Ceremonial Law of Types and then it follows that all Ceremonial Types must cease c. And thus Christ hath redeemed us for our moral sins and from the moral curse and this is worth the noting that the Levitical Ordinances are in Greek called Iustifications in Heb. 9. 1. and Carnal Dan 8.
taken away Col. 2. 14. 2 I confesse I am at a losse to find out the force of Mr. Nortons reason here given But it may be it will the better appear when it is drawn into the form of an Argument And thus it may run If the Elect were in Christ before they were in Adam and continued elected in Christ though the commination stood in full force against them Then absolute separation dis-union and dis-covenanting with God is a consequent of Reprobation not of the essence of Punishment But the Elect were in Christ before they were in Adam and continued elected in Christ though the commination stood in full force against them Therefore absolute separation dis-union and dis-covenanting with God is a consequent of Reprobation But not of the essence of Punishment Suppose the Antecedent part of the first Proposition were granted though it cannot bee all granted yet I cannot see strength enough in it to make good the consequence It is no good way of reasoning to argue what is essential or not essential in the Curse from the event namely from what de facto was executed or not executed on the Elect seeing betwixt them and the Curse the Covenant of grace doth and from eternity did virtually interpose by Christ and his Ransome It is more proper to judge what de jure doth essentially flow from the curse to such as being the proper subjects of the Curse remain under it without any interposition of Christ and his Ransome by the Covenant of Grace 3 I propound this to consideration from a passage of Mr. Nortons in page 117. Gods rejection saith he as it is the Antecedent not the cause of sin so it is also the Antecedent and not the cause of condemnation Reprobation saith he is an act of absolute Lordship and Sovereignty not of Iustice Condemnation that is the judicial sentencing to punishment for sin is an act of Iustice not of Lordship no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger because a Reprobate but because a sinner Here I might by way of Parenthesis insert this Query Was Adam rejected and was that the Antecedent to Adams sin And were not all mankind once in Covenant with God in Adams innocency 4. I say that absolute separation dis-union or dis-covenanting with God is a part of that condemnation and judicial sentencing unto punishment for sin Matth. 22. 13. Matth. 25. 41. Matth. 7. 23. 2 Thes 1. 9. See further also in Dr. Ames his Marrow of Divinity l. 1â—â— 16. n. 7. 5 If total and absolute separation and dis-union with God c. be a consequent only of Reprobation then it proceeds only from Gods Lordship and Sovereignty as Mr. Nortons words speak but in Rev. 20. 12. it proceeds from justice The dead were judged according to their works not according to Gods Lordship nor Reprobation And saith Dr. Ames The hatred of Reprobation doth not inflict evill but the desert of the In his Marrow 〈◊〉 1. 6. 25. n. 38. creature coming between 6 The same thing may be both a consequent of Reprobation and a proper effect of justice as Mr. Norton himself also acknowledgeth in page 111. The legal dis-covenanting saith he of the probate for their sin which they have committed is the effect of justice that being dis-covenanted they fall into the bottomlesse pit is also an effect of justice but totality and finality of their dis-union with God without recovery by the Covenant of Grace is a consequent of Reprobation And why may it not bee as truly said That the legal discovenanting of the Reprobates and their falling into the bottomlesse pit are consequents of reprobation as say that totality and finality of dis-union with God is a consequent of reprobation they are alike consequents of reprobation not proper effects of it but rather effects of sin intervening and consequently proper effects of Vindicative justice SECT 6. But Mr. Norton doth still explain his first Distinction in these words in page 8. Sin is not of the Essence of Punishment because Essential punishment is a satisfaction unto Iustice for injury done but sin is a continuing of the injury and a provocation of not a satisfaction unto justice 2 Saith he Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But it is blasphemy to say that God the Author of sin 3 Saith he The Elect suffer no part of penal punishment yet are left unto sin for a time This in the Parenthesis was in his Manuscript 4 Saith he in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned proceed not from Hell-torments as an effect from the cause The torments of Hell are an effect and execution of justice whereof God is the Author Sinful qualities are a defect not an effect therefore they have a deficient not an efficient cause therefore of them God cannot be the Author 5 Saith he in page 118. Christ suffered the Essential punishment but was without sin These five Reasons Mr. Norton hath given to prove that sin in fallen man and sinful qualities are not Essential but Accidental to the Curse His first Reason examined MR. Norton saith That sin is not of the Essence of punishment because sin is not a satisfaction to justice but rather a provocation of it for injury done Reply 1. But saith Dr. Ames Punishment is an evil inflicted on the sinner for sin In his Marrow l. 1. c. 12. n. 10 11. This is a more proper definition of punishment than Mr. Nortons Original sin as it was from Gods justice was an evill inflicted Death in sin is an evil inflicted by God as the essential punishment of Adams sin and was a satisfaction to justice till it pleased God to make an alteration by the Covenant of Grace of God on mans nature in general as a satisfaction to justice and so it was a vindicative punishment till Christ was revealed to difference the Elect from the Reprobate by the Covenant of Grace Sect. 1. Sect. 3. 2 Besides the punishment of original sin God doth often punish mens personal sins with sin which in some sort may also be said to bee a satisfaction unto justice But as that sin doth proceed from mans disobedience to Gods Command so it is a new and further provocation His second Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But saith he It is blaspherry to say that God is the Author of sin Reply 2. It is granted that sin as it is sin namely as it is a transgression of Gods Law is not from God as the Author of it But yet when man doth act voluntarily without any compulsion from God and to hold otherwise were blasphemy that sin as it is vindicative from God is a fruit and curse of former sin carrying with it the respect of punishment so taken it is neither blasphemy nor unsound Divinity to say that God is the Author of it And thus original sin was from Gods
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
Seed of the Woman at the self-same time should break the Devils Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death through all his temptations and trials and then having finished all that was written of him he should set his soul a Trespass offering which he did when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and at that time he bowed his head and gave up the ghost by his own Priestly Power and not by Sathans power And without this combate with Sathan and without this shedding of blood there is no Satisfaction and so no Remission But this Death and Sacrifice of Christ might be and was without any suffering from the immediate wrath of God Though not without Gods appointment and permission to Sathan to do his utmost against this Seed of the Woman to spoil his obedience if he could in which conflict Christ had his Foot-soal pierced but the Devil had his Head plot broken Col. 2. 14 15. Gen. 3. 15. because he could not provoke Christ to any impatience or turning away back till he had spoyled the Head-plot of Principalities and Powers by his obedient death on the Crosse The Apostle doth tell us that we have Remission of sins by vertue of Christs satisfaction namely by his bloody death and sacrifice sacrifice Heb. 9. 15 26 28. Heb. 10. 10. 14. without any mention of his suffering of the essential torments of Hell in all the Scripture though the blessed Scriptures are often perverted by Mr. Norton to that sense The rest that follows is built but upon this sandy foundation and therefore it will fall of it self His eight Argument examined which is this If justifying faith establish the Law then Christ the object of faith hath established that is fulfilled the Law for otherwise the Law cannot be established by faith But justifying faith hath established the Law Rom. 3. 31. Therefore Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law Reply 1. If by this conclusion Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law he means no more but this namely that Christ fulfilled the Law in the Preceptive part of it then hee proves no more than the Dialogue and all good Christians do grant But if he mean that Christ fulfilled the vindicative part of the Law by suffering the punishment of the eternal Curse which doubtlesse is the great thing that he aims at then any ordinary Reader may easily see that his Argument doth not conclude so much This Argument therefore makes nothing to the point in hand except it be to fill up the number of Eight But yet I will examine the premises of his Syllogism 1 I except against the consequence of his first Proposition for though the Text doth expressely say That justifying faith doth establish the Law yet it doth not thence follow That Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled it in his sense 2 Else the Law cannot be established by faith this also is another Paradox for many Orthodox Divines do shew how the Rom. 3. 31. Law may be established in other respects Reply 2. I say that Mr. Nortons exposition of establishing the Law in Rom. 3. 31. is nothing neer the Apostles meaning What though Beza and Pareus go that way that Mr. Norton doth yet Dr. Willet whom Mr. Norton doth often much approve doth reject their exposition and that upon this ground because the Apostle speaks there of fulfilling the Law by the members of Christ and not by Christ the Head alone And Beza in his short notes doth expound it as Dr. Willet doth Weâ— sairh he make it firm and effectual But Calvin renders the text thus It is established and confirmed And so speaks Piscator in his Moral Observations on that text refuting the Antinomians Mr. Burges saith It is a Metaphor borrowed from corroborating In 〈…〉 iciae legi 〈…〉 ct 21. p. â—â—9 or strengthning a pillar that is ready to fall Peter Martyr accords with Calvin and Piscator namely that to establish is to confirm in opposition to abrogate or disanull And truly seeing the latter part of the verse doth run in opposition to the former it follows that to establish the Law must not be expounded to fulfill the Law as Mr. Norton doth carry it for saith hee Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law But because four of Mr. Nortons eight Arguments are grounded on his exposition of this Text and also because he makes this Text to be one of his great proofs of Heresie against the Dialogue Therefore I will labour to shew the Reader what the Spirit of God speaks in it 1 I intreat the Judicious Reader to take notice That the Question betwixt us is not whether faith doth establish the Law or no for the Text it self doth affirm it But the point in difference is In what sense doth faith establish the Law Mr. Norton saith That Christ doth establish the Law by suffering the essential curse of Hell-torments But in that sense I deny it Neither will I tire out the Reader by relating the various apprehensions of the Learned but pitch upon such as I beleeve are soundeâ—t 1 Take notice that Peter Martyr on this place doth copiously shew how the Law is established several wayes and yet he hath not a word in any of his expositions that Christ suffered the essential curse of the Law he comes nothing neer to Mr. Nortons sense 2 Aretius shews how the Law is established three wayes by saith and yet he hath not a word of establishing it by Christs suffering of the essential curse Mr. Wotton in his Answer to an Argument taken from this Text by Heningius shews that the Apostle speaks of establishing De Recons peccatoris part 2. l. 1. c. 5 n. 7. p. 120. c. the Law as it is a Rule of Justice which is in very deed the proper end of the Law and for this sense hee produceth the Testimony of Augustine Anselm and Primasius 4 Mr. Burges brings in three opinions of the Orthodox who In Vindiciae leg is lect 21. ult in p. 120 121. shew how the Law is established by faith But he rejects Mr. Nortons way of establishing as Dr. Willet did and concludes with the judgement of Austine that the Law is established because by the Gospel we obtain grace in some measure to fulfill the Law and in this he agrees with Mr. Wotton and his second Doctrine upon this Text is this That the Doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest and fullest manner doth not overthrow but establish the Law 5 Mr. Blake saith thus Paul foreseeing that this very thing In vindiciae Foederis p. 50. would be charged upon him as it was upon Christ namely that he came to destroy the Law Mat. 5. 17 18. saith Do we make void the Law through faith yea we establish the Law Rom. 3. 31. our Doctrine is a confirmation and no abolition of it and in other words he proceeds to shew that faith doth establish the Law as
it is the Rule of sanctified walking 6 Saith Mr. Ball The Apostle doth not perpetually and abso Ball on the Coven p. 115. lutely oppose the Law and the Covenant of grace for he teacheth expresly that Faith establisheth the Law Rom. 3. 31. for saith he the Apostle understood the force and sentence of the Law to consist in Faith But because the Jews addicted to the letter of the Law did pretermit the force and life of it Paul proves that the Law so taken and separated from Faith to be the cause not of life but of death c. 7 Tindal saith Faith onely justifieth maketh righteous and In Tindals works fol. 41. fulfilleth the Law for it bringeth the Spirit through Christs deservings The Spirit bringeth lust looseth the heart maketh him free and giveth him strength to work the deeds of the Law with love even as the Law requireth then at last out of the same Faith springeth all good works of their own accord and that meaneth he in Rom. 3. 31. for after he had cast away the works of the Law his speech sounded as though he would break and disanul the Law through Faith But to that he answereth We destroy not the Law through Faith but maintain furâ—her and stablish the Law that is to say we fulfill the Law through Faith Rom. 3. 31. and this Exposition he gives also in sol 46. and in other places 8 Dr. Barns doth thus dispute with the Popish Bishops Then saith he came your overthwart Fathers and said to Paul thou Dr. Barns printed with Tindals works fol. 238. destroyest the Law and teachest that it justifieth not God forbid saith Paul we teach that the very way to fulfil the Law is Faith and without which all the works of the Law be but sin I could adde more Orthodox writers to this sense but because these that I have cited are no Babes in Divinity therefore I beleeve they will satisfie the judicious Reader of the true sense and that Mr. Nortons Exposition is a forced and erroneous Exposition From all the premises therefore I may well conclude That Mr. Norton hath not nor cannot infer a concluding Argument from Rom. 3. 31. to prove that Christ fulfilled the Law by suffering the essentiall punishment of the curse and therefore his ground-work of censuring the Dialogue of Heresie from this text may justly be returned upon his own head And now let the Judicious Reader judge betwixt us CHAP. IX His Answer to the point of Christs satisfaction as it is stated in the Dialogue Examined The sum of his Answer is drawn up into this Argument in p. 17. and it may be called his ninth Argument Such meritorious Mediatorly obedience aâ— indebteth God in point of justice to remit thâ— just punishment of sin without any violation of justice nay with the establishment of justice must needs be done in such a way of satisfaction unto justice as includes a suffering of justice But the meritorious Mediatorly obedience of Christ is such a meritorious medatorly obedience whereby God is indebted in point of justice to remit the just punishment of sin 1 Joh. 1. 9. without the violation of Justice Rom. 3. 26. Yea with the establishing of Justice Therefore the meritorious Mediatorly obedience of Christ was performed in such away of satisfaction unto Justice as includes also a suffering of Justice Reply IF I had met with this Argument in another Book wherein I had not been concerned I should have thought it but a silly Argument for neither the major minor nor Conclusion are without their saults 1 The Conclusion is faulty because it comes not up in terminis to what should be concluded and proved For the point of difference as it is stated by Mr. Norton but five lines before this Syllogism speaks thus You know that we affirm and defend that Christ suffered the wrath of God and that in a way of satisfaction unto divine Justice But in this Conclusion of his Syllogism there is never a word of Christs suffering the wrath of God But bad he made his Conclusion so the Scriptures cited in the minor will not bear up such a Conclusion 2 His major is unsound for God may be indebted by the meritorious mediatorly obedience of Christ in point of justice The ground of satisfaction to Gods Justice ariseth from the condisions of the voluntary Covenant to remâ—t the just punishment of sin without any violation of Justice nay with the establishing of Justice and yet there is no necâ—ssity it should be done in such a way of satisfaction unto Justice as includes such a suffering of Justice as must be executed upon him from the vindicative wrath of God as he affirms from Gen. 2. 17. And the reason is so plain that he that runs may read it Namely because the ground of satisfaction to Justice ariseth not from the sufferings themselves as they were threatned to the sinner for his disobedience to the first Covenant but from the conditions of the voluntary Covenant wherein all the Trinity were equally Covenanters and all the Articles of that Covenant were positive Laws unto which as a voluntary Mediator he yeelded obedience as I have shewed in chap. 2. The Father propounded his Terms to the second person and the second person covenanted to do what he thought fit to accept and perform and the performance of that was accepted by the Father as fully satisfactory to his justice as payment in kind could have been He that doth voluntarily undertake to perform a combate Obedience performed to the Articles of a voluntary Covenant doth merit the prize with his opposite Champion in order to the voluntary Laws and Covenants that were made for the triall of Masteries if he did strive and overcome his opposite Champion according to those Laws did merit the prize by vortue of that free Covenant and free performance suppose it were for the redemption of Captives that he had deserved death Justice according to Covenant was as fully satisfied by this performance as if the Delinquent or the voluntary Surety in his place had suffered full punishment in kind Again take another instance of a voluntary Covenant a Pepper corn paid by a Tenant to his Landlord according to the conditions of a voluntary Covenant is current pay and satisfaction also though not under the notion of a valuable consideration yet under the notion of a voluntary bargain and Covenant mutually agreed to by both parties These instances shew that the ground of satisfaction to justice may arise as well from the voluntary cause as from the order of natural causes I hope none is so weak as to think that by this last instance I value Christs satisfaction to a pepper corn for his death and sacrifice was of infinite value in it self because it proceeded form his person that was infinite But it was therefore satisfactory because it was â—ade satisfactory by the conditions of a voluntary Covenant and indeed nothing
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
just in making satisfaction according to Covenant in the exact time foretold for man◠redemption so God upon that performance covenanted to declare his Justice at this time to all beleevers in all the Nations of the world that he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus by forgiving their sins and not remembring their iniquities Heb. 8 12. See Ains also in Psal 25. 11. and therefore Christ did now send abroad his Apostles to beseech men to be reconciled to God 2 Cor. 5. 20. Secondly I find that Dr. Hamon and others doth thus paraphrase upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just in Mat. 1. 19. Joseph being a just man that is saith he being a merciful pious man was not willing to expose or subject Mary to the publick and shameful punishment which among the Jews belonged to those women whom the Husbands when they first came to them found not to bee Virgins was willing secretly to dismis her that she not being known to be betrothed to him might only be liable to the punishment of Fornication viz. infamy not death And in his Annotations he saith thus The word Just in Greek is answerable to the Hebrew and signifies ordinarily works of Mercy and Charity of which when Maymonides sets down seven sorts or degrees the seventh is distinctly Righteousness or Justice and so Justice in Deut. 24. 13. both according to the context and the 70 is Mercy So when Rabbins say There are two Thrones the one of Judgement and the other of Mercy the latter is so stiled by the Author to the Hebrews Chap. 4. 16. and so Psal 112. 9. he hath given to the poor and his righteousness i. e. his bounty to the poor So Isa 58. 7 8. and Mat. 6. 1. where the vulgar reading is justitiam and that for almes in that place Proportionable to these acceptions of the word saith he the righteousness of Joseph shall here signifie not strict legal Justice but peculiarly Goodness and Clemency in not bringing Mary to the capital punishment of stoning for her being with child according to the I aw in Deut. 22. but he thought to put her away privately and so to keep the betrothing private that so she might suffer no more but infamy for Fornication In this point of clemency is Josephs justice commendable But on Rom. 3. 26. he saith thus The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just signifieth one that is merciful or charitable as hath been shewed on Mat. 1. 19. And accordingly it may be observed that the word seldom in these books of the New Testament if ever belongs or is applied to the act of vindicative Justice But as there in the case of Joseph who would not offer his wife to legal punishment and therefore is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 righteous for the abating of the rigor of exact Law and bringing in moderation or equity or mercy instead of it Accordingly saith he it is here to be resolved That this phrase being used of God That God may be just or righteous it must be understood to denote his mercy and goodness and clemency in pardoning and forgiving sins that being the thing looked on in the many foregoing expressions as our being justified freely by his grace in ver 24. The propitiatory ver 25. Gods righteousness I. e. his mercifull dealing with men under the second Covenant Verse 25 26. the remission of sins and forbearance Verse 25. And saith he the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just or righteous being so commonly taken in the notion of mercifulness and so seldom in this of vindicative Justice there is no reason to interpret it thus in this place Though this of Dr. Hamon do not fully accord to my former interpretation of Gods righteousness yet his reasons are very solid to shew that Gods Justice here is not to be taken as Mr. Norton doth for vindicative Justice Fourthly It is observable that as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just is often put for one that is pious and merciful So the 70 put one that is pious for Tzedec justice in Isa 24. 16. and so also the Hebrew word Chesed mercy is put for one that is pious and just and therefore the Seventy do often render it justice as in Gen. 19. 19. Gen. 20. 13. 21. 23. 24. 27. and in 49 see Ains 32. 10. Exod. 15. 13. 34. 7. Prov. 20. 28. Isa 63. 7. And the reason is plain because Justice moderated is Mercy And to this purpose also do our larger Annotations speak on Psal 22. 31. And saith Mr. Ball on the Covenant p. 21. The demonstration of Gods revenging Justice springeth not from the necessity of his nature but from his voluntary disposition By these particulars I beleeve it will be evident to the Judicious that none of all the three Scriptures which Mr. Norton hath cited to prove his Assumption do prove it namely that Christ did satissie Gods Justice by suffering his vindicative Justice And therefore the point of satisfaction as it is stated in the Dialogue is sound and good still notwithstanding all that Mr. Norton hath said or can say against it SECT 2. Mr. Nortons Answer to the several Scriptures cited by the Dialogue to prove the question stated Examined The Dialogue saith thus in p. 2. Though I say that Christ did not suffer his Fathers wrath neither in whole or in party yet I affirm that he suffered all things in all circumstances just according to the Predictions of all the Prophets even to the nodding of the head and the spitting in the face as these Scriptures do testifie 1. Peter told the Jews That they bad killed the Prince of life as God before bad shewed by the mouth of all his Prophets that Christ should suffer and he fulfilled it So Act. 3. 17 18. Mr. Norton doth Answer thus This may include saith he but certainly excludes not the suffering of the wrath of God Reply 1. He should have shewed that this Scripture did certainly include that Christ did suffer from Gods wrath especially seeing it is cited for a proof of the Question stated but I have often shewed that God hath shewed from all his Prophets from Gen. 3. 15. that God appointed Satan to set all his Instruments on work to persecute Christ and to peirce him in the foot-foals with an ignominious and painful death as a Malefactor on the Cross to try if he could pervert him in the course of his obedience and so to hinder Christs death from being a perfect sacrifice by which means onely the Devils head-plot must be broken The second Scripture cited in the Dialogue is in Mat. 16. 21. Christ told his Disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things of the Elders and Chief Priests and Scribes and be killed and raised again the third day Mr. Norton Answers thus True Yet saith he Matthew doth there shew that he must not suffer the Wrath of God
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
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
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
that Gretins held the obligation to legal punishments to arise from merit and that merit is personal Secondly It is further evident that Grotius did oppose Mr. Nortons kind of imputation because hee doth oppose the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the formal cause of our justification for thus hee saith The righteousnesse Grotius in his Appendix to God and his Providence p. 8â— 96. and in his War Peace part 1. ch 36. which they call imputative the meer devices of men are thrust upon us instead of divine Dictates And saith hee in his War and Peace The death of Christ was not determined by any Law but by a special Convenant But Mr. Norton holds that both the Incarnation and the Death of Christ was legal obedience quâ—te contrary to Grotius These things considered I cannot but stand and wonder what Mr. Norton will now say to Grotius surely if he will still hold to Grotius then hee must first renounce his own Tenents for Grotius doth fully overthrow both Mr. Nortons comparative Arguments cited in the beginning of this Chapter 7 Hence also it followeth that the imputation of our sins to Christ as it is asserted by Mr. Norton is a Doctrine out of late The imputation of our sinâ— to Châ—ist as is asserteâ— by Mr. Noâ—ton is a doctrine but of late dayes dayes though now it is grown some what common for as it is affirmed by Mr. Wotton it was not known in the dayes of the Ancient Fathers and the Discourse from Grotius formerly cited assirms as much But I will leave the Judicious to inquire further both into the antiquity and verity of it that so the truth may be preserved to succeeding generations 8 The Dialogue doth reason thus If you say that God made Christ to hee sin for us by imputing our sins to him Then from the same kind of phrase you must also say that Christ made himself sin by imputing the guilt of all our sins to himself for I saiah doth tell us that hee for made or put himself to bee Asham a Guilt or a Trespasse foâ— us so the Hebrew Text doth speak in Isa 53. 10. or as the Septuagint translate it He made himself to be sin for us and therefore it follows by the like consequence from this phrase that hee must in like sort in a judicial way inflict upon himself all the curses of the Law that are due to our sins and trespasses To this comparative Argument drawn from the likenesse of the phrase Mr. Norton doth thus answer in page 55. God charged Christ with sin as the supreme Lawgiver and judge Christ accepts the charge of a Surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of justice which is the part of a Surety but doth not execute that justice which is the part of a Judge Reply 7. And why doth not Christ execute that vindicative justice upon himself that is the part of a supreme Judge Christ did impute our sins to himself to make himself a guâ—lâ—y sinner as much as evâ—r hâ—s Father diâ— as well as his Father seeing hee doth impute our sins to himself by the same phrase cited as much as the Father doth But the judicious Reader may soon see that Mr. Nortons answer is but an evasion to the Dialogues Argument For the Dialogue in the margent saith thus Christ did impute all our sins and trespasses to himself as much as ever the Father did for Isaiah doth tell us That he set or put himself to be Ashem a Trespasse or a guilt for us or to be sin for us as the Septuagint render it and hence the Dialogue doth make this comparative Argument If God made Christ to bee sin for us by imputing all our sins and trespasses to him as the obligation to his suffering of our curse from Gods vindicative wrath then from the same kind of phrase it doth necessarily follow that Christ made himself to be Asham a Trespasse a guilt or sin by his legal imputing of our sins to himself and so by the same rule of Court-justice hee must likewise in a judicial way inflict the essential torments of Hell upon himself from his vindicative wrath Mr. Norton makes no answer to this Argument but instead thereof hee saith That Christ accepts the charge as a Surety but did not execute that justice which is the part of a Judge but any man may see that by the force of the Argument in the Dialogue that Christ must impute sin to himself and inflict the curse as much as his Father or in case an answer can bee found to excuse Christ from this vindicative act of justice then the same answer will excuse the Father from the said legal imputation of our sins and from his vindicative act of justice also But if this phrase God made him to be sin doth argue that God made Christ a guilty sinner by his imputation then this phrase Christ made himself to be sin will argue that Christ made himself to be a guilty sinner by his own imputation and then hee must execute as a supreme Judge his own vindicative wrath upon himself as well as the Father This absurd consequence saith the Dialogue you cannot avoid And thus saith the Dialogue by this kind of arguing you make Christ to be his own self Accuser and his own self Executioner But the truth is saith the Dialogue Christ did no otherwise make himself to be a Trespasse a a guilt or sin but as hee made himself to be a Trespasse-offering and a Sin-offering by which offering once for all he ended Trespasse offerings and finished Sin offerings and thereby made Reconciliation for iniquity or reconciled God to beleeving sianers and so brought in or proâ—uâ—â—d an eternal Righteousnesse instead of the Ceremonial sanctifications or justifications which served to the purifying of the flesh Dan. 9. 29. SECT IV. I Find also that other eminent Divines do agree with Mr. Wotton and with the Ancient Divines afore cited touching the manner how Christ was made sin for us 1 That blessed Martyr Tindal saith That in Exod. 29. and See Tindals Works in p. 449. and Frith in p. 131. in Lev. 8. and almost every where saith he The Beast offered for sin is called Sin which use of speaking saith hee Paul useth in Rom. 8 3. and in 2 Cor. 5. 21. he calleth Christ Sin when Christ is neither sin nor sinful but an acceptable sacrifice for sin and yet saith he he is called our sin because he bare our sins on his back and because our sins are consumed and made no sins through him If wee forsake our sins and beleeve in Christ for the remission thereof And saith he on Rom. 8. 3. Sin is taken for a Sin-offering after the use of the Hebrew tongue And saith hee in page 160. Christ is no sinner but a satisfaction and an offering for sin And saith hee in page 439. Consider and mark how the Kid or Lamb must bee without spot or blemish
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
neglected this point of justice but because the visible curse of his sin was thus eminently put upon him by the Magistrates by hanging up his dead body on a tree that he might be the Spectacle thereof as long as the Sun gave any light The Judges were admonished not to turn Justice into cruelty by letting his dead body to continue hanging upon the tree all night but in any wise to bury him that day namely before that natural day was ended which ended at midnight as I have shewed in my Treatise of Holy Time and the reason is added Because he that is hanged the curse of God namely because he that is hanged hath born the visible curse and thereby hath averted the curse of God which else would certainly have been poured out upon the land in case this malefactor had been suffered to live still in his sin and so justice being satisfied he must be buried out of sight that day And hence it follows that he was called the curse of God The true reason why he that was hanged must be buried the same day was because his stoning to death and his hanging on a tree afterwards bad appeased Gods anger and so removed the curse from the Land after that Gods justice was satisfied by the figure Metonymia as the sacrifice that was ordained to attone God for sin was called sin So then the true reason why the Judges were admonished not to let his carkass that was hanged continue hanging all night but to bury him the same day to cover and hide his carkass in the earth from further publick shame and ignominy because he had already satisfied Justice by hanging on a tree to be gazed on as long as the day light made him a spectacle which at some time of the year might be till it was near midnight where the natural day endeth So then the defect or want in the Hebrew Text may be supplied by any word or words that do explain the true sense as well as by is As thus thou shalt in any wise bury him the same day for he that is hanged to be gazed on as long as the day gives light to be gazed on hath appeased God and born the curse from the land and thereby he hath made attonement for the curse and so procured Gods favor to the Land And it is most evident by three remarkable examples that the execution of the visible curse upon such malefactors did procure attonement to the land First The Lord himself commanded Moses to take the chief Ring-leaders of them that had coupled them to Baal Peor and to hang them up before the Lord against the Sun Numb 25. 4. Numb 25. 4. 1 It must be done before the Lord namely openly by the publick Judges for God is still with them in the cause and judgement 2 Chron. 19. 6. Deut. 17. 1. Psa 82. 1. 2 It must be done against the Sun namely in the open view of all persons as long as the Sun did give any light upon the face of the earth and because Phineas did execute judgement upon some of the chief of these sinners therefore in ver 13. he is said to make aâ—tonement for Israel Secondly David commanded the seven sons of Saul to be hanged up before the Lord 2 Sam. 21. 9. namely by the sentence of justice but the Gibeonites said to David in v 6. We will hang them up to 2 Sam. 21. 9. the Lord namely to appease his fierce anger against the land and in that respect their hanging is said in ver 3. to make attonement and to this sense the Chalde paraphrase doth render the sense of Deu. 21. 23. for because he sinned before the Lord he is hanged namely to appease his wrath And all that are hanged before the Lord that is to say openly by the sentence of these Judges are said also to be hanged up to the Lord to appease his wrath and so both phrases do demonstrate the same thing and thus to do Justice and Judgement upon sinners is more acceptable to the Lord to attone his wrath than sacrifice Pro. 21. 3. Thirdly Achan was a cursed person in his death though his dead body was not hanged but burnt with fire because he had sinned in the cursed thing namely in the consecrated gold which God had cursed to any that did purloin it and therefore God said unto Joshua I will be with you no more except yee destroy that cursed person Josh 7. 12. For Israel hath transgressed the Covenant which I commanded them ver 11. But why doth he say that Israel transgressed seeing Achan alone sinned in a secret manner The Answer is Because it was Gods will to make such a supream voluntary Law and Covenant with all Israel that if but one man sinned in the excommunicate thing it should involve all Israel under the curse Josh 6. 18. untill they had purged themselves by the use of means to find out the transgressor but as soon as they had found out the transgressor and had executed Justice and buried his burnt body under a heap of stones the Lord was appeased to the people and turned from his fierce wrath Josh 7. 25 26. and so the Camp was cleansed Hence I do once more conclude that the onely true reason why he that was hanged must be buried the same day was not because else the Land would be ceremonially defiled as Mr. Norton doth argue but because one days open hanging on a tree as long as the light did last to be gazed on did satisfie Gods Justice and pacifie his wrath and therefore the Judges are admonished not to let his body hang all night but in any case to bury him the same day because he that is thus hanged hath born the curse that else would have fallen on the land and the Jews say That as soon as a Malefactor had satisfied justice by his See Trap on Gal. 3. 13. death then the tree whereon he was hanged the sword stone or napkin wherewith such a one was executed must be buried with them that no evill memorial of them might remain to say this was the tree sword stone or napkin wherewith such a one was executed But still this must bee remembred that in some extraordinary cases God permitted the Magistrates to let some notorious Malefactors to hang on a Tree not only for one day but also for many dayes together and yet the land was not defiled but cleansed thereby of which see more in n. 8. 6 Having now finished the former reason why the person hanged must be buried the same day namely because in the ordinary course of justice one dayes hanging on a tree did satisfie Gods justice and so remove the curse from the land as it is expressed in this sentence He that is hanged hath born the curse of God And at the end of this sentence the Geneva and Tindal have made a full stop and the other Translations have made a colon or
a half stop for the time of his burial Then Moses proceeds in the next sentence to finish his former exhortation to the Judges in verse 22. That thy land be not defiled which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit the Context verse 22. lies thus If there be in thee a man namely any other man besides the Rebellious Son in verse 18. that hath committed a sin worthy of death namely by stoning thou shalt stone him to death and then if thou see cause thou shalt hang up his dead body on a tree that thy land bee not defiled by suffering such notorious moral sins and sinners to go unpunished This is the only true reason according to the Context why the Judges are exhorted to execute exemplary justice on such The whole land might be defiled by the Judges neglect in suffering notorious Malefactors to go unpunished notorious moral sinners namely that the land by their neglect of justice be not defiled for the Judges were the whole land Representatively as I have shewed more at large in the Jews Synagogues Discipline And it is evident not only by the Context that this was the true mind and meaning of Moses in his exhortation to the Judges not to defile the land by pretermitting the execution of exemplary justice on such notorious Malefactors but also it is further evident by comparing his exhortation here with the like exhortations to the Judges to cleanse the land from moral defilements by executing of exact justice against such moral sinners which else would defile the whole land yea or any other land as well as the land of Canaan in case the Magistrates thereof did neglect to execute impartial justice and to tollerate moral sinners See Lev. 18 24 25 27 28. Num. 35. 31 32 33. Psal 106. 38. Ezra 9. 11. Jer. 3. 1 2 9. Jer. 16. 18. Ezek. 36. 17. Psal 24. 5. c. But it came to pass that when Phineas by his extraordinary zeal did execute justice upon some of the most notorious Malefactors in Num. 25. that the plague was stayed and then the land was cleansed for by this act of justice though he was no Magistrate yet being stirred up of God in an extraordinary way to execute the office of a Magistrate hee is said to make Attonement or to reconcile God to the whole land Num. 25. 23. See Ainsworth also in Num. 35. 33 39. These and such like instances do evidence that the Judges as they were the Representatives of the whole land might defile the whole land and make them guilty of Gods curse due to such notorious moral sinners in case they did connive at them and not execute impartial justice upon them And this is the scope of Moses exhortation to the Judges not to defile the land and not as Mr. Norton makes the exhortation to bee to bury the body before Sun-set that the land bee not defiled On the contrary when the Judges were careful to execute exemplary justice on such notorious Malefactors they are said to cleanse the land from the objects of Gods wrath and to make Attonement for the Land O that this Exhortation of Moses might fit fast in the conscience of all Magistrates both supreme and inferiour to execute impartial justice against moral sinners that so they may cleanse the land of the Objects of Gods wrath and that the land by their neglect might not be defiled And O that people would rightly use their liberty when they have any hand in the choice of Magistrates to chuse such as fear God and hate sin 7 It is most evident that the whole Land was never defiled by any one transgression against the Ceremonial Law I wonder The whole land was never defiled by any one ceremonial sin therefore at Mr. Nortons unadvisedness in making the person hanged on a tree to defile the whole Land in case hee was not buried before Sun-set I grant that he or any other might bee deceived in their judgement by following the translation of Deut. 21. 23. according to the corrupt Edition as I have shewed before but the right translation as it was in the first Editions will not afford any such Tenent if the Context be well weighed 2 I grant that a great part of the people might bee ceremonially defiled yea at sometime the greatest part but not by any one transgression of the Ceremonial Law but by sundry kinds of Ceremonial sins as Ains sheweth in Num. 9. 12. 3 Suppose it could be proved which cannot be that the whole land might be ceremonially defiled by some one person or by some one act then I hope it will also follow by a necessary consequence that God had ordained and provided some instituted way for the ceremonial cleansing of the whole land as well as for particular persons and places for doubtlesse God would not bee wanting in some instituted way of cleansing for all sorts of ceremonial defilements But I cannot find any such instituted Ordinance for the cleansing of the whole land for any one ceremonial defilement neither can I find any one ceremonial defilement greater than that which happened by the touch of a dead person for hee that touched a dead person though hee dyed in his bed yea though hee were truly godly in his life time was as much defiled by the ceremonial Law as he that touched the most notorious Malefactor after he was hanged on a tree and he that touched any dead person in the day time was as much defiled by the sentence of the Ceremonial Law as hee that touched a dead Malefactor in the night time after Sun-set and hee that touched but the limb of a dead child was as much defiled as he that touched a whole dead child all that touched the dead though never so many were all alike defiled in the highest degree of ceremonial uncleanness untill they had cleamed themselves according to the instituted way of cleansing in Num. 19. 11 15 16 c. It is a vain conceit to think that the whole land might be defiled ceremonially by permitting the person hanged to hang on the tree after Sun-set the whole land could not be defiled therby unless every person in the land did come one by one to touch his dead carkass which is absurd to think they would do and yet it must be done in case Mr. Norton do prove that the whole land was defiled by the Malefactors carkass unburied after Sun-set And by this it appears that his knowledge in the Ceremonial Laws is very short of what it ought to be or else he would never have broached this fiction 8 It is evident that the hanging of a Malefactor on a tree after Sun-set did not defile the land ceremonially see also n. 2. for David according to the desire of the Gibeonites which was ordered doubtless according to Gods special positive direction commanded that seven of Sauls sons should be given to them to be hanged on a tree and to continue hanging so long as until
God should manifest himself to be attoned and reconciled to the Land by sending rain to remove the present famine for there was a famine in the dayes of David three years together And David inquired of the Lord and the Lord answered It is for Saul and for his bloody house because he slew the Gibeonites 2 Sam. 21. 1. therefore David said to the Gibeonites in verse 3. What shall I do for you and wherewith shall I make the Attonement that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord They answered to the King in verse 5. doubtless by some special voluntary positive command from God Let seven of his sons be delivered to us and we will hang them up unto the Lord namely to appease the Lords wrath that was so justly provoked by Sauls sin against the whole land for Saul was the Representative of the whole land and therefore he ought to have protected and not killed the innocent Gibeonites as he had done out of his furious zeal by which notorious moral sin of his he defiled the whole land But by the hanging of his seven sons on a tree for many dayes together the land was cleansed from the guilt of Sauls moral sin and not defiled ceremonially if it had been defiled ceremonially by their hanging on the tree after Sun-set then doubtless it would have been recorded in what manner the Land was cleansed again but no such cleansing is recorded therefore no such ceremonial defilement did fall upon the land by their hanging many days after sun-set I grant that this act of Justice in hanging seven of Sauls sons for his sin was done by Gods special direction and by his supreme positive command and not by the written Law of God for no personal crimes were laid to the charge of these seven sons of Saul by the Judicial Laws of Moses and therefore except some crime against the Law of Moses had been legally proved against them they could not by the justice of Moses revealed Laws have been put to death much less could they have been hanged on seven trees for their fathers sin whereof they might be innocent Conclusion 1 Hence it doth necessarily follow That God hath not revealed in the Scriptures all the rules of his Relative Justice but he The rule of Gods Relative Justice is his secret will as well as his revealed will Seâ— cha 2. at Reply to the 5. Prop and in P. Martyr on Rom. p 251. and see Rutherford on the Covenant p. 26. c doth still keep a power of Relative Justice in his own hands according to the counsel of his own Will as it is evident by this act of Gods special Justice done upon the seven sons of Saul that happily were innocent in the point of Sauls furious slaughter of the Gibeonites Goubtless God gave some special supreme voluntary positive command both to David and to the Gibeonites touching the hanging of the seven sons of Saul and after the same manner he gave a special positive command to Abraham to kill his Son for a Sacrifice or else it had been an extream wickedness and gross disobedience to Gods moral Law to kill his Son and the like wickedness it would have been in David and in the Gibeonites to hang up these seven Sons of Saul without a special positive command from God I shall not with some saith Mr. Rutherford in Christs dying p. 139. at Asser 3. affirm that which in the general is true a will contrary to Gods revealed command and will called voluntas signi which is our moral rule to oblige us is a sin but a will contrary to Gods decree called voluntas bene placiti which is not our Rule obliging except the Lord be pleased to impose it on us as a moral Law is a sin Secondly Hence it follows that the Law of burying the person hanged the same day was in relation to the ordinary course of Justice Thirdly Hence it follows that in some extraordinary cases the supreme Judges had power to increase the length of time in hanging on a tree At for example David commanded that the hands and feet of Recbab and Banab should be hanged up for many daies together now by the Levitical Law every member of a dead body did defile as much as the whole body See Ainsw in Numb 19. 11. And therefore David knew that their hanging many days on a tree would not defile the land ceremonially but that it would cleanse it from their morall defilement 2 Sam. 4. 11 12. See also our larger Annotations on ver 12. From these sundry considerations it is evident That Mr. Nortons typical sense of Dan. 21. 23 on which he doth build all his Arguments doth fail him and therefore all his Arguments do prove no better but groundless falacies or to use his own language he doth but put an abominable inference upon the Apostles and upon the Spirit of God speaking by him The sum of what I have said in the two former Sections may be drawn up into this Argument That Act of Justice which doth cleanse the Land from morall defilements cannot be said to defile the Land ceremonially But the hanging of malefactors on a tree by an act of Justice till after sun-set doth cleanse the land Therefore that act of Justice in letting such malefactors hang till after sun-set doth not defile the Land ceremonially SECT III. BUt Mr. Norton doth still labor to prove that the curse of hanging on a tree did typifie that Christ did bear the moral curse on the cross for our redemption For saith he in p. 95. There were malefactors hanged before the giving of this Law of Deut. 21. 23. Yet we read not that they were accursed during the space between the giving of this Law and the passion of Christ a malefactor hanged out of Judea was not accursed In Judea no person how great a malefactor soever if not hanged was thus accursed The person hanged was equally accursed whether he was hanged alive or dead whether he was hanged after this manner or after that Jewish or Roman whether his crime were more hainous or not so hainous yea for ought appeareth though he were innocent yet if hanged judicially he was accursed since the passion of Christ hanging in Judea is not ceremonially accursed Reply 8. Some of these unsound notions I find in Weams third Volume on Dan. 21. and also in his four Degenerations 327. where he pleads to little purpose for the typical sense as Mr. Norton doth But from all Mr. Nortons imaginary notions heaped up together what is the inference but this That the curse in Deut. 21. 23. did typifie that Christ was to redeem us from the curse of the Law by bearing the moral curse in our stead on the cross But I have sufficiently shewed already that this inference is builded but upon false premises and therefore all the Arguments used to prove it do vanish to nothing Secondly But if his inference had been no more but this
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
his death Reply 20. The Dialogue shews plainly that the approach of his ignominious and painful death by his Combater Satan was the main cause of his exceeding natural fear and so consequently of his Agony But Secondly in order to overcome that fear the Dialogue doth make his godly fear in his rational soul by putting up strong prayers with cryes and tears for the overcoming of his natural fear to be another ground that did increase his violent sweat in his Agony And thirdly I makes his pious care to perform all the sufferings that were written of him in exact obedience in all circumstances to the Laws of the Combate without any diversion by Satans provocations to bee another circumstance that did aggravate his zeal in his prayers and so it was a helping cause to increase his sweat in his Agony But mark this the Dialogue doth still make his natural fear of death to be the foundation of all this and therefore I know no just cause given why Mr. Norton should say That my words are a secret acknowledgement that his fear of a natural death was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows before his death Natural death is the punishment of original sin but Christs humane nature was not by that justice subjected to death 2 I cannot chuse but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often charge the Dialogue to speak of Christs natural death only seeing the Dialogue doth shun that word as altogether unfit to express the formality of his death as I have shewed at Reply 5. This is a plain evidence That Mr. Norton doth not understand the drift of the Dialogue about the true nature of Christs death natural death is that bodily death which was by Gods positive justice inflicted on fallen Adam as the punishment of original sin in Gen. 3. 19. which is now natural to us this is a true description of natural death But Christs humane nature was not made subject to death by the curse of that supreme positive Law because he was free from orginal sin and so free from the curse of that Law for sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. But by another positive Law and Covenant wherein hee was an equal and reciprocal Covenanter Mr. Norton having gone astray in his first foundation-proposition he strayes further and further from the true nature of Christs death and sacrifice first he saith That all the curses of the Law are heaped together and laid upon Christ And then in page 83. and in divers other places hee strayes further and further till hee make the death of Christ in the formality of it to be his subjection to that cursed bodily death that was inflicted on fallen Adam for their original sin in Gen. 3. 19. But I hope I have sufficiently shewed in Reply 3. and 5. a little before and elsewhere That the death of Christ was not a natural death but a death of Covenant only or else it could not have been a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement to the Elect which no other mans natural death in the world is besides And therefore the Dialogue doth rightly argue in page 6. that the death of Christ is not included in that cursed death that was threatned to fallen Adam in Gen. 3. 19. But it was declared to be of another nature and exemplified to Adam by the death of some Lamb offered in sacrifice for the breaking of the Devils Head-plot four verses before namely in Gen. 3. 15. 3 It is evident to all men that his earnest prayers did increase Ains doth make the earnest prayeâ—s of Christ to be a part of his Aâ—ony his sweat in his Agony by the very words of the Text in Luke 22. 44. And saith Ainsworth upon the word Incense beaten small in Lev. 16. 12. It figured the Agony of Christ in his prayers before his deaâ—h which hee offered up with strong crying and tears Luke 22. 44 Heb. 5. 7. And saith Trap in Mat. 26. 36. our Saviour prayed himself into an Agony to teach us to strive in prayer even to an Agony as the word signifieth in Col. 4. 12. for earnest prayer is an earnest striving or wrastling it out with God Rom. 15. 30. And so Jacob wrastled both bodily and spiritually with Christ for a blessing Gen. 32. 24. Heb. 12. 3 4. Rom. 15. 30. Deut. 9. 14. Ex. 32. 10. And saith Ains in Gen. 32. 24. Jacob wrestled or combated with Christ and so Rachel wrastled or combated with Leah Gen. 30. 8. And so Christ with excellent wrastling wrastled it out with Satan He fought the good fight and kept to the Rule of obedience in his fears and prayers and such kind of prayers do often cause men to sweat though they have the Spirit but by measure how much more fervent then was Christ in his prayers in his Agony in the Garden which had the Spirit above measure as the Dialogue doth argue it is no marvel then that his prayers which were uttered with strong cryes and tears did increase his sweat in his Agony until it trickled down like as it were great drops of blood Nature it self without the gracious actings of Gods Spirit may strive it self into a sweaty Agony as the Physician that wrote the book de utilitate Respirationis among Gallens Works Attribut Tom. 7. saith It sometimes happeneth that servent spirits do so dilate the pores of the body that blood passeth by them and so the sweat may be bloody Hence I reason thus If a natural man may bee thus fervent in spirits till his sweat may bee bloody then why might not Christ that had his natural fervency increased Also in Reply 24. you may see an example of a bloody sweat caused through the sudden fear of an ignominious death in his prayers by the Spirit above measure provoke a bloody sweat from his body and therefore the reasoning of the Dialogue is sound and good which runs If the natural fear of death and the striving of the Spirit in prayer may cause men to sweat then it might cause our Saviours pure humane nature to sweat much more c. as it follows in the Dialogue 4 Consider how terrible to nature death is at sometimes but at sometimes again not terrible After our Saviour had finished his prayers in the Garden hee said to his Disciples in Matth. Mat. 26. 46. 26. 46. Arise let us be going namely to meet that ignominious death that a little before was so dreadful to my humane nature that it put me into an Agony but now I have obtained a confirmation to my nature against those fears and therefore See Dr. Hall in his Select Thoughts p. 139. now I say unto you Arise let us go meet it Which till he had prayed saith Trap he greatly feared And saith Dr. Hall the fear of death is natural and so far from being evil that it was incident to the Son of God who was heard in
Christ had put forth such a power as this against Satan the odds had been too great and such odds given to Christ could not stand with the wisdom of the supream Covenanters and therefore in Gen. 3. 15. God appointed Christ to take on him the seed of the deceived sinful woman and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan by the well managing and ordering of which nature better than our first parents had done in their innocency he should prevalle against the stratagems of the old Serpent that had the power of death over our first parents and doubtless the Devil made full account to get the like power over the humane nature of Christ as he had done over Adams pure nature and to that end he did not cease to imploy his Instruments to tempt him and often times hee heaped upon him many grievous accusations and sinful imputations and at last he proceeded so far as to apprehend him condemn him and crucifie him as a sinful malefactor But still the deceiver was deceived for indeed Christ was such a wise servant and such a faithful Priest that he circumvented Satan and all his Instruments by his righteousness in managing the combate according to the just laws of the combate for the Devil could not by all his stratagems prevail to make him a Transgressor and therefore he could not prevail to put him to death formally by forcing his vital soul out of his body by all his torments and this is evident because Gods Justice had not ordained any thing else but sin onely to be the sting of death and therefore unless Satan could have so far prevailed as to make him a guilty sinner he could not sting him to death formally but himself was the onely Priest in the formality of his death and therefore when he was in strength of nature he did but say Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and then at that instant he gave up the Ghost and that last act being done according to Covenant gave the formality 1. To his Obedience 2. To his Death 3. To his Sacrifice And 4. To the full price of satisfaction to Gods Justice for mans redemption And thus the seed of the woman conquered Satan broke his first grand Head-plot by his weapon of righteousness and won the prize 5 This is no new upstart doctrine that Christ conquered Satan by righteousness in observing the Laws of the combate and by entering the Lists with the infirmities of his humane nature which was most eminently shewed both in his internal and external agony but this doctrine hath been taught by the antient Divines for 1 Christ was made man saith Damasen that so that which Ortho Fidei l. 3. c. 18. was conquered might conquer God was not unable saith he by his mighty force and power to take man from the Tyrant but then that would have been a cause of complaint to the Tyrant that had conquered man if he had been forced by the power of God therefore God who pittied and loved us willing to make man that was fallen the conqueror of Satan became man restoring the like by the like 2 Gregory saith When Satan took Christs body to In mora ium l 3. c. 11. crucifie it hee lost Christs Elect from the right of his power Ibidem From Gods speech to Satan concerning Iob He is in thy band but save his life he doth thus declare Gods commission to Satan touching Christ Take thou power against his body and loose the right of thy dominion over his Elect 3 Saith Ireneus Christ coupled and united man to God for Iren l. 3. c. 20. if man had not vanquished the enemy of man the enemy had not been justly vanquished 4 Leo saith If the God-head onely should have opposed it De passe Dom. Ser. 5. j self for sinners not so much reason as power should have conquered the Devil Ibidem The son of God therefore admitted wicked hands to be laid upon him and what the rage of persecutors offered he with patient power suffered This saith he was the great mystery of godliness that Christ was even loaden with injuries which if he should have repelled with open power he should have onely exercised his divine strength but not regarded our cause that were men for in all things which the madness of the people and Priests did reproachfully unto him our sins were wiped away and our offences purged as Isa 53. 5. The Devil himself saith he did not understand that his cruelty against Christ should overthrow his Kingdom He should not saith he have lost the right of his fraud if he could but have abstained from the Lords blood but greedy with malice to hurt whiles he rusheth on Christ himself falleth whilst he taketh he is taken and pursuing him that was mortal he lighted on the Saviour of the world And saith he in Ser. 10. Jesus Christ being lifted on the tree returned death on the Author of death Heb. 2 14. and strangled all the principalities and powers that were against him by objecting his flesh that was passable and giving place in himself to the presumption of our antient enemy who raging against mans nature that was subject unto him durst there exact his debt where he could find no a sign of sin therefore the These letters a b c d. do shew that the antient Divines held no such imputation of sin to Christ as Mr. Norton holds general and mortal hand-writing by which we were sold was torn and the contract of our captivity came into the power of the redeemer And saith he in Serm. 12. To destroy the Kingdom of the Devil he rather used the righteousness of Reason than the power of his Might for whilst the Devil raged on him whom he held by no b Law of sin he lost the right of his wicked dominion Hence I infer If the Devil did afflict him by no Law of sin then he was not a sinner by Gods legal imputation 5. Theoderet saith Because thou who receivedst power against De Providen Ser. 10. sinners hast touched my body that am c guilty of no sin forfeit thy power and cease thy Tyranny I will free mine from death not using simply the power of a Lord but a righteous power I have paid the debt of mankind owing no death I have suffered death and not subject to death and did admit death no way d guilty I was reckoned with the guilty and being free from debt I was numbered among the debtors sustaining therefore an unjust death I dissolve the death that is deserved and imprisoned wrongfully I free them from prison that were justly detained Ibidem saith he Let no man think that herein we dally for by the sacred Gospels and Doctrines of the Apostles we are taught that these things are so And saith Leo de passi Dom. Ser. 17. He that came to destroy death and the author of death how should he have saved sinners if he would
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