Page 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 90 137 181 420 428 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 Ch. Vers Page 1 19 20 132 256 2 24 103 181 3 18 184 1 John Ch. Vers Page 1 7 50 259 ib. 9 133 180 Rev. Ch. Vers Page 5 9 12 428 Christs Satisfaction Discussed and Explained CHAP. I. Touching the nature of Christs Satisfaction Mr. Nortons first Proposition is 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 alledged therefore I shall defer my Reply to the particulars to the places where I shall find them repeated with their proofs annexed 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 iâ— Do this and then sealt live Lev. 18. 5. But in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalâ— dye Gen. 2. 17. proceeded with man in a way of Justice 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 then 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 about 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. 2. Gen. 3. 22. and as I have also expounded in my Book of the Institution of the In his descent into Hell p. 163. 172. Sabbath And saith Christopher Carlile where you have this Hebrew word Cajim in the dual Number it signifieth Immortality as Gnets Cajim the Tree of Lives of which saith he if Adam had tasted it would have brought Immortality and so when Neshamah hath Caijm joyned to it it signifies the soul is immortal in Gen. 2. 7. Secondly Though this promise is not altogether so plainly expressed in the Text as the Threatning is yet seeing the Threatning In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye is expressed plainly as the reward of his disobedient eating it follows by consequent saith Mr. Burges that some good thing is promised to obedience And what else say I can that good See Vindiciae legis lect 13. p. 123. Vindiciae Faedcris â— 9. And Mr. Ball on the Covenant p. 6. 8. thing be but the confirmation of his present mutable created perfections by his obedient eating of the Tree of life for in case he had
Bishops that held justification by works doth give the cleer sense of Lev. 18. 5. Dr. Barnes is joyned with Tinda's works p. 218. 240. Rule 293 294. and of Rom. 2. 13. and of Rom. 3. 31. according to the sense of the former his words I omit because they are long 7 Mr. Wilson in his Theological Rules for the right understanding of the Scripture cites this Rule from Luther Precepts saith Luther presuppose faith as where it is written Keep the Commandements that is by Christ or by faith in Christ also Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. that is in Christ or by faith in Christ also Do this and thou shalt live that is do it in Christ and so of the rest of this kind 8 Mr. Trap doth thus expound Lev. 18. 5. As the creature lives by his food so the spiritual life is maintained by an Evangelical keeping of Gods Commandements 9 The true sense of Lev. 18. 5. compared with the Context is this Do this and live is a general command and requires obedience to all the three sorts of Laws in Moses namely to the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws as well as to the Moral Law as the Context doth cleerly evidence by naming all the three sorts of Laws in these three termes Judgements Ordinances and Statutes wherein they were commanded to walk namely in sanctified obedience and then the promise is added Which if a man dâ— he shall live in them Lev. 18. 4 5 26 30. The like Command and Promise is given for their obedience to the judicial Laws Deut. 17. 10 11 19 Deut. 21. 9. and to all their Laws in general Deut. 5. 1 10 31 32. Deut. 6. 1. Deut. 7. 11 12. Deut. 12. 1. 28. Deut 30. 16. Luke 10. 28. And this Command in this form of words is often used to urge them to the observation of the Ceremonial Laws as Deu. 12. 14 32. Do the Feast of Weeks Exod. 34. 22. so it is in the Hebrew Do the Sabbath day Deut. 5. 15. Exod. 31. 16. compared with vers 13 14. Do the Passeover Deut. 16. 1. Mat. 26. 18. Do the Feast of Boothes Deut. 16. 13. Do Sacrifice Exod. 10. 25. 1 King 12. 27. Jer. 33. 18. Do thy Sin That is Do thy Sin-offerings Lev. 9. 7 22. Lev. 16. 9. Exod. 29. 36 39 41 42. But because the carnal Jews looked no further in the doing of all this but to an outward conformity their services were rejected whence it is evident that the Lord commanded the doing of all these things in the obedience of faith and so the Lord did expound his mind and meaning to Cain If thou do well shalt thou not be accepted intimating that well-doing did not consist in an outward form only nor only in the excellent quality of his offerings which he presented but in the qualification of his heart in the manner of his offering Heb. 11. 4. and because he wanted faith with his offering the Apostle concludes that his works were evill because his good sacrifices were done in an evill manner for lack of faith So that Gods Command Do this and live implies do it in faith and live as Christ saith in Matth. 7. 21. he that doth the will of my Father namely that doth it in faith and then the Promise is annexed This is the will of my Father that he which beleeveth in the Son should have life everlasting Joh. 6. 40. and sâ—â—d the Jews to him in vers 28. What shall we do that we may work the works of God Jesus answered This is the work of God that ye beleeve on him whom he hath sent vers 29. The like Question and Answer is in Act. 16. 30 31. and therefore beleeving is commanded in the Law as the chief work 1 Joh. 3. 23. Act. 17. 30. 1 Thes 1. 3. unto which we must give obedience Rom. 1. 5. and there are no good works that can proceed from any that will be accepted of God for good works but from those that are created in Christ Jesus unto good works Eph. 2. 10. Thus far I have made it evident that Lev. 18. 5. is to be undetstood of such a doing of the Law as belongs to the Covenant of grace and therefore it is no proof that the moral Law of nature was the condition of the first Covenant But saith Mr. Norton in his fifth Proposition in page 3. Adams obedience to the moral Law was by Gods free Covenant ordained to merit life by 2 Reply If Mr. Norton had proved as well as affirmed that God Adams obedience to the moral Law of nature was con-natural tohim and therfore it was not ordained to merit life by had ordained the moral Law by his free Covenant to merit life by then he had hit the nail upon the head but his proofs hitherto have failed and I beleeve it is past his skill to give any cleer proof of it True it is saith Mr. Ball page 133. that the promises run upon this condition If ye obey my Voyce and do my Commandements But saith he Conditions are of two sorts Antecedent or Consequent Antecedent when the condition is the cause of the thing promised or given as in all civill Contracts of justice where one thing is given for another The like may be said of the first Covenant made with Adam God by way of free Covenant did condition to confirm him in his created perfections for one act of obedience namely in case he had but first eaten of the Tree of life As I have shewed more at large in Sect. 1. 2 There is a Consequent condition when the condition is annexed to the promise as a qualification in the subject or an adjunct that must attend the thing promised And in this latter sense obedience to the Commandements was a condition to the promise not the cause why the thing promised was vouchsafed but a qualification in the subject capable or a consequent of such great mercy conferred Secondly I do further reply thus That the doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant of works as Mr. Norton affirms 1 Because it speaks only of the manner of obedience in the Covenant of grace 2 It is not the same with the moral Law of nature in respect of duties for the moral Law of nature is not a compleat rule for duties to us without some supply from the Gospel for the Law of nature doth not command us to worship God in Christ as the Decalogue doth the moral Law of nature doth not command us to beleeve to repent and to yeeld subjection to Christ as the Decalogue doth as Mr. Burges hath largely observed in Vindiciae legis neither doth the Law of nature forbid sins against the Gospel as unbeleef impenitency and contempt of grace as the Decalogue doth neither doth the Law of nature command us to sanctifie every seventh day as the Decalogue doth All these things are added by the Covenant
that manner of Gods imputing our sins to Christ surely Rom. 4. can have no respect of agreement to the Argument in hand Therefore it is only cited to prove that the word impute is used in Scripture as if any one that reads the Scripture were ignorant of it but if any please to see the sense of the word Impute in Rom. 4. let them read Mr. Wotton de Reconc peccatoris part 2. l. 1 c. 15. Rom. 4. But saith Mr. Norton in page 25. It is certain that Christ was couched and comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant It is very probable saith he That the Tree of Life was a figure of Christ And saith he If Christ be be not within the compasse of the Text the Text is not true And saith he Elect sinners not dying in their own persons must dye in their Surety or else the Text should not be a truth Reply 5. It hath been sufficiently shewed I think that Christ was not Adams Surety in the first Covenant 2 Neither was Christ revealed to Adam as Mediator as yet Had Mr. Norton but consulted with Mr. Shepherd in his 178. and 133. Thesis on the Sabbath he might have been better advised than to say as he doth that Christ was comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant and that the Tree of Life was a typical figure of Christ if he can find no better Arguments to prove that Christ was our Surety in the first obligation with Adam he must be contented In vindiciae legis lect 14. p 133. 135 136 with his liberty to be fond of his conceited notion 3 Mr. Burges also doth dispute against this Tenent of Mr. Nortons and against such as hold a necessity of Christ to Adam in the time of his innocency 4 Mr. Ball doth oppose it in his Book on the Covenant page 9. 11. 13. 5 Mr. Blake on the Covenant saith thus in page 14. The first Covenant was immediate no Mediator intervening All the blessing of the first Covenant saith he flowed from the Trinity as the creation it self did without respect to Christ incarnate there was no Revelation of that high mystery to man in innocency 6 Mr. Burges saith That all those that hold a necessity of Christ to Adam and Angels must also necessarily maintain that In vindiciae legis 135. though Adam had not fallen Christ would have been Incarnated And this was the opinion of Osiander That Christ had been Incarnate though Adam had not sinned And truly Osiander might as well maintain his opinion as Mr. Norton may That Christ was in the same obligation with Adam as his Surety in the first Covenant he saith That Elect sinners must dye in their Surety or else the Text should not bee a truth had he but said or else I am mistaken and have not given the right sense of the Text then hee had spoken humbly and truly and then I had beleeved him Re. 6 Though hitherto I have denyed that Christ was our bounden Christ was our voluntary Surety but not our bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam Surety in the same obligation with Adam yet this I do also acknowledge that presently after Adams fall he was declared to be Adams voluntary Surety namely to be his free Redeemer For it pleased God to declare the Decree of the eternal Covenant that was agreed on between the Trinity for mans Redemption from Sathans Head-plot in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God by way of Threatning told the Devil in the hearing Gen. 3. 15. of Adam and Eve That the seed of the deceived woman should over-match him at last and should break in peeces his crafty Head-plot and he gave the Devil leave to do his worst to hinder it and for that purpose hee proclamed an utter enmity between them and bid the Devill pierce him in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor on the Crosse to disturb his patience and so to pervert his obedience wherein the root of an acceptable sacrifice doth lye that so his death might not be a sacrifice 2 It is also manifest by the said Declaration that Christ had Covenanted from Eternity to take upon him the seed of the Woman and the sinlesse infirmities of our true humane nature and in that nature and with those infirmities to enter the lists with Sathan and to continue obedient through all his afflictions temptations and trials to the death even to the death of the Crosse Phil. 2. 8 9. 3 It is also manifest by the said Declaration That God the Father had Covenanted that in case Christ did continue obedient through all his sufferings temptations and trials that then his obedience through all his temptations and trials should bee accounted as the upshot of his Priestly Consecration which indeed must be compleatly finished before he might make his soul a sacrifice and it is out of controversie that his sufferings were ordained for the perfecting of his Priestly Consecration by Heb. 2. 10. 17. with Heb. 5. 9. and therefore as soon as ever hee Heb 2. 10. had finished all his sufferings that were written of him He said It is finished Joh. 19. 30. and then as a compleat Consecrated Joh. 19 30. Priest he made his Sacrifice saying Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit and so he bowed his head and gave up the Ghost This last act was properly and formally his Death and Sacrifice and it was properly and formally full satisfaction and this powring out his vital soul and rendring his immortal soul into the hands of God was the act of his Eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. Yea his Death Sacrifice must be done by the joynt concurrence of both his natuesr or else he had not been the Mediator of the New Covenant through death Heb. 9. 15 16. and then the Devils Head-plot had not been broken but because hee continued obedient through all his sufferings on the Crosse and at last made his Sacrifice by his own Priestly power even by the joynt concurrence of both his Natures he hath through that kind of death destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil Heb. 2. 14. and all this was declared unto Adam in Gen. 3. 15. and exemplified in the sacrifice of a Lamb the Law maketh men High-priests which have infirmities Heb. 7. 28. namely sinful infirmities But the word of the Oath to David which was since the Law maketh the Son who is consecrated for evermore namely made perfect by his obedience in all his sufferings and so hee had no sinful infirmity but continues a perfect High-priest for us for evermore But this kind of voluntary Surety doth differ as much from Mr. Nortons bounden Surety in the same Obligation with Adam as a free Redeemer doth differ from a bounden Surety I grant therefore that Christ was our Surety as he was our free Mediator and Redeemer but no otherwise and
his eating prohibited the typical Resemblance that is between Adam and Christ lyes only in some general things as thus Adam was the head of that Covenant which God made with him concerning the nature of all mankind and so Christ was the head of the Covenant of grace which God made with him concerning the Regenerating of the nature of all the Elect Adam by his disobedience merited a corrupt nature to all his posterity and Christ by his obedience even to death merited a sanctified nature to all his elect seed The Reader may fetch the parallel from P. Martyr Dr. Willet and others on Rom. 5. 19. Rom. 5. 19. But what is the inference that Mr. Norton makes namely That Christ is contained within the compasse of this Text. I say it follows not for though there may be a resemblance between the first and second Adam in many other things yet not in all things and therefore in some things Adam was no figure of Christ as for example He was no figure of Christ in bearing the essential Curse And that is the point which Mr. Norton doth aim at in this Text. But saith Mr. Norton in page 25. It is certain though Adam during the first Covenant perceived it not that Christ was couched and comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant It is very probable saith he That the Tree of life in Gen. 2. 9. was a figure of Christ who is called and indeed is the Tree of life Rev. 22. 2. And saith he If Christ be not within the compasse of the Text the Text is not true Reply 4. We may soon lose our selves in this dispute if wee keep not close to the point of the Dialogue in hand which Mr. Norton labors to confute The Dialogue saith this text of Gen. 2. 17. doth not include Christ within the compasse of it as liable to the death there threatned But Mr. Norton cites another text to prove it namely Gen 2. 9. and yet he affirmed that Christ was within the compasse of this text of Gen. 2. 17. namely as the Surety of the Elect and that thereby he was made liable to suffer the death there threatned for saith he Man sins and man dyes by vertue of this Text either in his own person or in the Man Christ Jesus But how doth all this that Mr. Norton hath said suit to the point in hand and how doth it tend to disprove what the Dialogue affirms 1 Saith he It is certain that Christ was couched in this Text but in his proof he only saith It is very probable that the Tree of life c. in his Proposition he affirmeth It is certain but in his proof he saith It is no more but probable But let his words be a little further examined Where is Christ couched 1 One while he tells us That he is couched and intended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant 2 Another while he tells us That it is probable that the Tree of life in Gen. 2. 9. was a figure of Christ 3 Another time he saith That Christ must be within the compasse of this Text of Gen. 2. 17. or else the Text is not true All these three considerations laid together do prove that Christ is contained somewhere or no where in some Text or in no Text. And now let the judicious Reader judge what his Proposition and his Proof doth amount to 2 Examine his Discourse a little further The Dialogue affirmeth that Christ falls not within the compasse of this Text in Gen. 2. 17. The Dialogue doth not meddle whether Christ was couched in any other Text. 2 The Dialogue denies that Christ was not within this text as liable to the death there threatned Now then let it bee supposed that Mr. Norton could produce some other text during the first Covenant wherein Christ was included or prefigured Suppose the Tree of life was a figure of him though it be denied both by Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Burges and others as I have noted in Chap. 2. yet except he can prove that Christ was comprehended in this text and that hee was thereby liable to the death there threatned he doth but labor to no purpose 3 Examine his arguing a little further The Dialogue contends that Christ is not contained in the word Thou Thou shalt surely dye Thou Adam in thine own person and thou Adam in thy Posterity saith the Dialogue But not thou in thy Surety shalt dye The word Thou shalt dye intends no more but the person or persons with whom the first Covenant was made But let us consider the Argument that doth arise from Mr. Nortons own words And it may be framed thus Christ falls not within the compasse of the first Covenant of works saith Mr. Norton in page 24. But thou shalt dye intending thereby the persons with whom the first Covenant was made falls within the compass of the first Covenant as he affirmeth in his second Proposition Therefore Christ falls not within the first Covenant of works because the word Thou intends the persons only with whom the first Covenant was made And thus you see how Mr. Norton hath confuted himself by proving that Christ was not comprehended within the compasse of Gen. 2. 17. SECT IV. IN my former brief Reply to his first Argument I promised a more full Answer to his minor I will repeat his whole Argument as it is laid down in his 10 page Either Christ suffered the Justice of God instead of the Elect denounced against sin in Gen. 2. 17. or God might dispence with the execution thereof without the violation of his Justice But God could not dispence with the execution thereof without the violation of his Justice Reply 5. I have sufficiently replied to his major by proving that Christ was not in the same obligation 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.
to this inference because I have already shewed in Reply 3. That the humane nature of Christ was priviledged from death and from the fear of death and from all other miseries by nature But yet such was his infinite and eternal love to the Elect that were fallen in Adam that according to the Council of the Trinity he entred into a Covenant with his Father to take upon him the seed of the deceived woman with our infirmities and to enter the Lists and to combate with Satan that had a Commission given him to peirce him in the foot-soals with an ignominious death and therefore he covenanted to manifest the truth of his humane nature in fearing and abhorring such a kind of usage for the salvation sake of all the Elect And saith Rutherfurd on the Covenant page 342. God by a permissive decree appointed the crucifying of the Lord of life but as touching his approving and commanding will he did neither will the crucifying of his Son but forbids and hates it as execrable murther 1 Then consider Christs troubled natural fear of death materially with all the circumstances of ignominy and tortures from the Devil and his Instruments according to Gods declared permission in Gen. 3. 15. and then it was his duty to stir up his sensitive soul to be tenderly and eminently touched with a trembling fear and with a manifest abhorring of this kind of usage 2 But consider his ignominious and painful death formally namely with the reward that was annexed to it by Gods Covenant which was that he should thereby merit the salvation of all the Elect and then I say It was the duty of his rational soul not to fear but earnestly to desire to perform this combate with Satan and to suffer him to do his worst and therefore in this regard he said I delight to do thy will O God thy Law is in my heart Heb. 10. And I desire to eat this Passover this Type of my death before I suffer 3 Christs humane nature knew perfectly by the revealed will of God in Gen. 3. 15. that God had armed the Devil against him with an express permission to use him as a sinful Malefactor and to peirce him in the foot-soals and in this combate hee knew it was the declared will of God that hee should encounter him not with the power of his God-head but with his humane nature only as it was accompanied with our infirmities of fear sorrow c. and therefore by his Covenant hee was bound to express and manifest his troubled natural fear of such an unnatural usage and accordingly he declared it to his three Apostles that he took with him to be witnesses that he did then begin to be sorrowful and very heavy saying unto them My soul is exceeding sorrowful even to the death Mat. 26 37 38 39. Mat. 26. 38 39. and then he went a little further from them and fel on his face and prayed saying O my Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me and this request he made three times over because it was of absolute necessity that that cup should pass from him namely the cup of his natural fear I have shewed in the Dialogue page 46. that the word Cup is put for a measure or portion of any thing either of joy and comfort or of ignominy and pain or of fear and sorrow and at this time he was very heavy and sorrowful and therefore the cup that he doth so earnestly deprecate is the cup or measure or portion of his present natural fear Hee doth not in this place as I apprehend deprecate his ignominious and painful death but the fear and dread which his sensitive soul had of it at this present and he was heard and delivered from his natural fear or else hee could not have laid down his life by his own will desire and power as hee had covenanted Joh. 10. 17 18. But as soon as hee had obtained a confirmation by his sweating prayers against this his natural fear then when the band was come to apprehend him he was fearless and said unto Peter Put up thy sword again into its place for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father and he shall presently give me more Mat. 26. 52 53 54. then twelve legions of Angels But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that say Thus it must be The Scriptures in Gen. 3. 15. c. say that I must bee thus apprehended condemned and executed by the power of Satan and his instruments Thus it must be I must be thus used as you shall now see mee to bee by these Arch-instruments of Satan yea thus it must bee of necessity even by the necessity of the voluntary Decree and Covenant and therefore I must bee voluntary also in the performance of this combate and not admit of any obstruction to my Combatter by thy sword he must by Gods declared permission have his liberty to do his worst to provoke my patience and I must do my duty by continuing constant in my obedience through all his assaults But John doth relate our Saviours Joh. 18. 11. words to Peter thus Put up thy sword into thy sheath the cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drink it namely that portion of my ignominious and painful sufferings which my Father hath appointed mee to undergo as hee hath declared it in Gen. 3. 15. Here you see that Christ did not now dread this cup of his ignominious and painful sufferings as hee did the fear of this cup in Matth. 26 37. Then it was necessary before he prayed that his natural infirmities of fear and sorrow should appear but now it was as necessary after he had obtained his request that his natural infirmities should not appear and therefore he said to Peter Shall I not drink it 4 I have shewed from Mr. Rutherfurd in Chap. 2. that Christs desire that the cup might pass from him was no sin because the command of God to lay down his life was not a moral command as Mr. Norton unadvisedly doth affirm for if his death had been required by a moral command then his desire that the cup might pass from him had been a sin and then his natural fear of death had been a sin also but Gods command was a meer positive command and that kind of command saith Mr. Rutherfurd did never root out his natural desire to preserve his own life seeing hee submitted his desire to Gods will The like instance hee gives of Abrahams desire when God commanded him to kill his only Son for a sacrifice And though Mr. Rutherfurd holds that Christ suffered Hell-torments Heb. 5. 7. yet he denies as the Dialogue doth that the word Fear in Heb. 5. 7. is to be understood of his fear of Hell-torments hee expounds it â—s the Dialogue doth on the Covenant page 362. But still I rather think
concerning Christ Peter hath concerning himself I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13. 37. and John hath the same concerning Christ and the Saints because he laid down his life for us we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren 1 Joh. 3. 16. Reply 25. I grant that all the godly ought to say to Christ There is a transcendent difference between the manner of Peters laying down his life for Christ and Christs laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect. Joh 10. 11. as Peter said to him I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13. 37. and they ought also to say as John said in 1 Joh. 3. 16. For it is the duty of all the godly to venture their lives as Martyrs for the defence of the truth and for the defence of the godly that stand for the truth if they be called thereto rather than to deny it But the death of Christ must be considered not only as hee was a Martyr from his Combater Satan but it must also bee considered as it was ordained to be a Sacrifice of satisfaction to Gods Justice for mans Redemption in the formality of it In the first sense Christ saith in Joh. 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd the good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheep that is to say Hee spares not to venture his life to incounter as a voluntary Combater with the proclaimed Enemy of his elect Sheep The old Serpent according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. to rescue as the good Shepherd David did the prey or the Lamb which was taken for a spoyl from the Lion and the Bear 1 Sam. 17. 35. Job 29. 17. And thus Christ gave his life as a Martyr 2 But in the second sense his death must be considered as it was to be made a sacrifice of Reconciliation in the formality of it and so it must be considered as it was effected by his own Priestly power and in that respect his death is set forth in divers other words in Joh. 10. 17 18. to be of a Joh. 10. 17 18. transcendent nature beyond that voluntary suffering that is expressed by Peter or by any other Martyr as it appears by these particulars First Saith Christ in v. 11. 15 I lay down my life for my sheep I am the good Shepherd I will not play the Coward to flye when the Wolf cometh to devour my sheep but I will readily and voluntarily undertake to combate with the Wolf for the redemption of my sheep I am ready to venture my life in the Combate with the old proclaimed Serpent for the rescuing of my sheep from Satans spoyl for though I know before hand by Gen. 3. 15. that Satan hath an unlimited power given him to do his worst against me and to use me as a sinful Malefactor for a time which time is truly called the hour and power of darkness in Luke 22. 53. yet like a good Shepherd I will readily enter the Lists with Satan and will so exactly manage the Combate by my humane nature for the trial of the Mastery according to the Laws of the Combate that my death at last shall not only bee a death of Martyrdome such as Peter speaks of but over and above I will make my death in the formality of it to bee a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to the eternal Covenant for the full redemption of all my captivated sheep I will divide the spoyl with the strong enemy Satan I will redeem the Elect though he keep the refuse and therefore Secondly Christ doth still amplifie the most excellent nature of his death saying in verse 18. I lay down my life of my self namely by my own will desire and power according to my voluntary Covenant for I am a voluntary and equal reciprocal Covenanter and therefore I must never bee over-ruled by any supreme power for that would destroy the nature of such a voluntary Covenant as mine is Thirdly Christ doth still amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying None takes my life from me and if none saith Chrysostome then surely not death that sentence of death that was denounced to sinful Adam in Gen. 3. 19. was denounced as a death to be co-acted by the justice of God for original sin this kind of death could not take away Christs life from him therefore the death of Christ must be considered as a death of Covenant only it was founded in the voluntary Cause and Covenant to be performed by himself as a Priest and to bee accepted as a sacrifice of Reconciliation as the full price of mans Redemption But on the contrary if Christ had been our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam then God might in justice have taken away his life from him volence nolence then God might in justice have said to death Let death seize upon him as upon a guilty Sinner or as on a guilty Surety and so death might have exacted his life from him as a true debtor to death by Gods justice and then his death had been no more but a co-acted natural death as Mr. Norton makes it to be But the blessed Scriptures do testifie that Christ in his death did overcome him that had the power of death Heb. 2. 14. and that he triumphed over Principalities and Powers in it Col. Heb. 2 14. Col. 2. 15. 2. 15. The Devil therefore could not put Christ to death formally by his tortures as he doth other men that are sinners by Gods legal imputation and therefore Christ said None takes my life from me Fourthly Christ doth still proceed to amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying I have power to lay it down namely of my self as he had expressed his meaning in the former sentence other men sometimes have a great desire to dye and to lay down their lives formally and yet they cannot dye according to their earnest desire because they want a power to effect it Jonab had a great desire to dye and yet he had not power to dye and therefore hee prayed unto the Lord saying O Lord take away my vital soul from me Jonah 4. 3. I have a great desire to dye but yet I cannot dye by my own will desire and power except I should use some sinful violence against my life Elijah also had a great desire to dye and yet hee had not power to dye and therefore he prayed unto God saying O Lord take away my vital soul 1 King 19. 4. But Christ had a power to lay down his life of himself when the appointed hour was come to make his soul a sacrifice Fifthly Saith Christ I have the same power to lay down my vital soul that I have to take it up again and therefore I do compare my power which I have to lay down my life with my power which I have to take it up again This saith Origen afore cited neither Moses nor
any of the Patriarchs Prophets or Apostles did say besides Jesus Sixthly Christ doth still make another addition to set forth the transcendent nature of his death This Commandement saith he I have received of my Father no other man ever had or shall have the like positive Command to be both Priest and Sacrifice in his own death as I have If Abraham had offered up Isaac in sacrifice by a formal death yet that Priest and Sacrifice had been in two distinct persons and so Isaac could not have been a compleat Mediator in his death But saith Christ It is my Fathers Commandement that I must bee the Mediator of the New Testament through death Heb. 9. 15 16. therefore I must be both Priest and Heb. 9. 15 16. Sacrifice in one and the same person and not in two persons This peculiar positive Commandement I have received of my Father it is proper only to my person and office as I am ordained to be the only Mediator between God and man in my death and sacrifice Christ saith Mr. Ball was Lord of his own life and therefore hee had power to lay it down and take it up And this See Ball on the Covenant p. 287. power saith he he had not solely by vertue of the hypostatical union but by vertue of a peculiar Command Constitution and Designation to that service Joh. 10. 18. And saith Grotius The death of Christ was not determined by any Law but by a special Covenant with his Father And hence is follows if there had not been a voluntary Covenant See Grotius in his War and Peace part 1. c. 36. preceding there could not have been any Commandement used by the first Person over the second Person and therefore this Commandement to lay down his life must not be understood of a supreme moral Command as Mr. Norton understands it for in page 103. he saith This act of Christ in laying down his life was an act of legal obedience And saith he in page 192. For the Mediator to suffer death as our Surety in a way of justice iâ— an act of legal obedience but by the Commandement which Christ received from his Father I understand the Decree of God that the conditions of the eternal Covenant should effectually be performed causing such a thing to come to pass effectually and so God is said to command his own Mercy and to command his own blessed Promises to come to pass See Ains in Psal 42. 9. and in Psal 105. 8. and in Psal 133. 3. and in Gen. 50. 16. and in Lev. 25. 21. Seventhly Put these two speeches together I lay down my life for my sheep Joh. 10. 15. And secondly I have power to lay it down and power to take it up again verse 18. and they do plainly shew that the true nature of my death is to be considered both as it is a Martyrdome from my malicious Adversary Satan and as it is a sacrifice in the formality of it by my own Priestly power And therefore Eighthly In both these consideration â—â— Father doth love me verse 17. and hee hath testified his loving acceptance both of my person and of this service of mine First By his own voyce from heaven at my extrinsecal Instalment Matth. 3. 17. And secondly At my Transfiguration when he seâ—â— Moses and Elias to inform my Disciples of my Departure which I should shortly after accomplish by my death at Jerusalem Then there came a voyce out of the Cloud saying This is my well-beloved Son in whose Combate and Sacrifice which he is shortly to perform at Jerusalem I am well pleased satisfied and reconciled for the redemption Luke 9. 31. 3â— of all the Elect Luke 9. 31 35. These eight Considerations taken from the Text and laid together do cleerly evidence That the manner of Christs laying down his life for his sheep is of a transcendent nature to the manner of Peters laying down his life in Martyrdome for Christ though Mr. Norton doth most unadvisedly compare the manner of their death to be alike without making any difference by which means hee doth beguile both his own soul and his Reader of the comfort of the full sense of this blessed Scripture of John 10. 17 18. And Tindal doth declare his sense of this Scripture by his translation which goes thus Therefore doth my Father love mee because I put my life from me that I might take it again no man takes it from me but I put it away of my self I have power to put it from me and power to take it again Hence I gather from this phrase I have power to put my life from me that he held as the Ancient Divines did That Christ put his life from him as a man puts off his cloaths for so the Ancient Divines use the comparison and saith Cyril Derecta fidâ— without constraint of any Christ of himself laid down his own soul for us It is evident that the Devil and his Instruments did use constraint as much as they could devise to force his soul out of his body But saith Cyril he laid down his soul for us not by their constraint but at his pleasure And saith Epiphanius Contra Ariomanitas Haeres 69. The Deity together with the soul did move to forsake the sacred body But saith Mr. Norton in page 162. Christ had less strength of nature left to bear his Torments than the Theeves had Therefore they compelled a man of Cyren to bear his Cross that is to help him bear it Reply 26. It is granted by the Ancient Divines that Christ had voluntary weakness but not necessary weakness of nature by the justice of Gods curse as sinners have 2 I have formerly shewed That Christ was not appointed to combate with Satan and his Instruments by the power of his divine nature but by his humane nature alone which he voluntary assumed together with our true natural infirmities of grief fear sorrow c. that so he might bee touched with the sensible feeling of our infirmities in all his sufferings from his proclaimed Combater Satan and therefore for the better manifestation of his said voluntary infirmities for necessary infirmities as we have he had none his God-head put forth a power to withdraw protection from his humane nature that so his humane nature might bee the more sensibly touched with the feeling of our infirmities And withall I say That though Christ had this voluntary weakness yet it did not decay his natural vigor by degrees as â—he like sufferings doth decay our sinful natures for the constitution of his humane nature was so perfectly orgonized and moulded that he could at his pleasure take our true humane infirmities for the accomplishing of his Combate according to the Articles of the eternal Covenant â—s he did in his Agony in the Garden And again at his pleasure he could re-assume his perfect strength of nature as hee did after his prayers in the Garden as I have formerly shewed more
should bee judged to everlasting life and so the sentence of their bodily death should at the last bee turned into a blessing to them But secondly That such as beleeved not their Redemption by this seed of the woman the sentence of their bodily death should bring a greater judgement to them because it should be an inlet to their eternal death in hell Joh. 3. 36. 7 Hence it also follows by necessary consequence That when God proclaimed this Combate and victory he did exemplifie the manner of the victory to Adam by the death of some Lamb which God commanded Adam to offer in Sacrifice as I have shewed it more at large in my Treatise of the Institution of the Sabbath and ever after God did exemplifie the same to the Fathers both before and after the Flood 1 Before the Flood it is said That Abel did offer a better sacrifice than Cain because he offered it in faith Gen. 4. Heb. 11. 4. 2 Immediately after the Flood Noah is said to offer sacrifice for a sweet savor of rest unto God Gen. 8. 21. because such Sacrifices were ordained to typifie Gods full rest and sweet content in the perfect obedience of Christ first in his Combate and at last in his Sacrifice as it is opened in Eph. 5. 2. 3 After this God is said to preach the Gospel unto Abraham Gal. 3. 8 16. and how else did he preach the Gospel but by declaring in what manner the Seed of the woman should break the Serpents Head-plot and therefore when God renewed his Promise and Covenant of blessedness to Abraham by telling him that this Seed of the woman should come out of his loyns He gave this Testimony of Abraham That he did obey his voyce and keep his charge his Commandements his Statutes and his Laws Gen. 26. 5. And that he would teach his children and his houshold after him as all the godly Fathers did to keep the way of the Lord Gen. 18. 19. namely to keep the way of true Religion or the way of Redemption by the Seed of the woman that was promised to come out of his loyns 4 After this it pleased the Lord to separate Israel to be his peculiar people in Covenant And then at Mount Sinai he gave them the ten Commandements as a Covenant of Grace as many learned Divines do of late rightly call it for the regulating of their faith and obedience in the course of their lives together with certain other voluntary ceremonial and typical Laws and with certain Judicial Laws many of which were also typical and these Laws in their outward bodily use were called the first Covenant of works in respect of their lawful and legal appearing before Gods presence in his Sanctuary but the same Laws in their mystical and spiritual use were given as a Covenant of grace and as the Law of faith though after a while the Jews under the New Testament did mistake Gods end in giving them for they did relye upon their outward obedience to them as Idolaters do for their eternal justification and salvation 5 Besides these typical ceremonial Laws It pleased God to ordain some other voluntary positive ceremonial Laws which were no way typical in relation to our redemption by Christ as the former were but were ordained only for the trial of some particular mans obedience in some one particular act and such was the command of God to Saul to destroy the Amalekites utterly without sparing any thing 1 Sam. 15. And such also was the command of God to David to hang up seven of Sauls sons to pacifie his wrath though some of them if not all of them might be innocent of Sauls sin 2 Sam. 21. And such also was the command of God to the young Prophet not to eat any bread in that place nor to return the same way that he came 1 King 13. 9. c. This insuing controversie hath relation often to some one or other of these Laws and Covenants as also to the Law of Suretiship for life in the case of capital crimes In all which Laws and Covenants your Lordship cannot but have a deep inspection and therefore I have the rather been bold to dedicate this insuing Controversie to your Honours judgement And now my humble Request to your Honour is 1 That where you find any thing that doth not accord to the truth in your judgement that you will bee pleased either to vouchsafe me your Animadversions or else to lay it aside in silence as you do other mens Tenents that you like not 2 That where you find any thing that doth accord to the truth which my soul loveth and longeth after that you will be pleased to vouchsafe it so much grace in your sight as to protect and defend it according to God whereof I nothing doubt as being verily perswaded that your Lordship doth account it your greatest honour to be every way serviceable to God and his truth as it is in Jesus And that you may be still guided in the ways of truth and life until you obtain the end of your faith even the salvation of your soul It is the hearty prayer of Your Honours most humble servant WILLIAM PYNCHON TO THE Considerate and Judicious Reader IN this insuing Reply both to Mr. Nortons Foundation-principles and also to his several Answers to the Dialogue called The Meritorious price of mans Redemption I do often conclude my several Replies with this intreaty to the Judicious Reader to judge between us which of us doth give the rightest sense of the blessed Scriptures in these insuing Controversieâ— Paul did much commend the Synagogue of the Bereans for their better more noble and more ingenuous disposition beyond the Synagogue of the Thessalonians because they searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so or no as Paul had taught in their Synagogue Act. 17. 11. For in two main points of Religion touching mans Redemption which Paul taught in their Synagogue he differed much from their common received opinion For first hee opened and alledged from the Scriptures That the Messiah must needs have suffered namely that by the necessity of the eternal Decree and Covenant he must needs take on him our true humane nature from the Seed of the woman and that in that nature as it was accompanied with our true humane affections and passions he must needs enter the Lists and Combate with Satan for the victory for God had proclaimed an utter enmity between them in Gen. 3. 15. and then he also told the Devil that he should have full liberty and power to peirce this Seed of the woman in the foot-soals as a sinful Malefactor on the Cross And secondly Hee opened and alledged from the Scriptures That the Messiah must also of necessity rise again from death to life on the third day Act. 17. 3. In these two main points Paul differed much from the common received opinion of the Jews for their common received opinion was That their Messiah
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 but 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 Christs 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 Atrian 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 3 15. that his sufferings as he was declared to be the seed of the woman was to be from the voluntary cause in the trial of masteries with his proclaimed enemy Satan and his Instruments in which Combate in case Satan could have prevailed to disturb his patience then Satan had got the victory but in case he could not by all his ill usage disturb his patience nor any way subvert him in his obedience then the victory and the rich prize of mans Redemption was to go on Christs side p. 55 82 9◠22 chap. 13 14 Eternity is essential to the Torments of Hell p. 56 The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell Torments thereby to make Eternity no more but a circumstance hath four inconveniencies attending it p. 56 Sometimes Mr Norton doth affirm that Christ suffered the pain of loss in respect of the fruition of the good of the Promise but otherwhiles he saith it was but in respect of the sense of the good of the Promises By which wide differing expressions be leaves the Reader in the dark to grope out his meaning p. 58 Mr. Norton in his book p. 123. holds that Christ was separated both in body and soul from all participation of the good of the Promise for a time and so he comes up to Christs total separation from God for a time p 60 Sometimes again he makes the pain of loss to be no more but the want of the sense of the favor of God for a time p. 61 Mr. Norton is put to his shifts to maintain his poenal Hell in this life for he is fain to fly to Gods extraordinary dispensation to
which was equivalent p. 113 107. 72 291 After Adams Fall outward obedience to the Ceremonial Statutes and to the Judicial Ordinances is called the First Covenant of Works p. 118 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 holds because is alludes chiefly to the Ceremonial Law p. 119 p. 238 26 * Add this Note to p. 121. l. 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. saith One little pollution of the Nazarite at unawares did nullifie many dayes purity For saith 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. Jâ— 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 saith Ainsworth in Deut 30. 19. the life which Moses set before them was by faith in Christ c. And see more what he saith in Dâ—ut 6. 1. and 7. 1â— And see what Rutherfurd on the Covenant saith 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 assume the seed of the deceived Woman in personal union and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities â— 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 obedience 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 Combate with Satan notwithstanding his ill usage to disturb his patience and therefore the Ancient Divines do often say truly That Christ conquered Satan by Righteousness 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 angry face and procure his Attonement to all poor humbled and beleeving sinners p. 137 191 251 252 259 * Add this Note to p. 137. 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 saith he One of the Zeraphims came flying 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 this 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 said 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 Mercy 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 themselves p. 145 * Add this Note to p. 145. Rutherfurd on the Covenant p. 25. saith You cannot shew me in all the Old or New Testament any penal Law that was imposed on the Man Christ where it is written If the Man Christ sin he shall eternally dye I tremble saith he at such expressions and hence I infer That then Christ could not be Adams Surety in the same obligation to the Curse of the first Covenant The true nature of Christs death was to be made a sacrifice by the power of his own prieftly office p. 145 146 309 313 ch 17. ult * Add this Marginal Note to p. 147. at l. 23. As Christs assumption of flesh and spirit was not like ours so his death in the formality of it was not to be like ours but of a far differing nature A description of Christs merit namely how he merited our Redemption p. 146 176 130 308 This speech of Mr. Nortons Man sins and the Man Christ dyes is but a Paeralogism p. 150 Christ was not our surety in the samâ—â—bligaâ—ion with Adam p. 150 86 Though it is supposed by Mr. Norton that the first Covenant was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the morall Law of Nature yet in that sense it is not a compleat rule of Gods relative Justice p. 151 Gen. 2. 17. doth not comprehend Christ within the compass of it p. 152 * Add this marginal Note to p. 152. Adam before his fall might beleeve in the Trinity but yet saith Mr. Weams in his Portraiture p. 91. he could not beleeve the incarnation of the Second person for then he should have understood of his own fall and then
had by that act discovered himself to Adam as he did to Christ to be naught then the Devil had lost his labour in his temptation for then Adams will would have been governed by his inlightned mind and then such temptations would have been loathsome to his pure nature as they were to Christ and then he would have said to Sathan as Christ did Hence Sathan and then Sathan could not have prevailed afterwards for Adams wisdome was such that he would not have delayed to eat of the Tree of life in the first place as the best food for his confirmation 3 Hence it follows That Adam did not first sin in soul as Mr. Norton holds and as indeed he had done in case he had sinned against any branch of the moral Law of nature but his sin was only against that positive Law that did only forbid his bodily act of eating as the only breach of the first Covenant of Works 4 Hence it follows That the arguing of the Dialogue in Original sin did not fall upon us for the breach of the moral Law but for the breach of a positive Law and Covenant about things indifferent in their own nature p. 188. is sound and good namely in affirming that the punishment of original sin did not fall upon us for the breach of the moral Law but for the breach of such a positive Law as is of a far differing nature from the moral Law 5 Hence it follows That if Adam had but once eaten of the Tree of life as his wisdome would have caused him to do in the very first place if the Devil had not so speedily circumvented him he had thereby been confirmed in his created perfections and all his posterity with him they should have had a propagated Righteousnesse because God did enter into Covenant with Adam as a publick person saith Mr. Burges and also generally all Protestant Divines 6 Hence it follows That the moral Law in Adams nature was not ordained for Adams justification as Mr. Norton holds The moral Law of nature was not ordained for Adams justification but as a conditâ—on only of his created perfections therefore it would have been the rule of his life if he had but first eaten of the tree of life but only as a necessary condition of his created perfection for God could not make man perfect but by making him perfectly conformable to the moral Law But Mr. Norton saith in Page 231. That four things were requisite to Adams justification by the works of the Law And at fourthly he saith That justification was promised to eternal continuance in obedience Reply From this Assertion it follows That Adam might have continued Ten thousand years in his integrity and yet have failed at last and so he should never have been justified by the works of the Law and then some of his children should have been begotten after the Image of God in those Ten thousand years space and all the rest after that time after the image of Sathan And Mr. Norton in Page 254. hath another Paradox as strange as this namely That upon supposition of Adams continuance in obedience all the acts of his obedience even to the finishing of perfect Righteousnesse had been imputed unto his seed according unto the nature of the Covenant of works unto their attaining of justification by the Law And saith he in Page 244 Adams justification consisted not in one act of obedience This Assertion is directly contrary to the Tenure of the first Covenant For it is acknowledged by Bucanus whom I No act of Adams obedience had been imputed to his posterity for their obedience but his first act in eating of the tree of life in case be had stood have cited with Parereus in Sect. 3. that all the sins of Adam were truly personal except the first and that first sin in eating the forbidden fruit was not so much personal as natural namely it was common to the nature of man in general by vertue of Gods Covenant And just the same must be affirmed of the acts of Adams obedience That upon supposition of his obedience in eating of the Tree of life the first act only of his obedience should have been accounted as a common act of obedience to the nature of man in general by vertue of Gods Covenant See Vindicae Legis also in p. 119 120. Secondly Hence also it follows That in case Adam had first eaten of the Tree of life that act also had justified him no further but from Sathans accusaâ—ion And therefore it is a great mistake in Mr. Norton to affirm as he doth in Page 189. that the moral Law is called the Law of works in Rom. 3. 27. because it required personal obedience to life But any man that hath but half an eye may see that the word Law in Rom. 3. 27. hath relation to the whole Oeconomy of Moses but especially to the Ceremonial Law And indeed the Ceremonial Law did Rom. 3. 27. teach an outward justification from their Ceremonial sins in respect of their personal coming to the Sanctuary I grant that Adam in his innocency stood in need of a confirmation of his created perfections but he stood not in any need of justification before his fall except only of justification from the Devils accusation and temptation as I said before for no doubt the Devil had said to God as he said afterwards against Job that if he might have but leave to tempt Adam then Adam would disobey as they had done But in case Adam had not yeelded to Sathans temptation but had taken warning by the prohibition and by the threatning and had not eaten of the forbidden fruit but had first eaten of the Tree of life then he had been justified by that act against Sathans accusation and temptation but he needed no justification in respect of his 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 In Vindiciae legis lect 22. p. 113. 132. And Blake approves him See also Ball on the Covenant p. 102. 130 135 16â— 178. but that of Grace 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 purposely make a voyage into the earthly Paradise of Eden there to eat actually of the Tree of life as our Surety in our room and stead 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 iâ— 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 the 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 Jesuâ— 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 Whitgenstenius 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 cite it 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 Lev. 18. 5. See Bâ—ll on the Covenant p. 136. as if they did promise life upon a condition of perfect 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 Law in 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 Rom. 2. 13. Doers of the Law are justified Rom. 2. 13. may be expounded 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 is evident that the Law was given to fallen man as a Covenant of grace And this Mr. Ball shews abundantly in page 102. 130 135 166 178. c. 3 Mr. Burges saith thus Paul describeth the righteousnesse In Vindiciae legis p. 233. Rom. 10. 5 6. of the Law in Rom. 10. 5 6. from these words Do this and live which are said to have reference to Lev. 18. 5. But saith he We find this in effect in Deut. 30. 16. yet from this very Chapter the Apostle describeth the Righteousnesse which is by faith and saith he Beza doth acknowledge that that which Moses speaks of the Law Paul doth apply it to the Gospel 4 Mr. Burges doth also abundantly shew that the Law was given as a Covenant of grace in page 229. c. and page 271. and there he doth most justly blame Beza and Perkins because they affirmed that we attain salvation by fulfilling the Law Do this and live 5 Mr. Baxter saith Do this and live is a Gospel condition In his Saints Rest p 9. 6 Dr. Barnes in his Answer to our Popish
of grace to the Decalogue more then was in the moral Law of nature Therefore the Doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant neither in respect of justification nor in respect of sanctified walking Conclusion touching Lev. 18. 5. From all these Premises it follows that Lev. 18. 5. is not meant of doing by way of merit as doing the Command in eating of the Tree of life would have been a meritorious act according to Gods free grace in the first Covenant and therefore the moral Law of nature and the Decalogue which comprehends the Covenant of grace is not the same for substance 2 Hence it follows that the doing of the moral Law by Adam and the doing of it by Christ was con-natural to them and therefore it was not ordained as the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice for mans justification and life as Mr. Norton doth propound it SECT 3. The Examination of Gen. 2. 17. THis Scripture is alleged by Mr. Norton to prove that the most principal death there threatned for the breach of the first Covenant of works was eternal death in hell and saith he in his first Proposition Christ as the Surety of the Elect suffered the Essential punishment of this curse in a way of obedient satisfaction unto divine Justice thereby exactly fulfilling the first Covenant In his second Proposition he saith That God in the first Covenant proceeded with man in a way of Justice In his third Proposition he calls it Relative Justice In his sixth Proposition he calls it The Rule of Gods proceeding between God and man In his eighth Proposition he saith That God having constituted that inviolable rule of Relative Justice in Gen. 2. 17. could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely first According to the recompence contained in the promise in case of obedience or secondly according to the punishment contained in the curse in case of disobedience We have already seen how much Mr. Norton is mistaken in the first part of the Covenant First by opening the true nature of the Covenant in Sect. 1. And secondly by overturning his first proof in Lev. 18 5. Now it remains to expound Now the true nature of that death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. shall be explained And then we shall see whether it be the inviolable Rule of Gods Justice for Christ suffering in a way of satisfaction for mans Redemption 1 Reply Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof Thou shalt dye the death The true nature of this death I make to be a spiritual death in sin only This is evident by two Circumstances in the Text. 1 By the adjunct of time In the day or at what time soever The death in Gen. 2. 17 is limited by two Circumstances to our spiritual death in sin only and therefore that death is the essential curse there threatned and therefore 2. Christ was not a Surety with Adam in the first Covenant to bear that death that is there threatned 2 By the Antithesis of his death threatned to the kind of life that was promised First No other death according to this adjunct of time was threatned to be formally executed but a spiritual death in sin only And therefore first no other death was properly threatned in this Text. And therefore secondly it was a foul mistake in Ambrose to hold that bodily death only was threatned in this Text because said he There was no day nor hour wherein our first Parents were not morti abnoxii subject to death But Dr. Willet in Rom. 5. Q. 21. doth thus answer him The words of the Text in Dying thou shalt dye seem to imply an actuall death which they should then suffer and not a potential only Secondly I answer further that if a bodily death were there only meant or chiefly meant as others say then where shall we find any other Text besides this wherein our spiritual death in sin is threatned surely there is no other Scripture that threatens our spiritual death in sin but this Text only neither was spiritual death executed at any other time but at this time only It was but once threatned nor but once executed and that was done in the day or time of Adams eating therefore that death only is the death that is threatned in Gen. 2. 17. 2 The true nature of this death may the better be discerned by considering the true nature of Adams sin whether it was a sin against the moral Law or against a positive Law only 1 I have already shewed That it was not a sin against the moral Law of nature and therefore Adam was not under the obligation to punishment by that Law 2 Neither was his sin the sin of a single person for then Adam himself only had been under the obligation to the punishment threatned 3 Therefore it was a sin against a supreme positive Law only made concerning outward things that were indifferent in their own nature and I never heard that eternal death was ever directly threatned for the breach of any outward positive Law but at first a spiritual death in sin and ever after a bodily death only but yet for want of faith in Christ eternal death will follow after a bodily death 4 It was a sin against the good of mans nature in general because it was a sin against that Covenant which God had made with Adam concerning the condition of mans nature as he was the head of mans nature in general as I have shewed in Sect. 1. If his sin had been a moral sin only then he had been obliged to the punishment of the moral Law but I never heard that the moral Law did oblige sinners to the punishment of death in sin to make their nature in themselves and in their posterity more sinful then it was by Adams sin for by Adams sin all are alike sinners in the same degree of originall sin Therefore Gods Covenant with Adam was by ordaining a special positive Law unto which he annexed a special positive punishment for the transgression of that Law which was a spiritual death in sin affixed to the very time of sinning and for the breach of other positive Ceremonial Laws after this a bodily death only is often expresly threatned Bucanus propounds this Question If Adam had stood in his Bucanus in his 10. Com. place original Righteousnesse should it have been derived to all his posterity It should saith he First because it was the righteousnesse of mans nature and not the righteousnesse of a private person Secondly saith he because the contrary to it namely original sin was derived by Adams means to all his posterity Christ only excepted Thirdly saith he because every like begets his like in nature and kind And saith Bucanus in his fifteenth Common place The first The first Covenant was made in relation to mans nature in general and not with Adam as a
single person Willet in Rom. 5. Q 19. sin was not so much personal and proper to Adam as natural that is saith he common to all mans nature which originally and naturally was in his loyns but saith he The other sins of Adam were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. The son shall not bear the iniquity of his father but the soul that sinneth shall dye And Perereus cited by Dr. Willet saith thus As the sins of Parents are not now transmitted to their children so neither were all Adams sins propagated to posterity but only the first between which and his other sins there was this difference That by the first the goodnesse of mans nature was lost And by the other the goodnesse of Adams grace was taken away 1 Hence it follows that seeing Adams sin was not so much against his person as it was against mans nature in general for it was against the Covenant that God made with him touching mans nature in general he being the head of mans nature therefore the death threatned was such a kind of death as was to be formally executed on mans nature in general at the very instant of Adams sinning and that was no other but a spiritual death in sin only and this death takes hold of all flesh as soon as ever they have life in the womb none excepted of them that are born by the ordinary way of generation so then the punishment of death which God first threatned and inflicted on Adams nature for his sinfull act against the first Covenant by eating of the forbidden fruit was a spiritual death in sin which is now become nature to us because the Covenant being broken the punishment must fall on our nature as soon as we have any being in nature but bodily death was not then formally executed neither is formally executed on our nature in the womb as death in sin is but after some distance of time neither shall it be executed formally on all flesh as death in sin is for many shall escape a bodily death at the day of Judgement and therefore no other death was threatned and formally executed on mans nature in general at the instant of Adams eating but a spiritual death in sin only Yea Mr. Norton himself in page 116. doth exempt many from bodily death at the day of Judgement Such as are alive saith he at the day of Judgement shall not formally dye by the separation of their soul from their body So then it follows by good consequence that neither a bodily death nor eternal death in hell was threatned to be formally executed on mans nature in general at the instant of Adams sinning but a spiritual death in sin onely And Dr. Willet saith That the death threatned seems to be an actual death which they should then suffer and not a potential only not that Adams soul saith Mr. Perkins was now utterly abolished but because it was as though it were not and because it ceased to be in respect of righteousnesse and fellowship with God and indeed saith he This is the Death In the right way of dying well p. 490. of all deaths when the creature hath subsisting and being and yet is deprived of all comfortable fellowship with God The second Circumstance that proves this death threatned to be meant only of death in sin is the Antithesis of the kind of life promised to the death here threatned Now the life promised to Adam by Gods Covenant was the confirmation and the continuance of his created natural perfections The life promised to Adam aâ—d so to mans nature in general was a perpetual life in this world in his created perfections to him and to all his posterity for ever in case he did first eat of the Tree of life once eating should have merited the blessing as once eating did merit the curse and this was signifed by the name that was given to that Tree it was a name that did define the Covenant-quality of that Tree and in that respect God commended it to Adam as a symbolical sign of his Covenant And saith Christopher Carlisle where you have this Hebrew word Cajim in the duall number it signifieth immortality as genetes Cajim the Tree of Lives of which saith he if Adam had tasted it would have brought immortality and very many other Writers do agree that the life promised was the See Ball on the Covenant p. 6. 10. and Vindiciae legis p. 139. And Grotius Camero Bro. in Eccl. the Hebrew Drs. cited by Ains in Gen. 2. 17. And saith Austin Adam had the Tree of life in Paradise that age should not consume and end his life Cited by Marbeck in his Com pl p. 791 continuance and the confirmation of his natural perfections in this world this I beleeve is the truth and thence it follows by way of opposition thereto that the death threatned must be understood of the continuance of a spiritual death in this world only and not of any other death till another death was threatned after this for the first spiritual death might have continued to Adam and to his posterity for ever in this world and that in the highest degree of all misery according to the justice of Gods threatning without any bodily death for any thing that was at this present revealed to the contrary and we know that hereafter a bodily life shall be continued for ever to the damned after the Resurrection without any bodily death notwithstanding their spiritual death for as bodily death is now ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin so at the general Resurrection eternall death in hell is ordained to be the immediate effect of death in sin without any bodily death And we know also that notwithstanding God did at the instant of Adams sinful eating execute on him this spiritual death of sin yet it pleased God also in a short time after to Relax the rigor and outrage of this spiritual death to all mankind in general in this life All the glory of Gods câ—eation had been confounded at the time of Adams fall if Christ had not been foreorâ—ained to be ready at hand to take on him the Government of all And secondly to alter it much more to the Elect for God had ordained that his Son Jesus Christ should be the Heir of all things as soon as ever Adam fell and that he should at the instant of Adams fall take on him the Rule and Government of the whole Creation now in rebellion and confusion by Adams fall and that he should uphold all things by the word of his power Heb. 1. 3. and in a special manner should rule over mans corruption and Sathans malice or else if Christ had not been provided in Gods eternal Counsel and Providence in a readinesse to undertake the Government of all this in this point of time no man can imagine what a hell would have been here on earth through mans spiritual death
shewed in Chap. 10. Sect. 4. and in Chap. 15. Sect. 2. at Eighthly 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 he should be unjust in case he 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 fame 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 aâ— 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 satiâ—fied 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 saith he 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 may live c. Reply In that Christ did dye for the Elect it did not come to passe from a necessity of justice in respect of that first threatning But because it pleased God out of his infinite wisdome and free grace in the voluntary Covenant between the Trinity to will it and to accept of his death and sacrifice as the price of their Redemption Heb. 10. 5. 7. Eph. 1. 7 8. And Mr. Norton himself in his answer to his first Query doth acknowledge that vindicative justice hath no necessary connexion with the being of God but is an act of Gods good pleasure Secondly He takes it often for grace which is as often denied that Christ was Adams Surety in the same obligation to the first Covenant Thirdly His conclusion that God could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely that man sinned man must dye in the man Christ Jesus I have shewed in Chap. 6. and Chap. 10. that this kind of reasoning is a meer Pralogisme namely a deceitful Sylogisms which seemeth true when it is not CHAP.
our Saviour if we be more willing as we should to take a sense from the Scripture than to bring one to it doth not the whole context saith he evince it And in p. 55. he cites Irenaeus to the same sense our Lord saith Irenaeus instead Ireâ—aeâ—s of Thou shalt not commit Adultery commands not so much as to lust Instead of Thou shalt not kill not so much as to be angry Instead of to tithe to distribute all we have to the poor c. all which saith he is not of one that dissolves the Law but fulfilleth and inlargeth it Secondly Mr. Burges saith Although it be true that Christ Vindiciae legis p. 177. may be said to fulfil the Law divers wayes yet I think he speaks here most principally for his Doctrinal fulfilling of it for he opposeth teaching the Law to breaking the Law And in p. 253. he saith thus Christ is said to fulfill the Law in respect of the Pharisees who by their corrupt glosses had evacuated it and in p. 273. lect 29. He opens Mat. 5. 17. 18. to his former sense Thirdly Tindal saith thus Here hast thou dear Reader an In his Prolog in Mat. 5. 17 18. Exposition of Matth. 5 6 and 7. Chapters wherein Christ our spiritual Isaak hath digged again the Wells of Abraham which the Scribes and Pharisees had stopped and filled up with the earth of their false Expositions he restoreth the key of knowledge And on vers 17. he saith thus I came not to destroy the Law but to repair it onely and to make it go upright where it halteth And presently after I do but onely wipe away the filth and rotten glosses wherewith the Scribes and Pharisees have smeared the Law And saith he in vers 21 22. Christ beginneth not to destroy the Law as the Pharisees had falsly accused him but to restore it again to the right understanding and to purge it from the glosses of the Pharisees And saith he in vers 48. This Text doth not say ye shall be as perfect as God but perfect after his example To be perfect saith he is to have pure Doctrine without false Opinions and that thy heart be to follow that learning Fourthly Dr. Barnes answers the Popish Justiciaries thus Barns in Tindal p. 229. Our Master Christ in Mat. 5. doth there reprove the false interpretation which they did set to the Law but he teacheth no new works nor is a giver of any new Law Fifthly Marlorat on Mat. 5. 17 18. saith The Law is destroyed or broken when it is made void and of none effect by false Expositions and traditions of men or else by a wicked life but here he understandeth the destroying of the Law after the first manner namely by false expositions and therefore it follows that Christ came to fulfill it by filling up the sense for the regulating of the inward as well as of the outward man Sixthly Mr. Blake on Mat. 5. 18. saith thus Christ indeed as In vindiciae Foederis p. 49. See also Dr. Hammonds Annot on Mat. 5. 17 18 in his Practical Cat. p. 104 105. in his 5. Edâ—tion soon as he publickly appeared in the work of Redemption was charged that he came to destroy the Law but this he did utterly disavow professing that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and saith he presently after Christ asserts a necessity of a higher degree of obedience than the Scribes and Pharisees taught or practised saying Except your righteousness exceed c. which must be understood of righteousness inherent in conformity to the Law as it appears by the precedent words and is more fully confirmed in the words that follow and upon this occasion Christ openeth the Commandements of the Law and how far we must transcend them if ever we come to the Kingdom of Heaven And to this purpose doth Mr. Ball expound Mat. 5. 18. on the Covenant p. 111. Seventhly I will now conclude with Mr. Calvin Although saith Calvin Christ might worthily have boasted that he came to fulfill the Law with the perfection of his life yet here notwithstanding he treateth of Doctrine and not of his Life You see that Calvin doth deny that Christ spake of fulfilling Calvin on Mat. â— 17 18. the Law in Matth. 5. 18. in Mr. Nortons sense he treates here saith Calvin of Doctrine and not of his life much less of suffering the essential punishment of the curse as Mr. Norton would have this Text to speak for the proof of his Assumption I may justly retort his own words against himself in p. 145. Let not the Reader be moved with the multitude of Scriptures which he hath mis alledged against the Dialogue but know the erring and private interpretation of them to be but a very fallacy of putting that for a cause which is not a cause namely that which is not a divine Testimony for a divine Testimony The letter of the Scripture alleged not according to its sense is not Scripture No Hereticks or Hetrodox as such ever cited the word of God His second Argument is this in pag. 11. Either Christ suffered the wrath of God i. e. the punishment due to the sins of the Elect or else God is untrue in that commination He that sins shall die because the Elect themselves do not suffer it But God is true 1 Sam 15. 29. Tit. 1. 2. Reply This Argument is just like the former they are both founded on the same supposition namely that the essential curse of hell torments threatned in the first Covenant must either be executed on the Elect or on their Surety in their stead As for his proof of his Proposition The soul that sinneth shall die Ezek. 18. 20. This Text I have examined and brought it from the Context to speak to another sense in chap. 6. at Reply 9. 2 As for that in Gen. 2. 17. I have denied it in his sense in the former Argument But it had been more true if he had framed his Argument thus Either the Elect suffered the spiritual death in sin threatned on all mankind in Gen. 2. 17. or else God is not true as I have opened the sense of Gen. 2. 17. in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. But God is true c. His third Argument is this in pag. 11. He that was the Surety of the Elect was bound to pay their debt and consequently to satisfie the Law for them But Christ was the Surety of the Elect Heb. 7. 22. Reply I deny the major for I have shewed in Chap. 2. that if it were indeed true that Christ was a Surety in the same obligation with Adam to pay his debt of obedience and to suffer the curse of his disobedience according to the conditions of the first Covenant Then 1. Christ must go to the land of Eden to eat of the tree of Life that so he may truly perform that act of obedience for Adam And 2. He must be dead in
sin that so he may suffer the curse of his disobedience for his sinful act in eating of the tree of Knowledge of good and evill If Mr. Norton will say that these things could not be done and suffered by Christ thence I infer that Christ then was not a Surety in the same obligation with Adam to pay his proper debt of obedience and to suffer his proper curse in kind Secondly I deny the minor namely that Christ was such a Surety that place cited to prove it in Heb. 7. 22. is miserably abused to his sense and yet he doth often cite it to prove his sense of the word Surety and he puts very great weight on the word Surety in his sense and therefore he doth repeat it above twenty or thirty times and his proof is still from Heb. 7. 22. as in pag. 85. 149 c. Therefore I will now examine the sense of the word Surety in Heb. 7. 22. and then it will appear to have a differing sense Heb. 7. 22. from Mr. Nortons sense The Text speaks thus By so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better Testament namely by so much as Gods oath is a more infallible assurance of the perpetual Priesthood of Christ above the temporary Priest-hood of Aaron and his Sons by so much is the Priesthood of Christ to intercede for us more certain than theirs For when the Covenant of the Priesthood was conferred and See Ains in Lev. 8. 36. confirmed unto the Tribe of Levi in Aaron and his Sons Lev. 8 which Covenant was life and peace Mal. 2. 5. called also Gods Covenant of peace Numb 25. 13. for God gave the office and maintenance to the Priests by Covenant Numb 18. 7 8. 1 Sam. 2. 27 35. they were made Priests without an oath because God would be at liberty to alter that Covenant also they were many Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death These Priests served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things offering gifts and sacrifices which could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscienceâ— for they were carnal Ordinances imposed on them till the time of Reformation that is until the coming of Christ who is now sprung out of the Tribe of Judah and was made a Priest of God with an oath and a Surety of a better Testamental-Covenant established upon better promises and because he continueth for ever he hath a Priesthood that passeth not from him to another Secondly Dr. Hammon doth thus paraphrase upon Heb. 7. 20. 21 22. God sware and will not repent which saith he is an argument of the immutability and weightiness of the matter and of the ternal continuance of this Priesthood of Christ and so of the preheminence of it beyond the Aaronical which was not established by God with an Oath and so much as a durable immutable and eternal Priesthood is better than a transitory mutable and final Priesthood such as the Levitical being fixt in mortal persons one succeeding the other and as was it self mortal not to last any longer than till the coming of Christ so much better was that Covenant wherein Christ was Sponsor and Surety for God that it should be made good to us on Gods part confirmed to us by Christ in the Gospel a better Covenant than that of the Law wherein Moses undertook for God to us This Scripture thus expounded is so far from confirming Mr. Nortons sense of the word Surety that it utterly over-turnes it For this Exposition makes Christ to be Gods Priest and Gods Surety to us but Mr. Norton makes this Surety to be our Surety to God in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant The Priests in the Law were ordained by God to make attonement for the people for their ceremonial sins by sprinkling the blood of their sacrifices on the Altar for their attonement but Christ was ordained by an oath first made to David Psa 110. That he would raise a Priest out of his loyns after the order of Melchisedech and that by his own blood he should make attonement to assure their conscience of the pardon of all their moral sins and so he should be Gods Surety of a better Testamental-Covenant as Mr. Ainsworth translates it for the greek signifies both a Covenant and a Testament It is called a Covenant saith Mr. Ball in respect of the manner of agreement and a Testament in respect of the manner of Ball on the Coven p. 196 confirming a Covenant in respect of God a Testament in respect of Christ who dyed as a Testator and confirmed by his death the testamentary promise made before of God for the obtaining of the eternal inheritance by the remission of sins Hence I conclude that this word Surety in Heb. 7. 22. cannot be understood of Gods making Christ to be our Surety in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant Secondly For his proof of the consequence of his Argument by Rom 3. 31. I refer the Reader to my Reply to his eighth Argument Thirdly He confirms his Argument by this Reason We are to know saith he that the Covenant of Grace it self obligeth us to fulfill the Covenant of Works in our Surety Thirdly I grant that the Covenant of Grace doth oblige â—â— to observe the moral Law as a Rule of our sanctified walking as I have shewed at large in my exposition of Lev. 18. 5. in cha 2. sect 2 But the Covenant of Grace doth not obligue us to fulfill the first Covenant of Works given to Adam for the Covenant was about things indifferent in their own nature and it was but temporary to last no longer than till the trial of Adams obedience or disobedience was made by one act as I have shewed in Chap. 2. 2 In case the first Covenant had been made in relation to the De Reconc pec p. 2. l. 1. c. 3. n. 4. c. 5. n. 7. moral Law of Nature yet in that sense Mr. Norton doth answer such an Argument as this gathered from Illyricus and Hemingius drawn from Rom. 3. 31. and I beleeve a judicious Reader will find more satisfaction in his reasoning than in Mr. Nortons But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 11. The word Better is not to be referred to either Covenant it self but to the manner of the despensation of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel Reply It is evident that the word Better is to be referred to the Covenant of Grace which is better than the outward legal ceremonial Covenant But it seems to me that Mr. Norton doth not understand the Apostles comparative Argument how Christ was made a Surety of a better Covenant but for the Readers information I will open my understanding of the word better Covenant First Consider that God made two Covenants with his people Israel at Mount Sinai First An outward typical Covenant Secondly an inward spiritual Covenant namely a Covenant of Works and
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 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 Wee 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 Vindiciae legis lect 21. p. 209. 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 foundest 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 faith and yet he hath not a word of establishing it by Christs suffering of the essential curse 3 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. â— 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 legis 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 Faederis 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 absolutely Ball on the Coven p. 115. 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
the mirror of his Tenent as in page 4. 17. 40. 55. 213. 246. c. and hee thinks that the very words of the Text do plainly confirm his sense because he hath bestowed but little pains in his Exposition Mr. Norton makes God to be just in this Text because he exacted such a full satisfaction from Christ our Surety materially as he hath threatned to sinners in the moral Law and therefore he makes the Incarnation and the Death of Christ and all his sufferings to be in obedience to the moral Law which hee calls the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice Reply I on the contrary do therefore make God to be called Just in this Text because he declared his Righteousnesse in forgiving beleeving sinners for the satisfaction sake of Christ which he performed according to the voluntary positive Law and Covenant as it was determined in Gods secret will and revealed only in his voluntary positive Laws and not in his moral Law for his positive Laws do often differ yea they are often contrary to his moral Law And in my Reply to his fifth and sixth Propositions in Chap. 2. and elsewhere I have shewed that Gods secret will declared only in his positive Laws and not in his moral Law is the inviolable Rule of his Relative Justice 2 It is acknowledged by many judicious that there passed a voluntary Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity for mans Redemption and that God did first declare this counsel of his Will in Gen. 3. 15. namely that he would put an utter Gen. 3. 15. enmity between the Devil in the Serpent and the seed of the deceived Woman and that the Devil should have ful liberty to deceive this seed of the woman and to pervert his obedience if he could by fraud as he had done Adam or by force in putting him to an ignominious violent death on the Crosse by piercing him in the Foot-soals but God declared also that this seed of the Woman should not be deceived but that he should break the Devils Head-plot by continuing constant in his obedience to the death and that he should make his soul a sacrifice in the midst of his Tortures on the Crosse which doubtlesse was exemplified The ground of full and just satisfaction to Gods justice is not by paying our full debt materially bur formally that God doth accept for full and just satisfaction which was constituted so to be by the conditions of the voluntary Covenant to Adam by the death and sacrifice of a Lamb as I have shewed elsewhere as full satisfaction to Gods Justice and as the procuring cause of Gods Reconciliation to all that should beleeve in this Promised seed for what else can bee called full satisfaction but that only that is so made by the voluntary Covenant for the half shekels in Exod. 30 12. was called the price of the Redemption of their lives but any man may see by Psal 49. 8. that materially it was not a full price until it was made to bee the full price formally only by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant Of this see more in Chap. 14. Sect. at Reply 8. 3 The performance of the said Combate and Sacrifice on Christs part is in Scripture phrase called The Righteousnesse of Christ and the meritorious nature of it was to bind God the Father to perform his Covenant on his part which was that he should be attoned and reconciled to beleeving sinners by forgiving their sins and receiving them into favour and the performance of this on God the Fathers part is often in Scripture-phrase called the Righteousnesse of God as I have shewed in 2 Cor. 5. 21. That so he might be just and the Justifier of him which beleeveth in Jesus But for the better understanding of this 26. verse I will propound and answer these two Queries 1 How God declared his Justice at this time 2 Why at this time 1 Touching the manner how God declared his Justice that must be fetched from its coherence with verse 25. and there it Rom. 3. 25. is said that God declared his justice in setting forth Christ to be a propitiatory through faith in his blood for the remission of sins 1 Hence it is evident that God had covenanted to and with Christ that if he would undertake to be the seed of the Woman and in that humane nature to combate with the Enemy Sathan to the shedding of his blood and would still continue obedient to the death and at last make his soul a sacrifice then he should be his Mercy-seat and then he would be reconciled to all beleevers and forgive them their sins through faith in his blood and therefore as soon as sinners are united to Christ by faith It is Gods Justice or his Righteousnesse to remit their sins that are past as I shewed before in 1 Joh. 1. 9. and more fully in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Heb. 8. 12. 2 This very name His Propitiatory whence God declares Christ is Gods Mercy-seat in point of satisfaction Heb. 4. 16. his Justice in remitting sins doth plainly tell us but that we are dull of hearing that Christs satisfaction was not Solutio ejusdem but tantidem by vertue of the voluntary Covenant or else what need is there that God should declare his justice from his Propitiatory or from his Mercy-seat or from his Throne of grace as Christ by his Satisfaction is called in Heb. 4. 16. if Christs satisfaction had been solutio ejusdem as Mr. Norton holds then it should have been more fitly said that God declared his justice from his Justice-seat and not from his Mercy-seat but because Christs death and sacrifice was by the voluntary positive Law and Covenant made to be the Tantidem for beleevers as it is evident by the former instance of the half shekels which was made to be the full price of the Redemption of their lives formally only by Gods voluntary Covenant therefore it is most fitly said that God declared his justice from his Mercy-seat 3 This phrase Caporeth his Propitiatory or his Mercy-seat is first used in Exod. 25. 17. And it is commonly used saith Ainsworth to set forth Gods merciful covering of sins as in Psal 65. 4. where it is translated by the Seventy with the allowance Psal 65. 4. of the Holy Ghost in Heb. 9. 5. Hilasterion that is a Propitiatory or a Covering Mercy-seat and saith he this is applied by the Apostle to Christ Rom. 3. 25. See more of Caphar in Chap. 14. Sect. 6. Reply 8. The Hebrew Caphar saith Ainsworth is applied to the covering of an angry countenance as in Gen. 32. 20. There Jacob is Gen. 32. 20. said to cover Esau's angry face or to appease his anger by a liberal and acceptable gift and this word Caphar saith Ainsworth is often used in the Law for the covering or taking away Christs sacrifice is called a sacrifice of Attonement because it doth appease Gods angry face
27 28. He Answers thus The word All in this Text saith he is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fulfilled by the Romans and the Jews as the instruments thereof Reply 4. In this Answer he doth but repeat the full and true sense of the Dialogue and in so doing he justifies the sense of the Dialogue Now let the Reader judge how well he hath confuted the Dialogues proofs for the stating of the case And whether this Answer of his be not rather a confused shuffling of an Answer than an Answer to satisfie any judicious Reader CHAP. X. The Examination of Mr. Nortons Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in page 21. For the true understanding whereof saith Mr. Norton consider these three things 1 What is here intended by Death 2 The Distribution of Death 3 The Application of that Distribution SECT I. 1 Saith he The Commination Thou shalt surely dye is not particular concerning some kind of death but indefinite therefore equivalent to an universal comprehending all kinds of Death Reply 1. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. from two circumstances in this Text of Gen. 2. 17. that the death there threatned is limited to a spiritual death in sin only 2 In his Distribution And 3 In his Application of this Death he brings Christ within the compasse of it two wayes 1 By separation of his soul from his body which he makes to be a temporal and penal death in Christ 2 By the separation of his soul from the sense of the good things of the promise and the presence of the evill things in the commination which he calls Total Temporal and properly Penal in Christ Reply 2. I deny that the death of Christ namely the separation The death of Christ could not be a penal death because Gods Law threatens none with a penal death but sinners themselves In his Common places part 2. p. 244. of his soul from his body was a proper penal death for the Law of God threatens no man with a penal death nor yet with any other true curse but sinners themselves Sin and Death saith Peter Martyr is compared as cause and effect But saith he here we must exempt Christ only who notwithstanding he knew no sin yet for our sakes he dyed But saith he Death had no dominion over him because he of his own accord did suffer it for our salvation The like speech of his I have cited in page 54. Had not Christ dyed voluntarily saith Bernard ad milites Templi cap. 11. that death had not been meritorious how much more unworthily he dyed who deserved not death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wilt ask is this that an innocent should dye for a malefactor It is no justice it is mercy If it were justice then should he not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed he should dye but the other for whom he dyed should not live yet though it be not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not be both just and merciful These Testimonies of the Orthodox and more to this purpose I might bring do point-blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent that Christs death was inflicted on him from Gods penal justice through the meritorious cause of sin as our death is on us But it is no such matter Christs death is of another nature The true nature of Christs death was to be a sacrifice because he undertook it from the voluntary Cause and Covenant onely upon condition of meriting the destruction of Satans Head-plot and the redeeming of all the Elect thereby and in this respect his obedience in giving his life was covenanted to be accepted by the Father as a free gift and as the richest Present that the world could afford namely as a sacrifice of Attonement or Reconciliation smelling like a most sweet savor in the nostrils of God and in this respect his death is the ground of merit but had it been inflicted on him from Gods penal wrath as deserved through the imputation of sin it had merited nothing as Bernard speaks above When conditions are made by a voluntary Covenant for the winning or meriting of a rich prize he that will strive for the mastery with his opposite Champion for the winning of the said Prize must strive lawfully that is to say in obedience to those Laws and he must be willing to undergo all the hardships that he must meet withall from his opposite Champion it may be to the forcing of his body into an Agony it may be to the breaking of his body and to the shedding of much blood all this he must do from the voluntary cause from the voluntary Covenant for the Masters of the Game do not compel any man to undertake these difficult services neither do they out of anger and wrath inflict any of the said punishments though the opposite party may happily do what he can in anger to pervert the Combaters obedience and to provoke him to some miscarriage against the Laws of the prize that so he may not win the prize from him Even so Jesus Christ the author and finisher of our Faith for the joy that was set before him indured the cross despising the shame and is now set down as a Victor over Satan and all his potent Instruments at the right hand of God having first endured the cross and the contradiction of sinners and hath spoyled Principalities and Powers in it namely in his death on the cross which by Gods appointment did strive for the mastery with him and the Devil did in anger provoke him what he could to spoil his obedience and so to hinder him from destroying his head-plot and so from winning the prize namely from the salvation of the Elect and the Devil proceeded so far in his rage that he peirced him in the foot-soals for a wicked Malefactor These things I bring to exemplifie my meaning that the death of Christ was not a proper penal death inflicted from the wrath of God as Mr. Norton doth make it to be in his distribution But it was a death agreed on by the voluntary Covenant having A description of Christs merit respect unto the curse accidentally because his Combater Satan had a commission from God to do his worst to make him a sinner and so to use him as a Malefactor by putting him to an ignominious and cursed death and so to disturb his patience if he could but because Christ continued constant in his obedience therefore he merited the redemption of all the Elect from the curse of the Law And this is a true description of merit whereby God made himself a debtor to Christ But to affirm that the death of Christ did proceed from Gods penal curse as an effect from the cause as Mr. Norton affirms doth utterly destroy the merit of his death and Sacrifice as Bernard said above and as you may
in Rom. 3. 21. but not so clearly as here these meditations on Rom. 10. 3. were his last meditations on that phrase and therefore his best for by this time he had the advantage of more â—eading and meditation to clear up his full mind and meaning And see what he saith further of Gods Righteousness which I have cited in the Exposition of Rom. 3. 26. Secondly Mr. Norton de Reconc pec par 2. l. 1. c. 20. saith at Sect. 4. That 2 Cor. 5 21 doth comprehend the same Righteousness which the Apostle may well say is the end or effect of the oblation of Christ The Righteousness of God And saith he it comprehends the righteousness which may be required to the justification of a sinner And in Sect. 5. saith he in the second place I answer That the righteousness of God in the places alleged may fitly rightly enough be expounded of remission of sins for it is plain enough saith he that in all these places is handled the formal cause of Justification which saith he I have taught is contained in Remâ—ssion of sins in par 1. l. 2. c. 17. But remission of sins may well be called the righteousness of God because it is a righteousness approved by God And indeed Calv. Iâ—sti l. 3. c. 11. n. 9. doth so interpret the righteousness of God to be a righteousness that is approved of God Thirdly Mr. Bale on the Covenant in p. 72. calls the righteousness of God in Phil 3. 9. and in 1 Cor. 5. 21. the remission of sins By the Righteousness of God saith he understand remission of sins and regeneration and consider what he saith in the place immediately cited Fourthly Sedulius in Râ—m 3. 21. calls the Righteousness of God there the remission of sins Fifthly Tindal doth thus open the Righteousness of God in Rom. 10. 3. The Jews saith he were not obedient to the Justice or Righteousness that commeth of God which is the Rom. 10. 3. See Tindals works p. 381. forgiveness of sin in Christs blood to all that repent and beleeve And saith he in p. 30. By reason of which false righteousness they were disobedent to the Righteousnesse of God which saith he is the forgiveness of sin in Christs blood And Tindal in his Prologue to the Romans shews first How we are justified by the Righteousness of God the Father Secondly How we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ Thirdly How we are justified by Faith And in all these he speaks just according to the sense expressed in the Dialogue 1 Saith he When I say God justifieth us understand thereby that for Christ his sake merit and deservings onely he receiveth us unto his Mercy Favor and Grace and forgiveth us our sins 2 Saith he When I say Christ justifieth understand thereby that Christ onely hath redeemed us and brought and delivered us out of the wrath of God and damnation and with his works onely hath purchased us the favor of God and the forgiveness of sins 3 When I say that Faith justifieth understand thereby that faith and trust in the Truth of God and in the Mercy promised us for Christs sake and for his deservings onely doth quiet the conscience and certifie her that our sins are forgiven and we in full favor of God And in p. 187. he abreviates the speeches thus In his works p. 187. The faith saith he of true beleevers is First That God justifieth or forgiveth Secondly That Christ deserveth it Thirdly That Faith and trust in Christs blood receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof And in p. 225. he doth again repeat it thus God doth justifie actively that is to say forgiveth us for full righteous 2. Christs love deserveth it And 3. Faith in the Promises receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof Thus you see that Tindal doth fully express himself in the very sense of the Dialogue And this Doctrine hath been generally received of the godly in the days of King Henry the eighth and in the days of King Edward the Sixth by the generality of the learned and it hath been often printed not onely in his Books but also in his Bible in his Prologue to the Romans and it hath been transcribed and printed by Marbock in his Common places though now this antient received Truth is by Mr. Norton and some few others counted both for novelty and heresie And thus have I shewed from five eminent Orthodox Divines that the Righteousness of God the Father to sinners it nothing else but his reconciliation as it is defined by the Apostle by not imputing sin in v. 19. which is also called the Righteousness of God in ver 21. And therefore it follows necessarily that the true sense of the one and twentieth verse according to the context is this 1 That God the Father from the voluntary cause and Covenant made or constituted Christ to be a Sin Sacrifice for us namely to procure Gods Reconciliation for us 2 That the performance of the said Sin-Sacrifice is in Rom. 5. 18. called Dicaioma not Dicaiosune the righteousness of Rom. 5. 18. Christ because it was his obedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant and not because it was his moral obedience as Mr. Norton doth mis-interpret it in p. 230. 3 That God the Father did Covenant on his part to and with Christ that for his Sin-Sacrifice sake he would be reconciled to sinners as soon as they are in Christ by Faith by not imputing their sins to them and this performed on God the Fathers part is by the Apostle called the righteousness of God because he performs according to his positive Law and Covenant and by this righteousness of God he is reconciled to all beleeving sinners and so by this means they are thereby made fully righteous in his sight 4 From the said righteousness of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-Sacrifice it follows That as by one mans disobedience to Gods meer positive Law in eating Rom. 5. 19. the forbidden fruit the many as well as the Reprobates are made sinners by the meritorious cause of his disobedience So by the obedience of one namely of Christ to a meer positive Law in undertaking to combate with Satan and to continue obedient to the death of the cross and at last to make his Soul a Sacrifice the many are made righteous Rom. 5. 19. for by this obedience of his to the said positive Law and Covenant he hath merited not onely their conversion by the Holy Ghost but also the Fathers reconciliation for their justification by not imputing their sins to them So then the comparison that is made between the first Adam and the second lies in the meritorious cause for as the first Adam merited the death of sin to all his posterity by his disobedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant so the second Adam merited the life of Gods Spirit and of Gods forgiveness by his obedience to Gods positive Law in
3. and then it follows in ver 4. That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us or Rom. 8 4. that the Justification of the Law may be fulfilled in us as Tremelius and the Syriack and the vulgar Latin do translate the Greek word Dicaioma that is here used But here it may be demanded what kind of Righteousness or Justification of the Law doth Dicaioma mean should be fulfilled in us The Answer is Not the righteousness of the moral Law as Mr. Norton doth mis-interpret this Text in p. 233. but the righteousness that was typified by the positive Ordinances of the ceremonial Law for the Greek word here used is not Dicaiosune which is the largest word for all kind of righteousness but Dicaioma which is more restrained to the positive Ordinances and which in proper English doth signifie the just Ordinance or the righteous estate of the Law namely either of the Ceremonial or Judicial Laws but especially of the Ceremonial Laws as Mr. Ainsworth sheweth in Numb 31. 21. in Gen. 26. 5. in Deut. 4. 1 14. and in Psal 2. 7. 2 This is the true interpretation of Dicaioma as it is further evident because the Apostle doth use this word to describe the nature of their legal justifications of divine Service in Heb. 9. 1. 10. which he calls carnal justifications in vers 10 as Mr. Dickson and others have well observed 3 This word is also used by the Septuagint for the righteous making of things as well as of persons that were ceremonially unclean for no dead things or unreasonable creatures are guilty of moral sins but by Gods positive Ordinance they may bee guilty of Ceremonial sins Numb 31. 19 20 21 22 23 24. 4 Hence it follows That this kind of positive ceremonial righteousness was typical to such as had faith in the observation of these Statutes to look from the typical ordinances of cleansing and righteous making to the positive sacrifice of Christ as the perfection of all the typical cleansings for that only was ordained to procure Gods eternal Reconciliation in not imputing sin for the cleansing of the conscience from moral sins therefore such as did thus keep the Statutes and Ordinances of Righteousness as Zachary and Elizabeth did Luke 1. 6. should obtain thereby an everlasting Righteousness in Gods sight instead of the Ceremonial And this Doctrine is cleerly taught and expressed in Deut. 6. 24 25. I say from these â—erses it is plain that their outward Deut. 6. 24 25. and legal observations of their positive Statutes did make them righteous or justifie their bodies as fit persons for Gods holy presence in his holy Sanctuary and for feasting with him as their attoned God in Covenant on the flesh of their Passovers and Peace-offerings and so it typifies true justification and therefore their careful doing of these typical Ordinances had an outward blessing promised as to persons that were outwardly justified as well as they which had faith in Christ had the promise of Gods Reconciliation for their eternal justification 5 This word Dicaioma is used by the Septuagint to express their outward righteousness or justification by their exact care in observing the positive judicial Laws of Moses And for this also see Ainsworth in Exod. 21. 1. Num. 15. 15. But as I said before it is chiefly applyed to the positive Statuâ—es that concerned Gods worship in his Sanctuary and so to the judicial positive Statutes as they did chiefly respect their judicial trials about their Ceremonial righteousness and their justification thereby in his Sanctuary as these places do evidence in all which the Septuagint use the word Dicaioma for that kind of righteousness chiefly as in Gen. 26. 5. Exod. 15. 25 26. Lev. 25. 18. Numb 27. 11. Numb 30. 16. Numb 31. 21. Deut. 4. 1 5 8 14 40 45. Deut. 5 1 37. Deut. 6. 1 2 17 20 24 25. 2 King 17. 13 34 37. Psal 18. 22. Psal 50. 16. Psal 98. 31. Psal 105. 45. Psal 119. 5 8 12 16 23 33 48 54 71 80 112 117 135 145 155 171. Psal 47. 19. and Ezek. 26. 37. 6 This word Dicaioma is by our Translators rendred Justification in Rom. 5. 16. and that most fitly because it doth in Rom. 5. 16. that place set out the true nature of our eternal justification in Gods sight by his gracious forgiveness as being the truth of their legal and typical justifications for the Apostle doth reason here about justification in the same manner as hee did in Heb. 9. for there hee reasons thus If saith hee the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean doth sanctifie to the purifying or justifying of the flesh namely by procuring Gods Attonement as I have explained the matter a little before then saith hee How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works namely by obtaining Gods Attonement for your moral sins as it is the truth of the typical justification And just after this sort doth the Apostle reason in Rom. 5. 16. The free gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness Rom. 5. 16. is of many offences to justification The tongue of Angels cannot express the true nature and form of our eternal justification plainer than in the words of this 16. verse but for further light I will cite Tindals Translation thus And the gift is not over one sin as death came through one sin of one that sinned For damnation came of one sin to condemnation but the gift came to justifie from many sins 7 This word Dicaioma is by our Translators rendred Righteousness in Rom. 5. 18. By the Rightoousness of one namely by the righteousness of Christ in obeying Gods positive Law and Covenant by making his soul a Sin-offering as soon as hee had finished his combate with Sathan according to his Covenant with his Father The free gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness of many offences as it is expressed in vers 16. came upon all men to righteousness or to the justification of life So called to distinguish it from the legal justification for our spiritual death in sin entred upon all men by Adams transgression of Gods positive Law verse 12. and here life from that death is procured by the obedence of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-sacrifice 8 This is also worth our observation that this word Dicaioma is used by the Apostle to express both the meritorious cause of our justification in verse 18. by the righteousness of Christ in his death and the formal cause of our justification in verse 16. by Gods Attonement or forgiveness procured thereby just according to the types in the Law For first there was the meritorious cause of their legal justification by washing by sprinkling and by the blood of Buls and Goats and then followed the formal cause of their legal justification by Gods attonement procured thereby And this
they are not capable of sin in a proper sense and therefore also they are not capable of this kind of righteousness But the Dialogue speaks only of sinners that are reasonable creatures yea and of such sinners as are in Christ and therefore it speaks of such creatures as are capable of pardon and so they are fit subjects of being made righteous by pardon But Secondly Why cannot pardon compleat righteousness hath not God a supreme power by his voluntary Law and Covenant to make it a sinners formal righteousness as well as he had to constitute a fruit tree which he called the Tree of Life to confirm Adam in his created perfections if he had but once eaten thereof We must not look to what is a perfect righteousness to our senses but we must look to Gods positive Ordinance he could tell how to ordain such a righteousness as will best fit sinners Thirdly We see also that by his own voluntary Ordinance he made unreasonable creatures that are not guilty of moral sins to be guilty of ceremonial sins and to be capable also of ceremonial justification as I instanced afore of the Temple it was first polluted by Antiochus and it was afterwards justified by sanctified Priests in carrying out the filth thereof Dan. 8. 14. The like may be said of the defiled leprous house and of the cleansing of it in Levit. 14. And see more for this in Ainsw in Exod. 29. 36. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 212. If you inquire after the essential matter of justification among the The material cause of Justification causes enumerated by the Author behold the Dialogue is speechless and presents you with a form without matter such a being as is neither created nor increated And he takes delight in this Irony because he doth so often repeat it as in p. 212 217 225 237 c. Reply 6 Herein Mr. Norton doth mock at Gods Wisdom and Work in giving a form to the Angels without matter Mr. Ainsworth saith that the Angels have a form without matter and he cites Maymony to concur in that in Gen. 1. 1. Yea the matter of mans body and the form of Angels may be united to do service to man and yet not be but one person but may continue still to be both distinct matter without form and form without matter As for example when the Angels assumed bodies it was noâ— to give that matter any natural form but it was a miraculous union onely for their present ministry to men And hence you see that the matter of mans body and the form of Angels may be united and yet remain two distinct things Secondly Mr. Norton doth not only mock at the Dialogue but at sundry other eminent Divines who make no other material cause than the Dialogue doth 1 The Dialogue saith that the subject matter of Justification is beleeving sinners and in this the Dialogue follows learned Mr. Wotton And 2. Mr. Wotton doth follow Peter Martyr who makes See P. Martyr in Rom. 3. 26. no other material cause in Justification but beleeving sinners And 3. Saith M. Ball It is to be observed that the Apostle saith And Ball on the Coven p. 219. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself where saith he the world is the subject or matter of reconciliation and by the same reason he makes it the matter of Justification for he makes Justification to be a branch at least of Reconciliation if not the whole as I noted before 4. Mr. John Goodwin doth learnedly dispute against that kind of material cause that Mr. Norton contends for and hee also See Vindiciae fidei par 2. follows Mr. Wotton for the subject matter 5. Mr. Baxter in his Aphorisms p. 213. enumerating the causes saith that a material cause properly it hath none If saith he you will improperly call Christs satisfaction the remote matter I contend not And in p. 217. he saith thus Christs righteousness cannot be the material cause of an act which hath no matter And in his Reply to Mr. Ayre p. 20. Sect. 4. He saith thus First As matter is proper to substance so Justification being an accident hath no matter are not you of the same mind Secondly As accidents do inhere in the subject so the subject is commonly called their matter In this sense also our righteousness or justification passive is not in Christs righteousness but in our selves and so our selves are the matter for I think it is we that are justified and saith he in another place if any please to make the blood of Christ the matter improperly I contend not And to this I do also give my consent But Mr. Norton makes Christs suffering of hell torments and the second death to be the matter and this matter I cannot consent to But saith Mr. Norton in p. 222. To speak after the stile of the Dialogue if righteousness for sinners be purchased and procured by Christs sacrifice of attonement neither then can attonement be a sinners righteousness that which procureth or purchaseth is the cause that which is procured is the effect the cause cannot be the effect Reply 7. 1 The stile of the Dialogue is borrowed very much from the types of the ceremonial Law which were ordained to be our School-master to Christ and I beleeve if more pains were taken to express the point of satisfaction and the point of justification in that stile it would be much for the clearing of the truth 2 It seems that Mr. Norton will have no other righteousness for a sinners formal righteousness but Christs moral righteousness imputed for he makes the Fathers righteousness in being attoned to sinners of no account in the formal cause But saith Mr. Baxter in his Apology to Mr. Blake p. 24. It must be known that the righteousness given us is not the righteousness whereby Christs person was righteous for accidents perish being removed from their subject but it is a righteousness merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience for us And that can be no other say I but a passive righteousness by Gods merciful attonement in not imputing sin as I have exemplified it from the types of Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances 3. I have already shewed and I think it needful to repeat it again First That it was Christs satisfactory Righteousness to perform the Covenant on his part by his death and sacrifice And secondly That it was Gods Righteousness to perform the Covenant on his part which was to be reconciled to sinners by not imputing their sins to them as soon as they are in Christ by faith The meritorious righteousness of the death and sufferings of Christs combate with Satan performed on his part did bind God to perform his said Reconciliation on his part and both these Righteousnesses together with the performance of the Covenant on the part of the Holy Ghost which was to proceed from the Father and the Son to convert sinners and â—o unite them to Christ
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 whether 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. The 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 sores to molifie and asswage their angry pain 2 This Hebrew word is also used for the Hoar-frost in Exo. 16. 14. 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 Esau'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 Prev 16. 14. 4 Caphar is put for a Bribe because a Bribe doth cover the Exod. 30. 12. A further description of Gods Attonement in respect both of the meritorious formal causes eyes of the Judge and causeth him to pervert Justice Amos 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 therewiâ—h 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 volunrary positive Law and Covenant ransom or cover of their souls from death which else would certainly have fallen upon them was but half a Shekel which in humane reason materially considered cannot be esteemed a sufficient price for the ransom of their souls from death as David sheweth in Psal 49. 7 8. yea though it were paid yearly during life But formally considered namely as it was ordained by Gods positive Law and Covenant to be paid and accepted as the price of redeeming their lives from death so it was the full price of their lives because Gods positive Law and Covenant had made it to be a full price if they had offered many thousands of silver for the redemption of their lives yet it had not been a sufficient price without Gods positive Law and Covenant As I have shewed in Chap. 8. in Ahabs offer to Naboth in 1 King 21. 3. Even so it was Gods positive Law and Covenant that made the death and sacrifice of Christ to be the 2 King 21. 3. full price to cover Gods angry face or to attone him for the ransom of the many Mat. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 2. 6. 1 Tim. 2. 6. The said price of redemption is called the silver of Attonements Exod. 30. 16. and with
as I said before that Christ did not desire simply at any time to be freed from death for that had been to desire to be freed from the performance of his Covenant but only from the cup of his natural fear from his present natural distrust of his ignominious usage by his ignominious and painful death and in this prayer and supplication of his he was heard and delivered Heb. 5. 7. and this request was of necessity to be obtained or else he could not have fulfilled his Covenant which was that he would lay down his life by his own free will desire and power even by the active power and joynt concurrence of both his natures Joh. 10. 17 18. and this command he could not fulfil until he had obtained a confirmation by his earnest prayers in the Garden against his natural fear of death And hence it follows that seeing Christ could not prevent his decreed death he was bound by his Covenant to be troubled at least for a time with the fear of it and that in a transcendent manner as much as his humane tender natural constitution could bear without sin namely until he had by his earnest prayers obtained a confirmation 5 Saith Zanchy as touching Christs divine nature there was De Tribus Eloâ—im part 2. l. 3. c. 9. And see Weams in his Portraiture p. 191 192. alwayes one and the same will of the Father and the Son concerning his death and Passion yea as Christ was man hee was alwayes obedient to his Father and therefore hee said I alwayes do the things that please him What meaning then saith he hath this That he prayed to be freed from death and from the cup He answers Naturally as man Christ feared abhorred and shunned death and his natural horror of death he called his Will when he said Not my will be done to wit this natural Will which I have as man yet neither doth this Will of Christ resist his Fathers Will for the Father would have Christ to bee like us in all things except sin and to that end would have him made man Therefore when Christ did naturally shun and desire to escape death hee did not contradict his Fathers will because the Father would have this natural fear and horror to bee in Christ as a * So Weams in his Portraiture of the Image of God in man p. 148. saith Christs Passions were a punishment but not a sin And saith Weams in p. 220. Christ had natural fear actually which the first Adam had not because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before Christ punishment of our sins wherefore it is altogether false that Christs will in this was divers from his Fathers will But saith he if in respect of the same end the Father had been willing that Christ should dye and Christ had been unwilling or had never so little refused then their Wills indeed had been repugnant but in reference to the same end namely our salvation Christ alwayes had the same will that his Father had In these words Zanchy doth shew that it was absolutely necessary for Christ in regard of his true humane nature to bee inwardly touched with the natural fear of his bodily death and to evidence it outwardly but he makes no mention that Christ feared his spiritual and eternal death as Mr. Norton doth most unsoundly from the same Text. But saith Mr. Norton still in page 57. It hath oftentimes been the case of Martyrs to give up their lives with joy Reply 7. Hence he thinks it was not beseeming for Christ If there be any Martyrs to whom it is pleasant to die that they have from other where and not from the nature of death to bee so troubled as he was with the fear of his bodily death But saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 12. All the godly do affirm that in death there is a feeling of the wrath of God and therefore of its own nature it driveth men into a certain pain and horror which thing saith he both Christ himself when he prayed in the Garden and many other holy men have declared And saith he if there chance to be any to whom it is pleasant and delectable to dye and to be rid of their life that they have elsewhere and not from the nature of death In these words observe that P. Martyr doth make the bodily death of Christ to be the material cause of his pain and horror in the Garden quite contrary to Mr. Norton he doth never mention the Second death and Hell-torments to bee the cause of his horror in the Garden as Mr. Norton doth 2 Saith hee If there be any whether Martyrs of Christ to whom it is pleasant and delectable to dye and to be rid of their life that they have elsewhere and not from the nature of death 3 The Dialogue gives good reasons in page 52. why Christ should shew more fear of death then any Martyrs namely First For the cleerer manifestation of the truth of his humane nature And secondly For the accomplishment of the Predictions of his sufferings and therefore that mercy of his that made him to take our humane nature of the seed of the woman made him to take our natural infirmities and to manifest them to the uttermost in seasonable times as objects did present the occasion But saith Mr. Norton in page 69. You make Christ not only more afraid of natural death than many Martyrs but to shew more fear of death than any man And saith hee Your reasons are but deceptions Reply 8. If Christ had shewed no more natural fear of death than some men do it might well have been doubted whether hee had been true man or no seeing sundry Hereticks have called it into question notwithstanding hee gave such large testimony of it by his exceeding natural fear as hee did I find this excellent Observation in our larger Annotations on Psal 22. 1. We further briefly say That Christ was pleased to yeeld to sense or feeling so far 1 That he might shew himself a perfect true man a thing not easily beleeved as appears by the multitude of Heresies about this matter that sprung up soon after the first plantation of the faith there being no greater evidence to ordinary judgement at least of his perfect humanity than his being subject to the common infirmities of men Secondly To keep us from fainting and despair in the greatest trials combats and afflictions whether spiritual or corporal when God seems to forget us And thirdly As for them that think unpassionateness the Aulus Gellius a known ancient Writer in his 19. book of Noctes Atticae ch 1. 12. greatest evidence of magnanimity I commend the Disputes of two famous Philosophers recorded by Aulus Gellius Thus far speaks the said Annotation Fourthly this is observable That though many Martyrs have through the grace of constancy undergone the pains of death with joy or with little sign of their natural
his death he was the onely active Priest in breathing out or sending out his soul from his body But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. And in this case Christ was his own Executioner which last saith he the Dialogue it self expresly rejecteth Reply 20. There is good reason to reject it for though God commanded Christ in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our infirmities to enter the Lists with his envious Combater Satan and also permitted Satan to enter the Christ was not his own executioner or self-murderer though he was the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice Lists with Christ and to assault him with a Band of Souldiers with staves and swords yet he did not command Christ to take any of these weapons from them and run them into his own body on purpose to kill himself that so he might be his own executioner â—â— Saul was to prevent the ignominious usage of his Adversaries this kind of killing is Diabolical and Christ might not be his own executioner in any such like manner therefore the Dialogue had good reason to reject that kind of Tenent The Dialogue saith thus in p. 102. Though he did not break his own body and pour out his own blood with nails and spear as the Roman Souldiers did yet he brake his own body in peeces by separating his own soul from his body by his own Priestly power And thus Beza makes Christ to break his body actively as well as passively But it is a prophane expression to compare the act of a Priest in killing a sacrifice to the act of an executioner that puts a malefactor to death and it is a like prophane expression to call such a death Self-murder or Homicide If Abraham had formally killed Isaack as he intended yet he had not been Isaacks murderer no nor yet his executioner according to the known use of the word neither was Isaack to be called a Self-murtherer or a Homicide being now thirty three years old and therfore able to have resisted his See Beza Annot on 1 Cor. 11. 24. And Haymâ— there also Father in submitting himself to be bound and to be laid on the Altar to be killed But in that act we see how God esteemed it for in that act Abraham should have been the Priest and Isaack the Sacrifice And so ought we to esteem of the act of Christ in his death in his Divine nature he was the Priest and in his humane nature he was the Sacrifice as the Dialogue saith or thus by the joynt concurrence of both his natures he was both Priest and Sacrifice But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. Though Haman according to the true sense of the Text Ester 8. 7. be said lay his hand upon the Jews yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman Abraham is said to have offered up Isaack yet Isaack is said no where to be slain by Abraham as Abraham did sacrifice Isaack so was Isaack sacrificed that is to say interpretatively or vertually not actually Reply 21. Those instances in the Dialogue in p. 100. are more clearly expressed than they are related by Mr. Norton and the intent of those instances was no more but this namely to exemplifie that though the Jews are said to kill Christ yet that they did not formally separate his soul from his body though they did enough to make themselves true murderers of the Lord of life but the last act was done by himself as he was the Priest in his own death But saith Mr. Norton in p. 85. How oft do we read in Scripture that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews Act. 2. 37. and 4. 10. 1 Cor. 2. 8. Reply 22. I grant the Scripture doth often say that the Jews did slay and murder the Lord of life but saith the Geneva note on Act. 2. 23. on the word you have slain The fact is said to be theirs by whose counsel and egging forward it was done By this note it appeareth that in their judgement Christ was not actually put to death by the Jews but vertually onely and so Isaack is said to have been offered up by Abraham in the Preter-tense so the new Translation in Jam. 2. 21. because he did really intend and endeavor to do it So then I hope the Dialogue saith true notwithstanding Mr. Nortons busling contradiction namely that the Jews did not put Christ to death formally But in case he was put to death formally by second causes then it follows that it was done by the Devil in the Roman powers for they had the power of life and death at this time and not the Jews as I have shewed at large in the Dialogue the Jews and Romans were true murtherers but not the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice This distinction of his death is contemned by Mr. Norton But it is a very harsh saying in mine ears to say That the Devil in the Roman powers was the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice as they must bee if they were the formal cause of Christs death and to me it is as hard a speech to say That the wrath of God the Father was the formal cause of Christs death as some say it was and as Mr. Norton saith also sometimes in true effect for in page 79 he saith That Christs death was joyned with thâ— curse made up of the pain of sense and the pain of loss and in page 70 he saith It is a fiction to assert any divine prediction That Christ should only suffer a bodily death and presently after he saith Christ dyed as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Hence I reason thus If the wrath of God the Father did put Christ to death formally then the Father was the Priest in the death and sacrifice of Christ which is quite contrary to Gods own established order for by his oath hee made Christ an unchangeable Priest that so hee might bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice Heb. 7. 21. Christ was not by nature obnoxious to death nor to any other misery but by Covenant only and therefore second causes could not further work his misery and death than he gave way to according to his own voluntary Covenant he covenanted to take our nature and infirmities and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan and that Satan should have full liberty to do to him all the mischief that he could even to the peircing of him in the foot-soals but he also covenanted that no man nor power of Satan should take his life from him formally but that himself would be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and according to this Covenant God commanded him to lay down his own life and to take it up again Joh. 10. 17 18. But the main Argument of the Dialogue
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 uâ— 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 Parenthesis 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 iâ— 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 out sending out or putting 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-â—cted 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 price 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 his death on the Cross namely he did not so forsake him as to suffer his humane nature to be put to death formally by the power of Satans torturing pains neither did he appoint his death to be made a sacrifice by his own immediate wrath but onely by Christs own Priestly power 2 Hence it follows That the death of Christ in the formality of it was accepted of God as a Mediatorial sacrifice of Reconciliation by which his wrath was appeased and his favour procured to all poor humbled and beleeving sinners he was the Mediator of the New Testament through his death because he compleated the same as our Mediatorial Priest by the joynt concurrence of both his natures in personal union and in that