or else in case they have Faith to look from the typicall attonement to the mystical they shall thereby have an eternal pardon from their moral sins and so an eternal justification in Gods sight Or thus Gods Reconciliation procured by an acceptable sacrifice is not like the Reconciliation of a Judge that doth but barely acquit a Malefactor and so leaves him but it is like the Reconciliation of a merciful Father that doth not only forgive his child but together with that forgiveness doth also receive him into favour and in this sense these two terms Gods Attonement and his gracious forgiveness for Christs sacrifice sake is the same thing And thus Gods forgiveness is the whole of his Reconciliation 3 This sense of Gods forgiveness as it is the whole of Reconciliation is evident by Gods promise in the New Covenant for in Jer. 31. 34. the promise runs thus I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more This promise is thus expounded in Heb. 8. 12. I will be merciful to their unrighteousnesse Heb. 8. 1â— and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more the first expression I will be merciful is as much as I will bee Reconciled or Attoned to their unrighteousness for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Septuagint to express the force of the Hebrew word Caphar in Deu. 21. 8. and it is there used for Deut. 21. 8. Gods Attonement or Expiation and therefore this expression I will be merciful may as well bee translated I will bee pacified or I will be reconciled or I will be attoned to their unrighteousness and will remember their sins no more And saith Nâ—hemiah 9. 17. Thou art a God of pardons gracious and merciful And hence it is plain that Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent or a means of Gods Attonement but it is plainly a true part thereof if it bee not the whole 4 This is yet further evident because the Septuagint do also use this Greek word for the Hebrew word Nasa in Num. Num. 14. 19. 14. 19. where it is used to express Gods forgiveness by his bearing of sin away but the Septuagint express it by his being merciful or pacified or reconciled but yet in vers 18. there the Septuagint translate Nasa by bearing away 5 The Septuagint do also use this Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express Gods repentance towards sinners by forgiving and not punishing their sin as in Exod. 32. 12. Moses saith thus to God Repent of the evil to thy people but the Septuagint translate it be merciful or bee pacified or bee reconciled or bee propitious to the evill of thy people alluding in this expression to Gods Propitiatory or Mercy-seat where in type God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself by not imputing their sins to them as I have opened the Hebrew word Caphar more at large in Reply 9. 6 This kind of forgiveness for the sake of Christs sacrifice doth con-note a state of favour that the subject is put into by means thereof Psal 32. 1. as reconciliation and justification doth in 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. and therefore Gods forgiveness may well be called his merciful forgiveness or his reconciled forgiveness as Mr. Ainsworth doth open Gods forgiveness in Psal 25. 11. and therefore it is not an antecedent but a concurrent part of Gods Reconciliation or of Gods Righteousnesse for Psal 25. 11. they have but one and the same sense by the context in 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. though the terms be divers for I demand how else are wee made righteous by the Righteousness of God the Father but by his Righteousness in keeping Covenant with Christ which was to bee reconciled to beleeving sinners for the sake of his Sin-sacrifice in not imputing their sins to them And thus you see that these three terms Gods merciful forgiveness and his Reconciliation and his Righteousness in making sinners righteous by his said forgiveness do all con-note the same state of favour that the subject is put into by means thereof and so forgiveness is not antecedent but concurrent to Reconciliation and Justification 7 It is yet further evident that Christ was made sin to reconcile God withal and so to procure his forgiveness for a sinners justification by the Levitical terms given to the Sin-offering as the procuring cause of Gods reconciliation for it is often said in the Law that God ordained the Sin-offering to Lev. 6. 30. reconcile withal as in Lev. 6. 30. 2. Chr. 29. 24. Exod. 29. 36. Exod. 30. 10. Ezek. 45. 15 17. Num. 15. 30. 8 God ordained all sorts of sacrifices as well as the Sin-offering to procure Gods reconciliation by not imputing sin and therefore in this respect they are called sometimes Sacrifices of Attonement as in Exod. 30. 10. and sometimes sacrifices of righteousness as in Deut. 33. 19. Psal 4 5. Psal 51. 19. Deut. 33. 19. Psal 51. 19. as I have shewed in Reply 7. And why else are sacrifices of Attonement called sacrifices of Righteousness but because in their legal use they did ex opere operato procure Gods reconciliation in not imputing their legal sins to them and that was their legal righteousness For the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh And hence the Apostle doth argue How much more shall the blood of Christ be of force to procure Gods reconciliation in not imputing sin and so to cleanse the conscience from moral sins for our eternal righteousness and therefore answerable to the types God ordained Christ by his positive Law and Covenant to bee our Burnt-offering our Peace-offering our Trespass-offering our Meat-offering and our Sin-offering as the perfection of all the rest For by his one offering once offered hee ended the use of all Trespass offerings and finished Sin offerings and made reconciliation for iniquity and so brought in or procured an everlasting Righteousness Dan. 9. 24. instead of their Dan. 9. 24. Ceremonial reconciliation which was their Ceremonial righteousness for Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary And to this full sense doth Daniel speak in his prayer Dan. 9. 7. O Lord Righteousness belongeth unto thee that is to say merciful forgiveness Dan. 9. 7 15. or reconciliation and in vers 16. O Lord according to all thy righteousness let thine anger be turned away But the Septuagint render it O Lord according to thy mercy let thine anger be turned away namely according to all thy accustomed types of making humbled and beleeving sinners righteous by thy merciful forgiveness and Attonement Let thine anger bee turned away and justifie us to bee thy people by not imputing our sins to us and in this sense the penitent Publican said O Lord be merciful to me a sinner and so hee went away justified by Gods merciful attonement and forgiveness which was the very thing he prayed for 9 Sin till it
price of the Redemption of their lives formally only by Gods voluntary Covenant therefore it is most fitly said that God declared his justice from his Mercy-seat 3 This phrase Caporeth his Propitiatory or his Mercy-seat is first used in Exod. 25. 17. And it is commonly used saith Ainsworth to set forth Gods merciful covering of sins as in Psal 65. 4. where it is translated by the Seventy with the allowance of the Holy Ghost in Heb. 9. 5. Hilasterson that is a Psal 65. 4. Propitiatory or a Covering Mercy-seat and saith he this is applied by the Apostle to Christ Rom. 3. 25. See more of Gaphar in Chap. 14. Sect. 6. Reply 8. The Hebrew Caphar saith Ainsworth is applied to the covering of an angry countenance as in Gen. 32. 20. There Jacob is Gen. 32. 20. said to cover Esau's angry face or to appease his anger by a liberal and acceptable gift and this word Caphar saith Ainsworth is often used in the Law for the covering or taking away Christs sacrifice is called a sacrifice of Attonement because it doth appease Gods angry face c procure his Attonement to beleeving sinners of offence by pacifying Gods anger by gifts and sacrifices and typified that Christ should give himself to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement whereby sin is covered or passed by Exod. 29. 36. Lev. 1. 4. Lev. 4. 20. 26. c. And thus Gods angry face was covered or appeased by the burnt offering of Christs body as soon as he had finished all his sufferings for he offered himself by the holy fire of his eternal Spirit so Dr. Taylor doth once make the type of Fire to speak in Noahs sacrifice in Heb. 9. 14. for as the Altar did signifie the Heb. 9. 14. God-head of Christ so the fire of the Altar must be alike type of the God-head of Christ also and thus Christ was the Mediator of the New Testament through this kind of death Heb. 9 14 15 16. by which hee procured Gods Attonement or Reconciliation for the iniquity of the many and so he became his Mercy-seat and after this manner God set forth Christ to be his Propitiatory through faith in his blood to declare his Righteousnesse by remitting sins 4 Peter Martyr doth open this phrase His Righteousnesse or the justice of God in Rom. 3. 21 thus If a man do more narrowly consider this word the Justice or Righteousnesse of God It is the mercy of God which he bestoweth upon us through Christ And in Rom. 10. 3. He calls the justice of God Gods forgivenesse and saith he I have in another place admonished Rom. 10. 3. that the Hebrew word Tzedec which our men have translated Righteousnesse signifieth rather Goodnesse and Mercy and therefore to this day the Jews call Alms by that name and saith he Ambrose on this place is of the self-same mind and see more how Peter Martyr doth expound Gods Righteousnesse in my Reply on 2 Cor. 5. 21. 5 I have also shewed in the Dialogue page 118. that Tzedec Justice or Righteousnesse is often translated by the Seventy Goodnesse or Mercy as in Psal 24. 5. Ps 33. 5. Ps 103. 6. Es 1. 27 Dan. 4. 27. Dan. 9. 16. Deut. 24. 13. and their Translation doth well agree to the true sense of Ps 112. 4. 9. and to Ps 94. 15. where God is said to turn Judgement into justice namely to Psal 94. 15. turn vindicative justice into merciful justice for indeed God hath as exact a way of merciful justice by the satisfaction of Christ according to the voluntary positive Law and Covenant to beleevers as if the rigor of his moral Curse had been executed on their Surety in kind and better too because the first way was constituted to be the way and the other is but imaginary according to the legal proceedings of Court-justice And indeed the Justice or Righteousnesse of God the Father wherein he is just according to his Covenant with Christ to forgive them their sins that do beleeve in the death and sacrifice of Christ is an example of the highest degree of Mercy Charity and Alms that the world can afford 6 God is said to judge the world in Justice namely in his merciful justice Psal 96. 13. Psal 98. 9. Psal 68. 5. Psal 146. 7 8. And it is said in Act. 17. 31. That God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in Righteousnesse some understand it of Gods vindicative justice on the impenitent at the day of Judgment but Broughton reads it in Mercy or in merciful justice namely by his Gospel of grace declaring his merciful justice in judging the world by it for by his Gospel of grace he doth judge the world in favour to their poor blind and captivated souls as in Esa 42. 1 2. 3 4. and in Mat. 12 18. and in Joh. 12. 31. and Obad. vers 21. and see Broughton also in Job 37. 23. By these and such like particulars we may see how God was just according to his Covenant with Christ to declare his righteousness by forgiving the sins of beleevers for his sake and from that Covenant with Christ he hath also Covenanted with the Elect mercifully to forgive their iniquities and to remember their sins no more Jer. 31. 34. which is expounded thus in Heb. 8. 12. I will be pacified or reconciled to their unrighteousness and this is called God the Fathers righteousness whereby he makes a sinner righteous Secondly I come now to answer the second Question Why did God declare his Justice or his Righteousness at this time The answer is that he might be just and the Justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus God declared the exact time when he would fulfil his Promise The end of Gods merciful justice declared from his Mercy-seat in Christs satisfaction was that he might be just and that he might be the justifier of beleeving sinners Dan. 9. 24. Gal. 4. 4 5. and Covenant by his Angel Gabriel to Daniel namely that from his prayer to the death of the Messiah it should be exactly Four hundred and ninety years and that then the Messiah by his death and sacrifice should end all legal sin-offerings and finish all trespass-offerings and make reconciliation for iniquity and so by that means bring in or procure an eternal Righteousness or an eternal Reconciliation instead of their typical Righteousness for by the language of the Law we are taught that a sinners righteousness doth consist in Gods reconciliation or in Gods forgiveness and receiving into favor Dan. 9. 24. and in relation to this Paul saith That when the fulness of the time spoken of by Daniel was come God sent forth his Son made of a woman made under the Law namely under the Law of Rites that he by his death might fulfil those typical Rites to redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons So then as Christ was
and from thence the Dialogue doth reason to our translated term in Isa 53. 6. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all And hence the Dialogue doth reason thus If this phrase of laying upon and so consequently of bearing in Isa 53. 6. doth imply that Christ did bear the guilt of our sins by Gods imputation then by that phrase the Father must bear the guilt of our sins also for he is said to bear our sins in Ps 32. 1. and in Ps 25. 18. This Argument is unavoidably true by building the doctrine of Imputation upon that phrase 2 By this nimble catch of Mr. Nortons hee would have the Reader to beleeve that the Dialogue holds that which it holds not but I have more fully answered to this cavil in Chap. 12. Sect. 1. and there I have shewed how Mr. Norton hath wronged the sense of the Dialogue in other places also But saith Mr. Norton in page 49. There is a difference between an act typifying Gods imputation of sin unto Christ and an act testifying our faith concerning Gods imputation of sin unto Christ And saith he You should have produced your Expositors for they do not generally so speak Reply 11. This speech they do not generally so speak is an acknowledgement that some do so speak And indeed many late Writers do say That imposition of hands with confession of sin did typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ See Taylor on Types and Weams on the Ceremonial Laws saith thus on the Sin-offering They were commanded to lay their hands upon the head of the Sin-offering Lev 4. to signifie that they laid over their sins upon the Beast which was a type of Christ who was made Asham an offering for sin Isa 53. 10. and was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. that is The guilt of our sins was imputed to him he was not made a sacrifice only for our sins but hee was made sin for us In these words of Mr. Weams and more also which I omit hee hath not a word of our faith of dependance which was truly typified by Imposition of hands but he doth only say that it typified Gods imputing our sins I could cite many others that run that way on Exod. 29. 10. c. but I had rather though they bee obvious cover their names than publish them But the Dialogue in page 33. disproves their Exposition thus A private mans Imposition cannot represent Gods act The Imposition of the hands of the Elders cannot because the Elders action represents the Churches action neither can the Imposition of the Priests and the High Priests because they were types of Christs Priestly Nature and not of the Father Mr. Norton returns this Answer in page 49. If these Reasons were good for what they are alleged yet they are impertinent as not reaching the mind of Expositors at least generall upon the place Reply 12 It is an easie answer to say they are impertinent but the indifferent Reader may see they are pertinent Saith hee Expositors at least generally do not so expound I wish that fewer did but I do also confess that I do not find though I have made diligent inquiry that any of the Ancient Divines did hold that God imputed our sins to Christ in Mr. Nortons sense as I have shewed in the next Chapter yea I find that many late Writers also have no such imputation but too many have some I have named and many more are obvious to the intelligent and it is evident that generally the Antinomians do hold as Mr. Norton holds I say it is obvious to the intelligent that many do make the imposition of hands on the head of the sacrifice with confession of sin to signifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ and therefore the reasons of the Dialogue above-named are found and good for what they are alleaged namely That imposition of hands by the said persons could not represent Gods action But saith Mr. Norton in page 49. There is nothing repugnant in the nature of the thing but that the act of a private person was capable if God so pleased to become a type of Gods act which is also true concerning the Elders and Priests Reply 13. It is well he hath put in If God so pleased I say to him as he said to me in page 103. if hee should not put in that he could expect no other but utmost abhorrence c. But hee had spoken more full to the point if hee had proved that God had ordained such persons in that act of Attonement to represent God the Father but because hee doth no more but barely say so it will not satisfie a doubting conscience But saith Mr. Norton in page 50. The act of an Israelite though a private person in letting his Hebrew servant go free for nothing either at the seventh year Exod. 21. 2. or at the year of Jubilee Exod. 25. 40. figured or represented God the Fathers gift of free Redemption by Jesus Christ Reply 14. Good reason there is for it because God ordained it so to bee and therein the Master being also a Father to his servant in letting his servant go free was a type of the father of mercies in that case 2 As to his instance of Cyrus in making him both a type of Christ in page 101. and also a type of the Father in his 50 page by his free deliverance is a very doubtful instance for it is questioned by learned Divines whether hee were a type but in case it were proved that hee was indeed a type yet it reacheth not to prove that all those that imposed hands on the head of their sacrifice were types of Gods imputing our sins to Christ which is the very point on Mr. Nortons part to be proved but he slides from that to instances of by matters But saith the Dialogue If you make the act of laying on of hands on the Sin-offering to signifie Gods laying our sins upon Christ by his imputation then the same act with confession of sins upon the Scape-goat must also signifie that God did impute our sins to Christ as well after he was escaped from death by his Resurrection and Ascension as when he made his oblation here upon earth And so by this Doctrine Christ is gone as a guilty sinner into heaven 2 The Dialogue propounds another Argument which Mr. Norton skips over and that is this If you make this imposition of hands upon the head of the Sin-offering to represent Gods laying the sins of the Elect upon Christ by his imputation then the same act of imposition upon the head of their sacrifices of praise must have the same signification for every owner must impose both his hands with all his might upon the head of his sacrifice of praise with confession of his particular mercies received This act must needs signifie the laying of their persons by their faith of dependence on the sacrifice of Christ for the procuring of Gods favourable
other words p. 48 and he gives three instances To which I answer that they are not contrary though different in respect of the metaphorical sense and so the word Tzedec Righteousness is often put for a counterfeit righteousness which in proper speaking is untighteousness in Gods sight And therefore the Seventy translate it unrighteousness in Ezek. 21. 3. Isa 49. 24. But it is ironically called righteousness Secondly Saith Mr. Norton Azab signifies to Fortifie Neh. 3. 8. 4. 2. Reply 3. I grant that to fortifie is contrary to leaving and forsaking in case it can have no other sense in the place cited But our larger Annotations on Nehem. 3. 8. do rightly expound our Margin Translation which is according to the propriety of the Hebrew word Azab of leaving off to fortifie when they came to the broad wall because that was done in former times and was still standing undemolished as the rest was and the like sense they give of Neh. 4. 2. and the like sense must be given of Azab in Isa 49. 25. and therefore as yet there is no contrary signification of the word Azab as Mr. Norton doth make his Reader beleeve to bewilder his understanding in the manner of Gods leaving or forsaking Christ on the Cross But for the better finding out the truth I will first give some instances of the various sense of Azab and then I will examine what sense it hath in Psa 22. 1. 1 It is used in a metaphorical sense for a Mart or Fair Ezek. 27. 12 14 16 19 22. And it is also used for Wares of Merchandize in Ez. 27. 27 33. And the reason is plain because in Fairs and Markets there is an usual and continual leaving of one thing for another by way of contract as of mony for Wares and of Wares for mony of one sort of Ware for another So in like sort the Hebrew word Gnereb which in propriety doth signifie the connexion or con-joyning of two or more things together is used by Ezekiel by a Metonymia for Fairs or Markets and for Wares of Merchandize Ezek. 27. 13 17 c. Because of the connexion and conjoyning of sundry sorts of Wares to sell and because of the sundry conjunctions between men by contracts about Wares as I have shewed at large in my Treatise of Holy Time 2 As Azab is put for leaving one thing for another in Markets so it is put for any other kind of leaving either by way of agreement or disagreement As for example when it is agreed that two shall strive for the mastery there all friends must stand aside and leave their friend alone to try the mastery as David was left of his friends when he alone undertook to try masteries with Goliah 3 Leaving is put for leaving of a mans own business to help another in his necessity as in Ezek. 23. 5. afore expounded 4 Leaving is put for forsaking or leaving another that is helpless in their necessity Sometimes it is to leave in anger as 2 Chron. 24. 25. And sometimes not in anger but by necessity 1 Sam. 30. 13. And sometimes willingly and so Mary left Martha to serve whiles she attended to Christs Doctrine and in that respect Martha complained to Christ saying Dost thou not care that my Sister hath left me alone to serve Luk. 10. 40. There Sabactani is in the Syriack just as it is in Psa 22. 1. and in Mat. 27. 46. 5 Leaving in Hebrew is often used in mercy favor and kindness as in Ruth 2. 16. Jer. 49. 11. and so it is used in the Chalde in Dan. 4. 15 26. the word Leave there is in favor as ver 26 sheweth 6 Azab is applied to Gods leaving or forsaking of notorious finners in anger 2 Chron. 24. 18 20 24. Deut. 31. 17. 32. 36. 1 King 14. 10 21. 21. 2 King 14. 26. Yea sometimes Gods hatred is joyned to his leaving or forsaking as in Isa 60. 15. But remember this that God never forsakes any in wrath but such as do first forsake him by provoking sins 7 Azab is used for leaving of a mans first love to the Truth in Prov. 3. 3. Let not Mercy and Truth leave thee or forsake thee 8 God left Hezekiah onely to try his heart 2 Chron. 32. 31. 9 Azab is put for a leaving of those that a man loves well to cleave to that which a man loves better as to leave a Father for a Wife Gen. 2. 24. Ruth 1. 16. 10 A man leaves a thing because he is forced Gen. 39. 12 13 15 18. 11 A man often leaves that he loves through haste Josh 8. 17. 1 Sam. 30. 13. 12 Hee leaves a thing through fear 1 King 31. 7. 1 Chron. 10. 7. 13 Azab is to leave or cease or rest from complaining and so the Divine nature did often rest or cease or leave the Humane nature to his own natural principles in his sufferings and combatings with Satan and his Instruments These several senses of Azab and many such like do shew the various sense of the word leaving 14 And this is worth the noting That though Azab doth often signifie such a leaving as is a forsaking yet it doth not alwaies signifie forsaking as it doth leaving For Azab is applied to sundry kinds of leaving which cannot with any fitness be called a forsaking as in Gen. 39. 6. Potiphar left all he had in trust in Josephs hand So in Gen. 50. 8. Their little ones and their flocks and their heards they left in the land of Goshen And so in Exod. 9. 21. 2 Sam. 15. 16. and so in Ruth 2. 16 Boaz commanded his Reapers to let fall some of their handfuls and leave them in kindness on purpose for Ruth to glean them So Job 39. 14. The Ostritch leaveth her eggs in the warm dust to hatch her young ones So in Jer. 49. 11. Mal. 4. 1. 2 Chron. 28. 14. Ezra 6. 7. And many other places might be cited to prove that Azab cannot so fitly be translated to forsake as to leave I grant notwithstanding that the word leave is so large that many times it doth most fitly agree to the word forsake in the largest use of it But ere long I shall shew the particular sense of the word left or forsaken Psa 22. 1. But saith Mr. Norton in the page aforesaid The meaning of the word leave or forsake was kept sound with Mr. Ainsworth but with you is not Reply 4. I grant that Mr. Ainsworth did hold that God forsook or left Christs soul in wrath but yet for all that he was far from holding as Mr. Norton doth namely that Christ suffered the Essential torments of Hell I received some Letters from him not many years before his death about the point of Christs sufferings And his Letters tell me that he held this as a principle that Christ suffered no other afflictions for kind but what the Elect do suffer in this life though in a far greater measure