sense of Hell may bee thus considered Sheol in the Old Testament is alwayes translated by the Seventy into Haides or Hades except in one place and there it is translated The metaphorical sense of Sheol Haides Thanatos death the word in both languages is of large signification and it may be ranked into these senses First It signifies sorrows and afflictions Secondly Death to the person Thirdly The Grave to the body Fourthly The world of souls to the souls departed namely to the godly soul Paradise and to the wicked Gehenna for as Bucer saith in Luke 16. neither doth the word Sheol or Hades signifie the eternal estate of them that dâ—e whether they bee faithful and go to heaven or unfaithful and go to hell but Hades is first used for the hell of the damned in Luke 16. 2. Secondly For the penal hell of the godly in suffering persecutions and afflictions in Matth. 16. the Gates of Haides shall not prevail against them 3 It is used for soul-sorrows when a godly soul is deprived of the sense of the good of the promises for a time as I have noted in the first Distinction one may be in the Hell of conscience saith Mr. Wilson in his mystical cases p. 188. who shall never come into the hell of the damned But saith Mr. Rutherfurd in Christ dying page 35. 39. The hel in the soul of Gods children and the hell of the Reprobate differ in Essence and Nature 4 Bucer makes Christs bodily death to be penal Hell his Bucer in Mat. 27 53. words translated by Carliste speak thus The ancient Fathers make no mention of Limbus or Purgatory Let us saith he let this passe as the inventions of men and let us rather give thanks to the Lord who hath thrust his own Son into infernum that is to say saith he that willed him to dye truly that by his death we might be delivered Two things are observable in the words of Bucer 1 That he calls the bodily death of Christ Infernum or Hell 2 That he ascribes our deliverance from hell to the true bodily death of Christ 5 I grant that Christ suffered the sorrows of Sheol and Hades in a Metaphorical sense but in no sense did he suffer the sorrows of Gehenna and that is the word that is properly meant of Hell torments so that by Mr. Norton Christ must suffer the Essential torments of Gehenna in a penal Gehenna in this world Of which see Mar. 9. 43. 45. 6. Mr. Norton by his distinction of a local and penal Hell See Marbicks Com pl. p 22. doth much favour the opinion of the Albanenses whose fourth Heresie was this That in Hell there are no other pains than bee in this world and Mr. Norton holds that there are no other essential pains thanwhat Christs suffered in this world The opinions are very neer a kin though in other matters I esteemMr Norton far afore them SECT 3. 3. MR. Norton labours to confirm his said distinction of a local and penal Hell by this Scripture Thou wilt not leave Psal 16 10. Act. 2. 27. It is to admiration that Mr. Norton doth interpret Hell in the same Scripture first to signifie Hell torments and then only the the Grave my soul in Hell this is cited in Psal 16. 10. and in Act. 2. 27. The soul saith he in page 39. is understood by judicious and learned Authors properly Hell Metaphorically for such pains as are equivalent to the pains of Hell it self But yet Mr. Norton doth fully contradict and confute both himself and his learned and judicious Authors for in page 110. he saith That the word Hades in the Creed is doubtlesse to bee interpreted according to some sense wherein it is used in the Scripture But saith he in Acts 2. 27. It is taken for the Grave Here he affirms it is taken for the Grave and yet in the place fore-cited he saith It is taken for the pains of Hell it self by the judgement of learned and judicious Authours I confesse I cannot but wonder that hee should make hell in one and the same text to signifie such different things it is a manifest testimony of the uncertainty of his judgement 2 If Haides in Greek and Sheol in Hebrew and Hell in English signifie no more but the Grave in the said Scriptures then I wonder how Mr. Norton can interpret the word Soul properly of the immortal Soul of Christ as he doth with the approbation of learned and judicious Authors Doth the same Scripture in the same words affirm that Christs immortal Soul did one while suffer the pains of hell in this life and another while lye buried with his body in the Grave Is not this to make the holy Scripture to be no better than a leaden Rule to bee bowed this way that way after the fantasies of men at their pleasures He tells mee in page 258. That the Scripture lyeth not in the sound of words but in the sense but in this hee doth halt of his own sore and therefore I retort his own words to himself that most pestilent Doctrines have oftentimes been communicated in the language of the Scripture c. 3 Saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The soul in Psal 16. 10. and Act. 2 27. is by judicious and learned Authors understood properly If Mr. Norton do approve the judgement of those learned and judicious Authors to the Reader why then doth he in page 110. take Hell for the Grave was his soul properly taken buried in his Grave Secondly why doth Mr. Norton blind the Reader by saying that learned and judicious Authors do take the word Soul properly seeing hee cannot be ignorant that other learned and judicious Authors take the Soul there for the vital soul only that liveth and dyeth with the body that soul might be dislocated in his body when he dyed and so it might be buried with his body in the grave Mr. Ains on the word Soul in Psal 16. 10. in his conclusion saith thus Compare it namely this word Soul with the like in other places as Psal 30. 4. Psal 116. 8. and Psal 89. 49. and 88. 4. and 94. 17. all which places are clearly meant of the vital soul and then hee makes application of this to Christ Christ saith he gave his soul for the Ransome of the world and powred it out to death Isa 53. 12. Mat. 20. 28. Ioh. 10. 11 15 17. and 15. 13. and at the last he saith thus these words Thou wilt not leave my soul in bell teach us Christs Resurrection as if he should say Thou will not leave me to the power of Death or Grave to be consumed Mark this close of Mr. Ainsworths hee interprets Hell to bee Death or the Grave 2 Mr. Broughton in his two Works defensive expounds Psal 16. 10. thus Thou wilt not leave my vital soul to Death In these words he expounds Christs soul to be his vital soul and Sheol Hell to be Death
Reply 2. If Mathew had known that such a Tenent would have been broached he would doubtlesse if the Spirit of God had permitted have shewed that he must not have suffered the wrath of God but it had been for Mr. Nortons honor if he could have shewed that Christ told his Disciples That bee must go to Jerusalem to suffer many things there from the immediate wrath of God as well as from Sathans instruments and then the Reader might have been satisfied The third Scripture cited by the Dialogue is in Luke 24 25 26 44. 46. Mr. Norton Answers Toese words saith he conclude that Christ was to suffer But the word All saith he in vers 26. includes the suffering of Divine Justice Reply 3. In the two former Scriptures he could not find any particle for the proving that Christ suffered divine Justice but now in Luke 24 26. he finds it in the word All and yet there is no All in that verse Mr. Norton will rather coyn Scripture-words than want a proof of Christs suffering from Gods immediate wrath The fourth Scripture cited by the Dialogue is Act. 13. 27 28. He Answers thus The word All in this text saith he is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fulfilled by the Romans and the Jews as the instruments thereof Reply 4. In this Answer he doth but repent the full and true sense of the Dialogue and in so doing he justifies the sense of the Dialogue Now let the Reader judge how well he hath confuted the Dialogues proofs for the stating of the case And whether this Answer of his be not rather a confused shuffling of an Answer than an Answer to satisfie any judicious Reader CHAP. X. The Examination of Mr. Nortons Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in page 21. For the true understanding whereof saith Mr. Norton consider these three things 1 What is here intended by Death 2 The Distribution of Death 3 The Application of that Distribution SECT I. Saith he The Commination Thou shalt surely dye is not particular concerning some kind of death but indefinite therefore equivalent to an universal comprehending all kinds of Death Reply 1. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. from two circumstances in this Text of Gen. 2. 17. that the death there threatned is limited to a spiritual death in sin only 2 In his Distribution And 3 In his Application of this Death he brings Christ within the compasse of it two wayes 1 By separation of his soul from his body which he makes to be a temporal and penal death in Christ 2 By the separation of his soul from the sense of the good things of the promise and the presence of the evill things in the commination which he calls Total Temporal and properly Penal in Christ Reply 2. I deny that the death of Christ namely the separation of his soul from his body was a proper penal death for The death of Christ could not be a penal death because Gods Law threatens none with a penal death but sinners themselves In his Common places part 2. p. 244. the Law of God threatens no man with a penal death nor yet with any other true curse but sinners themselves Sin and Death saith Peter Martyr is compared as cause and effect But saith he here we must exempt Christ only who notwithstanding he knew no sin yet for our sakes he dyed But saith he Death had no dominion over him because he of his own accord did suffer it for our salvation The like speech of his I have cited in page 54. Had not Christ dyed voluntarily saith Bernard ad milites Templi cap. 11. that death had not been meritorious how much more unworthily he dyed who deserved not death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wilt ask is this that an innocent should dye for a malefactor It is no justice it is mercy If it were justice then should he not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed he should dye but the other for whom he dyed should not live yet though it be not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not be both just and merciful These Testimonies of the Orthodox and more to this purpose I might bring do point-blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent that Christs death was inflicted on him from Gods penal justice through the meritorious cause of sin as our death is on us But it is no such matter Christs death is of another nature The true nature of Christs death was to be a sacrifice because he undertook it from the voluntary Cause and Covenant onely upon condition of meriting the destruction of Satans Head-plot and the redeeming of all the Elect thereby and in this respect his obedience in giving his life was covenanted to be accepted by the Father as a free gift and as the richest Present that the world could afford namely as a sacrifice of Attonement or Reconciliation smelling like a most sweet savor in the nostrils of God and in this respect his death is the ground of merit but had it been inflicted on him from Gods penal wrath as deserved through the imputation of sin it had merited nothing as Bernard speaks above When conditions are made by a voluntary Covenant for the winning or meriting of a rich prize he that will strive for the mastery with his opposite Champion for the winning of the said Prize must strive lawfully that is to say in obedience to those Laws and he must be willing to undergo all the hardships that he must meet withall from his opposite Champion it may be to the forcing of his body into an Agony it may be to the breaking of his body and to the shedding of much blood all this he must do from the voluntary cause from the voluntary Covenant for the Masters of the Game do not compel any man to undertake these difficult services neither do they out of anger and wrath inflict any of the said punishments though the opposite party may happily do what he can in anger to pervert the Combaters obedience and to provoke him to some miscarriage against the Laws of the prize that so he may not win the prize from him Even so Jesus Christ the author and finisher of our Faith for the joy that was set before him indured the cross despising the shame and is now set down as a Victor over Satan and all his potent Instruments at the right hand of God having first endured the cross and the contradiction of sinners and hath spoyled Principalities and Powers in it namely in his death on the cross which by Gods appointment did strive for the mastery with him and the Devil did in anger provoke him what he could to spoil his obedience and so to hinder him from destroying his head-plot and so from winning the prize namely from the salvation of the Elect and the Devil proceeded so far in
have heard expounded thus cut off in this world and cut off in the world to come 3 Dr. Hammon in his Annotation on Rev. 20. 6. saith this phrase the second Death is four times used in this book and it seems to be taken from the Jews who use it proverbially for finall utter irreversible destruction So in the Jerusalem Targum Deut. 33. 6. Let Ruben live and let him not dye the second death by which the wicked dye in the world to come 4 Mr. Broughton saith That the ancient godly Hebrew Doctors that lived after Ezra seeing the increase of Sadduces In his Reduct on Dan 9. they did frame divers terms to express the world to come both in relation to the godly and to the wicked Epicurean Sadduces and those terms in their sense doth the New Testament approve and follow and they made the term second-Second-death to express the immortal misery that belongs to the soul of the wicked in the world to come they made the spiritual death of the soul by original sin and the death of the body to be the death of this world And Austin speaks just as the Dialogue doth as I have cited him in Chap. 16. Reply 20. All sorts of death that men do suffer in this world is counted but the first in relation to the Second death in the world to come That the spiritual death of sin and the death of the body is the First-death because it belongs to all men in this world and so doth Zanchy in his Sermons page 162. and that the Second-death belongs only to the wicked after this life is ended But Mr. Norton opposeth this division of death in page 115. and page 120. and makes a threefold death to confound the Reader about the term Second-death in Rev. 14. and so hee evades his answer to the main scope of the Dialogues Argument against Christs suffering of the Second-death which is this namely That the Second-death cannot be suffered in this life where the First-death only is suffered by Gods appointment But on the contrary he labours to maintain that Christ suffered the Second-death in this world by Gods extraordinary dispensation But I have formerly answered that the Papists may in like fort maintain the Miracles that they ascribe to their legion of Saints if they may but flye to Gods extraordinary dispensation 8 Mr. Anthony Wotton denied Mr. Nortons Tenent though for some respects best known to himself he was sparing to publish De Recon pec par 2. l. 1. c. 11. n. 8. and more cleerly in c. 18. n. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. his judgement and yet he hath left enough in print to witness what I say and it is also further evident in this that hee denied that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his sufferings as I have shewed in the former Chapter 9 I find by conference with such as have been wel read in the Ancient Divines that nothing in them without wresting their sense can be found that doth evidence that they held that God did legally impute our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of inflicting Hell-torments on him 10 The Dialogue hath cited some eminent Divines both for Learning and Piety that have denied that Christ suffered Hell-torments like the two witnesses of Gods truth even when that doctrine bare the greatest sway as Mr. Robert Smith that suffered much for the truth being silenced through the iniquity of the times and Mr. Robert Wilmot a man eminent for learning and the power of godliness and Mr. Christopher Carlisle a judicious Expositor and Mr. Nichols a student of the Inneâ—-Temple All which were far from siding with Popish Tenents as some to blast the truth are apt to say that scarce any deny Christs suffering of Gods vindicative wrath but Papists 11 I have on Psal 22. 1. cited our larger Annotation that goes quite contrary to Mr. Nortons strain 12 I have cited other eminent Divines in Chap. 2. Sect. 2. that do hold much differing from Mr. Norton And it is a known thing among the Learned that sub judice lis est It is a controversie not yet unanimously resolved and therefore I presume I shall meet with some judicious Readers that will be able to judge whether the Dialogue and the truth therein contained hath been rightly censured by Mr. Norton and by those that set him on work This Proposition saith Mr. Norton in page 96. Cursed is every one that hangs on a Tree is a typical Proposition and contains in it these two truths 1 That every one that hangeth upon a Tree in Judea from the promulgation of that Curse to the Passion of Christ inclusively is ceremonially accursed i. e. All that are hâ—nged are so infamed that the carkass of uch in case they be not buried before Sun-set shall defile the land 2 That Christ in testimony that he redeemed us by bearing the moral curse should be hanged on a Tree Reply 10. Neither of the two Propositions are true in themselves much lesse are they deducible from the Text in Deut. 21. 23. 1 I have sufficiently shewed already That this exhortation defile not the land is not connexed but separated from the former sentence by a colon or by a full prick as the Geneva and Tindal make it and that it hath reference to the execution and exact justice upon Malefactors as in verse 21 22. 2 That no Ceremonial sin did defile the whole land 3 That hanging on a Tree longer than Sun-set did not defile the land and that sometimes hanging many dayes together did not defile but cleanse the land from moral sins 4. Therefore seeing all Mr. Nortons Arguments laid together have not strength enough to prove his first typical exposition of Deut. 21. 23. much lesse have they strength sufficient to prove his second Proposition which cannot bee true unless the first be true But yet Mr. Norton makes a great shew for his exposition by citing Junius Piscator Parker and Mr. Ainsworth as concurring with his sense therefore I will make a short Reply Reply 11. The two first I perceive by conference with such as have perused them speak very moderately and sparingly and not so full as Mr. Norton doth but suppose they were fully of his mind yet that could not prove no more but this That Mr. Norton is not alone in his exposition and collections and so much may the Dialogue say but all that are judicious do know that it is not mans consent but Scripture rightly interpreted and Arguments drawn from a right interpretation that must determine the point 3 I have not yet examined what Mr. Parker saith 4 As for Mr. Ainsworth he is a little too bold to make him full of his judgement let his mind and meaning be examined by conferring with his own words in his Annotations in Gen. 3. 15. in Num. 21. 9. in Exod. 32. 32. in Lev. 6. 21. in Psal 69. 4. Besides I received some letters
manifest that he was to be troubled Christ did fear death regularly more than other men can do because his pure nature was not subject to death as â—câ—s is In his War Peace ch 36. anâ— I have cited Mr. â—â—all to this sense in ch 17. at Reply 25. Christ both in his combate with Satan also in the formality of his death by his Priestly order did all by way of Covenant and not by condition of nature with the fear of a bodily death more than any other man because the constitution of his nature and natural spirits was more pure than the nature of other men and therefore he must manifestly abhor it more than other men for he was not made subject to death by nature as all other men are all other men by reason of original sin are born the bondslaveâ— of Satan Death is their Birth-right and therefore they abhorre it not in a regular manner but with a dull slavish spirit but because Christs nature was conceived by the Holy Ghost without original sin therefore he was not born the bondslave of death Death hath no right saith Peter Martyr in Rom. p. 121. where there is no sin unless we will say that God doth punish the innocent and hence it follows that the pure constitution of his nature must needs be toubled with the regular fear of his bodily death more than other men can be His death saith Grotius was not determined by any Law as Mr. Norton affirms but by agreement and as it were by special Covenant made with his Father who upon that condition promised him not onely the highest glory but a seed to serve him for ever This speech of Grotius is worth our marking And in ch 2. I have shewed more at large that the death of Christ was a death of Covenant and noâ— oâ— condition of nature as ours is And in relation to his Covenant and to the rich reward of his death by Gods Covenant his rational soul did always desire to die but yet that desire did no way hinder his natural and vital soul from fearing the ill usage of his pure nature by Satan and hiâ— instruments Secondly I find this to be a received maxim among the learned that the bodily pains which Christ indurâ—d were See Mr. Burges on Just p 82 Dr. Wilâ—iams in his seven Golden Candlestick p 453. more sensible to his nature than the like pains can be to other men because of the most excellent temper and tender Constitution of his body and therefore his vital and sensitive soul which is the bond of union between the immortal soul and the body was quicker in operation than other mens spirits can be with the dread and fear of his ignominious death That speech of our Saviour is emphatical in Heb. 10. 5. A Heb. 10. 5. The excellent temper and tender constitution of Christs humane nature made him more sensible of fear thame and pain than other men can be body hast thou prepared me namely by sending the Holy Ghost to prepare the seed of the woman for my humane nature that it may be of a more excellent temper and tender constitution than any other mans can be and therefore that it may be touched with the objects of fear ignominy and pain more eminently than other mens can be and therefore as it behoved God to prepare such a body on purpose for him so it behoved Christ to be made like unto his brethren and to be touched in an eminent manner with the sence of our passions and infirmities that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest and so in particular he must be eminently touched with the fears of death Heb. 2. 14. 17. And so it became God the Father to consecrate the Prince of our salvation through sufferings and how else did it become God to consecrate him but by making his obedience perfect through sufferings and therefore said Christ to God A body hast thou prepared me thou hast moulded it and organized it on purpose to be touched with thâ— tender sense and feeling of mans infirmities in my sensitive soul the better to exemplifie the perfection of my patience and obedience through all my sufferings It is no marvel then that seeing the constitution of his body and spirits was thus transcendently tender that his soul-troubles are expressed by all the Evangelists to be more than other mens can be as concerning their meer bodily sufferings and death But saith Mr. Norton in page 57. Other men conflicting with death by reason of sin do not conflict only with death other men conflicting with natural death conflict also often with eternal death Christ according to you conflicted only with a natural death how then do you say without any distinction that he was bound to be troubled with the fear of death as much as any other man Reply 4. I reply to the Interrogation that Christs troubled fear of death was wholly Regular but other mens fear is for Christ feared his ignominionâ— death after the rule of fear not after the example of this oâ— that man the most part irregular Christs fear therefore must not bee compared to this or that particular mans fear as Mr. Nortons kind of arguing doth import to the lesse wary Reader but his fear must be considered in relation to that disease of evil which was opposite to the perfection of his nature for by the rule of Gods Creation Adam and Christ were perfect in nature and not subject to curses and therefore according to the Rule of Contraries the more ignominy and pains of death they must suffer the more they must abhor it more than other men that are the slaves of death by nature the soul and body in the first creation were united in all perfection after Gods Image and therefore all ignominy torments and death must needs be an abhorring in an higher degree than it can be to other men and therefore it was most suitable to Christs regular constitution to manifest his exceeding troubled fear of his ignominious and painful lingring death more than any other man can do in a regular manner But saith Mr. Norton in page 57. Christ according to you conflicted only with a natural death and he doth very often charge the Dialogue with this expression of a natural death as in page 156 158 159 164 c. Reply 5. This I beleeve is a false charge I do not remember Christs death was not a natural death that the Dialogue doth any where call the death of Christ a natural death but it doth carefully shun that term as altogether unfit because the death of Christ was supernatural The Dialogue holds that Christ was not subject to a natural death as sinners are from the curse of original sin in Gen. 3. 19 as I have shewed a little before and shall do it again towards the end of this Chapter Secondly But yet the Dialogue doth often call the death of Christ
that Christ suffered in his soul the terrible torments of the damned and forsaken men and this speech of Mr. Nortons in page 56. That Christ conflicted with eternal death and that speech in page 213. That Christ was accursed with a poenal and eternal curse For my part I can find no difference in them but I will leave such nice distinctions to them that love them and that can discern the difference for I cannot SECT II. Mr. Nortons Answer in page 62. to the Dialogues Exposition of Mark. 10. 39. Examined Mar. 10. 39. Mat. 26. 39. Mat. 20. 22 23. THe words in the Dialogue run thus in page 46. our Saviour doth explain the quality of those sorrows which hee suffered at the time of his death unto the two sons of Zebedeus he tells them They must drink of his cup and be baptized with his baptism Mar. 10. 39. Hee tells them That they must bee conformable to the quality and kind of his sufferings though perhaps there might bee some difference in the degree of their sufferings and he doth explain the kind of his sufferings by a twofold expression 1 Hee tells them They must drink of his cup that is to say of the same bitter portion of death 2 Hee tells them That they must be baptized with his baptism that is to say They must be put to death by the malice of Tyrants as he must be and this is expressed by the metaphor of Baptism for baptizing is a diving or drowning of the whole body under water and therefore Christ ordained Baptism as a typical sign of drowning the body of sin in his blood but the baptizing of Tyrants was used for no other end but to drown mens bodies to death and in this respect Christ saith I am entred into the deep waters Psal 69. 2 15. and in this very sense the Apostle saith Else what shall they do that are baptized for dead namely what shall they do that are baptized with death as Martyrs are if the dead rise not at all why then are they baptized for dead 1 Cor. 15. 29. Godly Martyrs would never be baptised 1 Cor. 15. 29. with death if the hope of a better resurrection did not animate their spirits to suffer death for the truths sake being therin conformable to the death of Christ Pbil. 3. 10 11. By these two expressions saith the Dialogue which are Synonima or equivalent our Saviour doth inform the two sons of Zebedee what the true nature of his sufferings should bee namely no other but such only as they should one day suffer from the hands of Tyrants And hence it follows 1 That the troubled fear which Matthew and Mark do ascribe unto Christ in the Garden must bee understood of his natural fear of death and not of his fear of his Fathers wrath 2 Hence it follows that all the outward sufferings of Christ were from mans wrath and malice incited by the Devil according to Gods decree declared in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Sathan shalt peirce him in the foot-soals Mr. Norton in page 62. doth thus answer to the Dialogues Exposition Herein saith he is a fallacy confounding such things as should bee divided This Text saith Piscator is to be understood with an exception of that passion in which Christ felt the wrath of God for the Elect. Reply 11. It is most evident that Mr. Nortons distinction is a fallacy because it confounds things that differ for it confounds the death of Christs immortal soul with the death of his body so he makes Christ to suffer two kinds of death formally and so consequently he makes Christ to make two kinds of satisfaction formally But saith the Dialogue No other death but his bodily death is to be understood by Mar. 10. 39. our larger Mar. 10. 39. Mr. Norâ—on saith that Christ suffered a twofold death in p. 155 70. 174 and he makes his immortal soul to be spiritually dead in p. 159. and makes it the second death in p. 115. Annotation doth fully concur with the Dialogues exposition on Matth. 20. 22 23. without any such exception as Mr. Norton makes from Piscator But I wonder that Mr. Norton dares honor Piscator so much as to take this exposition upon trust from him alone seeing he makes the form of justification to lye only in remission of sins which opinion of his Mr. Norton doth damn for heresie and yet now he so much honors Piscator as to cite his judgement above for his exposition of this Text. But for the better trying out of the truth let us a little more narrowly search into the sense of Mar. 10. 39. by a cleer conference with the context which I account to be a good rule for the trying out of a sound exposition 1 James and John the sons of Zebedee desired of Christ that the one might sit at his right hand and the other at his left in his glorious Monarchy 2 Thereupon Christ demanded of them Can yee drink of the cup that I shall drink of they said We can then Christ replied Yee shall indeed drink of the cup that I shall drink of Hence it follows That seeing the cup of Christ was filled with the vindicative wrath of God as Mr. Norton affirms then James and John must drink of the same cup for said Christ to them Yee shall drink of the same cup that I shall drink of But I think Mr. Norton himself will say that they did not drink of the cup of Gods vindicative wrath but of the cup of an ignominious and violent death only Therefore it hence follows by the like consequence that the death of Christ was of the same kind But saith Mr. Norton in page 63. Christ suffered both as a Martyr and as a Satisfier the sons of Zebedee saith he drank of the cup of Martyrdome not of the cup of Satisfaction or Redemption James and John were asleep whiles Christ was drinking that cup. Reply 12. I grant that Christ suffered as a Satisfier but the only reason why the death of Christ was a death of satisfaction was from the mutual Covenant that was made between the Trinity it was their agreement that made the death of Christ to be a sacrifice of full satisfaction or to be the full price of The only reason why thâ— death of Christ was a deâ—th of satisfaction dâ—stinct â—â—oâ— Martyrdome was the Covenant between the Trinity our redemption as I have shewed also in Chap. 9. but because God made no such Covenant with the sons of Zebedee therefore though they drunk the cup of a violent death as Christ did yet it was not for satisfaction it was no more but the cup of Martyrdome in them But as I said before because the death of Christ was a death of Covenant it was not only a death of Martyrdome but it was a death of satisfaction also Secondly I have often shewed from the first declared Will and Covenant of the Trinity in Gen. 3. 15. that
therefore his death was not co-acted by Gods Justice as other mens is But his death was a death of Covenant onely and that Contract and Covenant made it to be the meritorious price of mans redemption And to this sense I have cited divers Orthodox Divines in chap. 2. and in chap. 3. and in chap. 16. at Reply 3 10 12. But Mr. Nortons foundation-Tenent taken from Court Justice namely that God did legally impute our sins to Christ hath so beguiled the eyes of his understanding that he cannot see the difference which the Scripture makes between the formality of Christs death and the death of other men that are inherent sinners More easie it is saith Origen for a man to put off any other customs how much so ever he is affixed to them than to lay aside his accustomed opinion But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. Mr. Ainsworth whom the Dialogue often cites seemeth to understand death to be laid upon Christ according to the sense of Gen 3. 19. Gen. 3. 19. Reply 17. Mr. Ainsworth doth not explain himself touching the manner of Christs death by this verse But in Numb 19. 2. he doth thus explain himself Christ saith he was without yoke as being free from the bondage of sin and corruption and as doing voluntarily the things appertaining to our redemption From these words of his I reason thus If Christ was free from the yoke of sin and corruption and did all things voluntarily that appertained to our redemption then his death was not co-acted by Gods Justice like to the death of all other men that are sinners his death therefore must be considered as a voluntary act from the voluntary Covenant for as he was an absolute Lord in Trinity so he was a reciprocal Covenanter 1 To take our nature and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan and to suffer him to do his worst to provoke his patience and so to spoil his obedience as he did Adams if he could 2 He covenanted that as soon as he had fulfilled his utmost sufferings from his Combater Satan hee would send forth his Spirit as the onely Priest in the formality of his own death that so he might make his death to be a sacrifice of reconciliation for mans Redemption from Satans Head-plot both these acts of his voluntary obedience he performed exactly according to the Articles of the voluntary and eternal Covenant for the meriting of a great reward namely for the meriting of the Spirit for Regeneration and for the meriting of his Fathers Reconciliation and eternal Redemption of all the Elect. But saith the Dialogue I will distinguish upon the death of Christ for God appointed him to die a double kind of death 1. As a Malefactor 2. As a Mediator and all this at one and the same time 1 He died as a Malefactor by Gods determinate Council and Covenant and to this end God gave the Devil leave to enter into Judas to betray him and into the Scribes and Pharisees and Pontius Pilat to condemn him and to do what they could to put him to death as a cursed Malefactor and in that respect God may be truly said to bring him into the dust of death Gen. 3. 19. as the Dialogue doth open the phrase in Psa 22. 15. 2 Notwithstanding all this Christ died as a Mediator and therefore his death was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor for it was his Covenant to be our Mediator in his death Heb. 9. 15 16. and therefore he must separate his soul from his body by the power of his God-head namely after his Manhood had performed his conflict with Satan all the Tyrants in the world could not separate his soul from his body Job 19. 11. no not by all the torments they could devise till himself was pleased to actuate his own death by the joynt concurrence of both his natures Mr. Morton in p. 84. doth thus Answer The plain meaning of the Author in this distinction is this Christ died as a Malefactor onely though unjustly in the Jews account but not as a Mediator as Mediator onely in Gods account but not as a Malefactor This distinction saith he in name but in truth a Sophisme is used as a crutch to support the halting of the non-imputation of the sin to Christ Reply 18. This distinction it seems doth somewhat trouble Mr. Nortons patience because it agrees not to his legal court way of making satisfaction from Gods judicial imputing our sincs to Christ and from his inflicting Hell torments upon him from his immediate vindicative wrath and therefore in contempt he calls it a Sophisme namely a false kind of arguing 2 To the same purpose Mr. Norton doth thus repeat another speech of the Dialogue Christs death as Mediator saith the distinction was not really finished by those Torments which he suffered as a Malefactor the Jews are said to put Christ to death because they indeavored to put him to death but did not separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death So saith he is the distinction expresly interpreted in the Dialogue p. 100. Mr. Norton in p. 84. doth thus Answer If Christs death was a suffering then the formal cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body so often mentioned in the Dialogue otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter Reply 19. I have often warned that the death of Christ is more largely or more strictly taken 1 The pains of death are often called death in Scripture though they prove not in the issue to be death formally 2 The Dialogue doth all along affirm that Christs death was a suffering and that he was active in his compliance with all his sufferings for he delivered himself into the hands of Satan and his Instruments that they might use their best skill to try if by any means they could disturb his patience and so spoil his obedience as he did Adams that so hee might put him to death formally as he did the other Malefactors 3 It is also evident that Christ was more intirely active in all his soul-sufferings than in his outward sufferings for the Text saith He troubled himself at the death of Lazarus Joh. 11. 33. and he sighed deeply in spirit for their infidelity Mark 8. 12. and Christ was often his own aflicter with soul-sorrows so in Job 13. 21. and from hence I infer that he was his own afflicter very often as I have shewed more at large in chap. 16. at Reply 10. And to this purpose I lately cited Damasen for Christs voluntary soul-troubles in his Agony And unto him I will add Beda Jesus hungred saith he it is true but because he would he slept it is true but because See Beda in Ioh. 11. he would he sorrowed it is true but because he would he died it is true but because he would Ibidem The affections of mans infirmity Christ
took unto him not by any bond of necessity but by the good pleasure of his mercy as he did flesh and death it self Wherefore his death was truly free and not forced because he had power to lay down his soul and to take it up again From these words of Beda which accord with Damasen and other ancient Divines we may see that they held it to be an evident truth that Christ was often his own afflicter with soul-sorrows and to that end he voluntarily took unto him our infirmities of fear sorrow c. they were not pressed from him from the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton holds And saith Beda his death was truly free and not forced therefore especially in the last act of his death he was the onely active Priest in breathing out or sending out his soul from his body But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. And in this case Christ was his own Executioner which last saith he the Dialogue it self expresly rejecteth Reply 20. There is good reason to reject it for though God commanded Christ in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our infirmities to enter the Lists with his envious Combater Satan and also permitted Satan to enter the Lists with Christ and to assault him with a Band of Souldiers Christ was not his own executioner or self-murderer though he was the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice with staves and swords yet he did not command Christ to take any of these weapons from them and run them into his own body on purpose to kill himself that so he might be his own executioner as Saul was to prevent the ignominious usage of his Adversaries this kind of killing is Diabolical and Christ might not be his own executioner in any such like manner therefore the Dialogue had good reason to reject that kind of Tenent The Dialogue saith thus in p. 102. Though he did not break his own body and pour out his own blood with nails and spear as the Roman Souldiers did yet he brake his own body in peeces by separating his own soul from his body by his own Priestly power And thus Beza makes Christ to break his hody actively as well as passively But it is a prophane expression to compare the act of a Priest in killing a sacrifice to the act of an executioner that puts a malefactor to death and it is a like prophane expression to call such a death Self-murder or Homicide If Abraham had formally killed Isaack as he intended yet he had not been Isaacks murderer no nor yet his executioner according to the known use of the word neither was Isaack to be called a Self-murtherer or a Homicide being now thirty three years old and therfore able to have resisted his Father in submitting himself to be bound and to be laid on See Beza Annot on 1 Cor. 11. 24. And Haymo there also the Altar to be killed But in that act we see how God esteemed it for in that act Abraham should have been the Priest and Isaack the Sacrifice And so ought we to esteem of the act of Christ in his death in his Divine nature he was the Priest and in his humane nature he was the Sacrifice as the Dialogue saith or thus by the joynt concurrence of both his natures he was both Priest and Sacrifice But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. Though Haman according to the true sense of the Text Ester 8. 7. be said to lay his hand upon the Jews yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman Abraham is said to have offered up Isaack yet Isaack is said no where to be slain by Abraham as Abraham did sacrifice Isaack so was Isaack sacrificed that is to say interpretatively or vertually not actually Reply 21. Those instances in the Dialogue in p. 100. are more clearly expressed than they are related by Mr. Norton and the intent of those instances was no more but this namely to exemplifie that though the Jews are said to kill Christ yet that they did not formally separate his soul from his body though they did enough to make themselves true murderers of the Lord of life but the last act was done by himself as he was the Priest in his own death But saith Mr. Norton in p. 85. How oft do we read in Scripture that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews Act. 2. 37. and 4 10. 1 Cor. 2. 8. Reply 22. I grant the Scripture doth often say that the Jews did slay and murder the Lord of life but saith the Geneva note on Act. 2. 23. on the word you have slain The fact is said to be theirs by whose counsel and egging forward it was done By this note it appeareth that in their judgement Christ was not actually put to death by the Jews but vertually onely and so Isaack is said to have been offered up by Abraham in the Preter-tense so the new Translation in Jam. 2. 21. because he did really intend and endeavor to do it So then I hope the Dialogue saich true notwithstanding Mr. Nortons busling contradiction namely that the Jews did not put Christ to death formally But in case he was put to death formally by second causes then it follows that it was done by the Devil in the Roman powers for they had the power of life and death at this time and not the Jews as I have shewed at large in the Dialogue the Jews and Romans were true murtherers but not the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice This distinction of his death is contemned by Mr. Norton But it is a very harsh saying in mine ears to say That the Devil in the Roman powers was the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice as they must bee if they were the formal cause of Christs death and to me it is as hard a speech to say That the wrath of God the Father was the formal cause of Christs death as some say it was and as Mr. Norton saith also sometimes in true effect for in page 79 he saith That Christs death was joyned with the curse made up of the pain of sense and the pain of loss and in page 70 he saith It is a fiction to assert any divine prediction That Christ should only suffer a bodily death and presently after he saith Christ dyed as a sinner impuratively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Hence I reason thus If the wrath of God the Father did put Christ to death formally then the Father was the Priest in the death and sacrifice of Christ which is quite contrary to Gods own established order for by his oath hee made Christ an unchangeable Priest that so hee might bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice Heb. 7. 21. Christ was not by nature obnoxious to death nor to any other misery but by Covenant
withdraw protection from his humane nature that so his humane nature might bee the more sensibly touched with the feeling of our infirmities And withall I say That though Christ had this voluntary weakness yet it did not decay his natural vigor by degrees as the like sufferings doth decay our sinful natures for the constitution of his humane nature was so perfectly orgonized and moulded that he could at his pleasure take our true humane infirmities for the accomplishing of his Combate according to the Articles of the eternal Covenant as he did in his Agony in the Garden And again at his pleasure he could re-assume his perfect strength of nature as hee did after his prayers in the Garden as I have formerly shewed more at large he dyed not saith Mr. Smith of Clavering afore cited with extremity of pains as others do And saith Mr. White of Dorchester and Mr. Perkins afore cited by reason of the strength of the natural constitution of his body he might have subsisted under his torments longer than the two Theeves And saith Erasmus afore cited He did not faint as others do the strength of his body by little and little decaying And saith Mr. Nichols cited in the Dialogue page 101. Christ dyed not by degrees as his Saints do his senses did not decay no pangs of death took hold upon him but in perfect sense patience and obedience both of body and soul he did by his infinite power voluntarily resign his Spirit as he was praying into the hands of his Father without any trembling or struggling or without any shew of the sense of his pains And several others both of the ancient and later Divines I have immediately cited that speak to this purpose which proves that Christ had no necessary weakness to bear his Cross but voluntary weakness hee had at his pleasure that hee might bee truly touched with the feeling of our infirmities And take also into consideration what Austin saith de Trinit lib. 13. c. 14. where he expounds 〈◊〉 Cor. 13. 4. thus even of that infirmity wherein Christ was crucified the Apostle also saith 2 Cor. 13. 〈◊〉 The weakness of God is stronger than men Whatsoever seemed weakness in Christ saith he is so called in comparison of his divine power And again his weakness was such that it far passed the power and strength of us men and therefore in 1 Cor. 1. 24 25. Christ crucified is called the power of God because he was both God and man in one person and therefore as soon as he had finished all his sufferings wherein he shewed 1 Cot. 1. 24 25. his true voluntary weakness hee breathed out his soul even whiles he was in the full strength of nature by the joynt concurrence of both his natures To dye saith Bernard is a great infirmity but so to dye saith he is an exceeding power Hence then I conclude That when the Executioners did compel a man of Cyren to bear his Cross that is to help him bear it It doth not prove that Christ had less strength of nature left to bear it than the Theeves had as Mr. Norton doth argue it proves no more but this either that Christ had voluntary weakness or else that they thought him to have such necessary weakness appertaining to his nature as other sinful men have that are over-burdened for they could not discern his voluntary weakness from necessary weakness unless they had known him to be God and man in one person and therefore they compelled a man of Cyren to help him bear his Cross And who can tell but that the Theeves had some to help them bear their Cross as well as Christ had and therefore it is a weak argument to prove that Christ had less strength of nature to bear his Cross than the two Theeves because they compelled a man of Cyren to help him bear his Cross seeing the Scripture is silent whether the two Theeves did bear their own Cross without any help from others But saith Mr. Norton in page 168. 'T is true no Torments though in themselves killing could kill Christ until he pleased and it is also true that Torments killing in themselves could kill him when he pleased And saith he in page 86. Though Christ by his absolute power could have preserved his life against all created adversary power Joh. 10. 18. yet saith he by his limited power be could not But as our Surety be was bound to permit the course of Physical causes and the prevailing power of darkness for the fulfilling of what was written concerning him Luke 22. 53. The Jews therefore doing that which according to the order of second causes not only might but also through his voluntary obliged permission did take away his life they did not only endeavour but also actually kill him c. Reply 27. I have often warned to have it the better marked That the death of Christ is set out to us two wayes in the blessed Scriptures First Either more largely by his suffering the pains of death as a sinful Malefactor from his envious Combater Satan Or secondly more strictly by setting out the formality of his death as it was made a sacrifice when his soul was separated from his body by his own Priestly power But Mr. Norton is much displeased with this distinction because it crosseth his Doctrine of Satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell as our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam Now in the first sense it is true That Christ was ordained to be the seed of the sinful deceived woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true humane infirmities hee was to combate with our malicious Enemy Satan and in that respect he must permit the course of Physical causes and the prevailing power of the Prince of darkness to do him all the mischief he could to provoke his patience and to disturb him in the course of his obedience according to Gods Declaration of the Combate in Gen. 3. 15. 2 But yet notwithstanding it is not any where written that Christ covenanted to let the powers of darkness to take away his life formally I do not find that Christ had limited himself by his obliged permission to let the Jews and Romans take away his life actually and formally as Mr. Norton holds Nay I say the blessed Scriptures do plainly deny this as I have opened Job 10. 17 18. in Reply 25. Secondly It is also further evident that none but himself was ordained to bee the Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice because God made him a Priest for ever after the order of Melchlsedek by an oath which declares That according to the eternal Decree and the unchangeable Council Heb. 7. 21. and Covenant of God he should be the only Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice and in that respect Christ saith None taketh my vital soul from me I lay it down of myself I have power to
3 15. that his sufferings as he was declared to be the seed of the woman was to be from the voluntary cause in the trial of masteries with his proclaimed enemy Satan and his Instruments in which Combate in case Satan could have prevailed to disturb his patience then Satan had got the victory but in case he could not by all his ill usage disturb his patience nor any way subvert him in his obedience then the victory and the rich prize of mans Redemption was to go on Christs side p. 55 82 96 22 chap. 13 14. Eternity is essential to the Torments of Hell p. 56 The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell Torments thereby to make Eternity no more but a circumstance hath four inconveniencies attending it p. 56 Sometimes Mr. Norton doth affirm that Christ suffered the pain of loss in respect of the fruition of the good of the Promise but otherwhiles he saith it was but in respect of the sense of the good of the Promisess By which wide differing expressions he leaves the Reader in the dark to grâ—pe out his meaning p. 58 Mr. Norton in his book p. 123 holds that Christ was separated both in body and soul from all participation of the good of the Promise for a time and so he comes up to Christs total separation from God for a time p. 60 Sometimes again he makes the pain of loss to be no more but the want of the sense of the favor of God for a time p. 61 Mr. Norton is put to his shifts to maintain his poenal Hell in this life for he is fain to fly to Gods extraordinary dispensation to maintain it p. 62 Death in sin is the essential curse that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. p. 63 68 34 Seeing the Elect were in Christ vertually before they were in Adam actually it proves that eternal death did not stand in full force against them but a spiritual death in sin onely p. 65 Death in sin and other punishments also which the Elect do suffer since the revelation of the Covenant of Grace in Gen. 3. 15. are de jure penal Justice though de facto in the issue they are not p. 69 * Add this Note to p. 69. Yea Mr. Norton himself doth confess in his book p. 255. That Original sin is the penal effect of Adams sin Death is not from God as be did ordain nature but it was inflicted as a punishment for Original sin and then he also ordamed a judgement to follow which will be a judgement to eternal death to all such as die without Faith in their redemption from Satans Head plot by the promised seed p. 70 Mr. Norton doth often contradict his foundation Principle which is that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the essential punishment of the curse of Hell Torments p 72 107 113 291 Mr. Norton doth by necessary consequence impute the sin of unmindfuâ—â— ness to Christ in the very time when he diâ— execute his Priestly office p. 76. p. 327 * Add this Note to p. 76. and to ch 17. at Sect. 4. Mr. Weams in his Portraiture p. 248. saith as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was forgetful of his Office by reason of the Agony astonishing his senses O horrible Blasphemy And though he doth agree with Mr. Norton in the point of imputing sin to Christ yet he doth contradict Mr. Norton in the point of Christ suffering Hell Torments for in p. 208. he denies that Christ suffered Hell Torments because saith he some things were unbeseeming to the person of Christ as the torments of Hel therefore saith he the compensation of it was supplied by the worthiness of the person Payment in kind doth justifie the Elect actually as soon as ever they have life in the womb And this Tenent doth justifie the Antinomian Tenent which holds that the Elect are justified before they have any Faith p. 76 Payment in kind leaves no room for God to exercise his free pardon and see P. Martyr in Rom. p. 382. ult p. 77 Mr. Norton affirms most dangerously that Christ made full satisfaction by suffering Hell Torments before his death was compleated and so he makes his death and sacrifice to be altogether vain and needless as to the point of full satisfaction p. 79 309. and chap. 17. Reply 24. To affirm that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell is all one as to affirm that Christs sufferings were from Gods hatred p. 79. at the fifth Reason p. 80 The true nature of all Christs greatest sufferings are described by the word chastisements in Isa 53. 5. But the essential tormonts of Hell are no where called chastisements therefore Christs greatest sufferings cannot truly and properly be called the essential Torments of Hell p. 79. at Reas 6. p. 169. CHAP. V. THe Essential Torments of Hell are inflicted from Gods hatred p. 80 CHAP. VI. CHrist undertook all his sufferings from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and he underwent them as our voluntary combating Surety for the winning of the prize from his malignant combating Enemy Satan even the redemption of all the Elect by continuing constant in his obedience to the Laws of the Combate even to the death of the Cross and therefore be did not undergo his sufferings from Gods vindicative justice by imputing the guiss of our sins to him and so inflicting on him the essential Torments of Hell according to the legal order of justice in Court proceedings p. 82 83 96 102 138 55. Ch. 13 Ch. 14 God doth impute the guilt of Adams first sin to all his natural posterity because it was his good pleasure as he was the most absolute Supreme to make such a Covenant with Adam as might really include all his natural posterity namely That in case he did first eat of the forbidden fruit then his nature as it was the fountain of all mans nature in general should become dead in sin and so consequently he must impute the guilt of Adams first sin to them all as being all dead in sin by natural generation p. 83 Christ could not be Adams legal Surety to the first Covenant for then be must have suffered the vindicative curse of death in sin which is blasphemy in the bigbest degree to affirm Therefore none but Adam as he was the head of mans nature by nature generation was under the obligation of punishment for the breach of the first Covenant p. 86 150 c. Christ may well be called our voluntary Surety because be voluntarily undertook our cause namely to be our voluntary Combater against Satan to break his Head plot for our Redemption but in no sort can be he said to be our legal bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam p. 89. 205 * Add this Marginal Note to p. 89. See also what Grotius saith against legal Sureties for life in capital crimes p. 215 216. God ordained all Christs greatest sufferings in his long passion to be for his Priestly Consecration
one Mediator for so saith the Text he offered himself by his Eternal Spirit namely by his God-head and for this cause hee is the Mediator of the New Testament vers 15. and hence it had its vertue to cleanse you from the guilt of all manner of sin And secondly hence it had vertue to confirm the Testament for the many as it is expressed in vers 15 16 17. Thirdly I had almost forgotten to parallel that speech in Dan. 9. 27. with Gal. 4. 4 5. which lyes thus He shall confirm the Testament for the Many the last Seven that is to say in the very end of the last Seven which is most precisely called The fulnesse of time in Gal. 4 4. Now where a Testament is confirmed there must of necessity be the death of the Testator for a Testament is confirmed and of force after men be dead it is of no strength at all whilst the Testator lives Heb. 9. 16 17. The next clause in Daniel is this And in the balf of that Seven which is three years and a half namely in the end of this last half of the last Seven which also is most precisely called The fulnesse of time in Gal. 4. 4. be shall end Sacrifice and oblation and this speech is directly parallel to that in Gal. 4. 4 5. He shall redeem them from under the Law that is to say by one and the same act of his Death and Sacrifice he shall end Sacrifice and Oblation and by that act he shall redeem us not only from the bondage of Moses Ceremonies but also from Sathans Head plot or as it is in vers 24. By his death He shall finish Trespasse-offering and end Sin-offerings and so make reconciliation for unrighteousnesse and bring in an everlasting Righteousnesse for he shall confirm unto us all the Legacies of the New Testament by his death where the Spirit for regeneration and forgivenesse of sin for Justification are the general Legacies Thus have I shewed though not so compendiously as I could wish that the word Law in Gal. 4. 4. must bee understood of the ceremonial Law only And therefore first All that Mr. Norton saith touching Christs subjection to the moral Law from Gal. 4. 4. as the proper Law of his Mediatorship there intended falls to the ground And secondly his charge of the second Heresie which he proveth from this Text doth justly fall upon his own head for this is certain that if a Curse be not justly given it shal not come on the innocent Prov. 26 27. but it must return to the giver Psal 109. 17. Thirdly Hence it follows that Mr. Norton doth again most grosly wrong this Text to prove that Christ suffered the curse of hell torments in his death in p. 103. The last branch of Mr. Nortons third Query is this In the Acceptation of this Obedience Reply 4. This Acceptation Mr. Norton takes for granted which is denied He should have proved as well as affirmed that God accepted of Christs legal obedience as our obedience then hee had shewed his skill and then it had indeed been meritorious and of such value and sufficiency But because hee doth but barely affirm it therefore I shall passe it by without any further examination here because I have shewed the contrary in the former Section and also in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. His fourth Query is a bare Affirmation And the reason of the denial I will shew when I come to examine his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. CHAP. IV. The Examination of Mr. Nortons first Distinction in Page 7. which is this Distinguish between the Essential or Substantial and the Accidental or Circumstantial parts of the punishment of the Curse And then he makes this to be the distinguishing Character between them The Essential part of the punishment saith he is that execution of Iustice which proceedeth from the Curse considered absolutely in it self without any respect to the condition or disposition of the Patient The Accidental part of the punishment saith he is that execution of Iustice which proceedeth not from the Curse considered absolutely but from the disposition of the Patient being under such a Curse SECT 1. Reply 1. THis Distinction hee takes for granted for hee shews not how or in what sense any of these accidental parts do flow from the disposition or condition of the Patient under the curse further then by two Humane and Civil Resemblances of his meaning But the Dialogue gave him a fair occasion to clear his meaning by objecting sundry particulars of the Curse and instead of a fair answer hee puts the Reader off with this sleight The reasoning of the Dialogue is impertinent The dispute is about the Essential parts of the Curse these are but Accidental because they proceed not from the Curse absolutely considered but from the disposition or condition of the Patient under the curse Now seeing he doth thus hide his meaning How can I or the Reader judge what weight of truth there is in his distinction let the Reader judge whether such unexplained distinctions bee not rather evasions than explications SECT 2. YOu may see it saith Mr. Norton exemplified in Civil punishments in the execution of death upon a Malefactor the separation of the soul from the body is of the essence of punishment The gradual decay of the senses impotency of spirits are â—ccidental parts of the punishment Or thus saith he it may be further illustrated in the case of the execution of imprisonment upon a Debtor imprisonment is of the essence of punishment but duration in prison is from the disposition of the Debtor namely his insufficiency to pay the debt Reply 2. All the sufferings of Christ were to bee performed The natural order of proceedings in Courts of justice is not fit to exemplifie the order of proceedings in voluntary causes and Covenants from the voluntary cause being founded in Gods good will and pleasure and agreed on by a mutual and reciprocal Covenant between the Trinity and not from the natural order of Court-proceedings but Mr. Norton doth exemplifie all this from the natural order of Court-justice It is all one as if he should exemplifie the Incarnation and the Death of Christ by the natural order of our conception and death It is a known maxim That paralleling of justice between cases Divine and Humane is dangerous and from Humane to Divine is an unsafe way of reasoning and savors too much of prying into the secrets of God contrary to Dâ—ut 20. 29. and of too much boldnesse in giving a reason of Gods eternal decrees which is not modesty in the creature Rom. 11. 33. But Mr. Norton seems to father this opinion and distinction on Dr. Ames in his Answer to Bellarmine about the Eternity of Hell-torments in Christs sufferings as his marginal Note shews But the self-same Dr. Ames in his Marrow lib. 1. c. 16. Sect. 4. 7. 9. doth expresse himself to bee of another mind touching Eternity is essential to the
deserved to bee damned And in page 22. He makes it one branch of the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. to bee separated from the sense of the good Gen. 2. 17. things of the promise and calls it total in Christ and total in the Reprobates and all this flowing from the same Curse And in page 68. Hee calls it his total desertion in respect of sense upon the Crosse and presently after he saith The pain of losse and the pain of sense make up the full measure of the essential wrath of God and they both met together in full measure upon him on the Crosse Mark this Hee doth in both these places hold that Christ suffered the full measure of the pain of losse And in page 79. He saith That forsaking is either total and Psal 22. 1. Mat. 27. 46. final so God forsakes the Reprobate or partial and temporal as concerning the fruition and sense of the good of the promise so God forsook Christ Of his forsaking Christ complains in this place being a principal part of that punishment which Christ as the Surety of the Elect was to undergo And presently after he saith That Christ suffered the guilt and punishment of sin a chief part whereof was this Divine penal desertion and his following words do imply that this was the curse of the pain of Losse Mark that in this place hee holds only a partial forsaking And in page 80. Hee saith That Christ was forsaken â—â—nally yet partially and temporally not to any and finally Here also hee doth hold no more but a partial forsaking and denies total And in page 118. Hee saith Though the separation of the damned from God is total and final yet the separation or rather desertion of Christ was partial and temporal in respect of the sense of the favour of God and only for a time And saith he There are two kinds of penal desertion or forsaking one is only in part for a time The other is total and final so the Reprobates are forsaken in Hell And in page 122. Hee saith That Christ was wholly forsaken in respect of any participation of the sense of the good of the promise for a time Matth. 27. 46. Matth 27. 46. But in page 123. Hee saith That God forsook him with a temporal and partial desertion and presently after The soul and body being separated from all participation of the good of the promise Here the word sense is left out and in the former place hee denieth that he had any sense of the good of the promise Now let the Reader judge whether hee can easily gather out of these various and uncertain expressions what Mr. Norton doth distinctly affirm touching the pain of Losse that Christ suffered for one while he calls it Total separation another while he saith It was partial and then the fruition and sense is put in also one while hee doth limit his sufferings to the sense of the favour of God as in page 118. another while heâ— saith that hee was separated from all participation of the good of the promise in page 123. In this last speech hee leaves out the word sense which implies the highest degree of suffering for it takes Mr. Norton in p. 123 holds that Christ both in soul body was sepaâ—ated fâ—omal participation of the good of the promise for a time and so he comes up to Christs total separation from God for a time away the support of Gods Spirit to bear the pain of losse which God doth often give when the sense of his favour is wanting and it also takes away other communications of his love In this 123. page Mr. Norton doth speak out his meaning plain enough Namely that the soul and body of Christ was separated from all participation of the good of the promise for the while and so he comes up to a Total though temporary separation from God and more then a partial which hee frequently denied in the places above cited and comes up to a real separation which Dr. Ames above cited doth deny and to separatio quo ad substantiam mentioned in page 118. and not only quo ad sensum which Dr. Willet denies as he there cites him and the plain words of the Scripture do also oppose him in Joh. 16. 32. I am not alone the Father is with me Now if the Father Joh. 16. 32. was present with him then he had communion with his Father all the while that his Disciples did leave him alone for that place doth tell us that these words of Christ do refer to the whole time of his sufferings while his Disciples should leave him alone hee told his Disciples that when the Shepherd was smitten they should bee scattered Matth. 26. 31. Yea said Christ Joh. 16. 32. The hour is now come that yee shall bee scattered and yee shall leave me alone and yet I am not alone because the Father is with me in respect of inward support 2 On the other hand if Mr. Nortons expressions do own that Christ suffered no more in the point of the pain of losse Sometimes Mr. Norton makes the pain of losse to be no more but the want of the sense of the savour of God for a time save only the sense of the favour of God and but only for a time as his expressions are in page 118. Then hee holds that Christ suffered no more in the point of the pain of losse than many a child of God doth suffer in the work of their conversion who do notwithstanding at the very same time partake of the good things of the promise as Regeneration Reconciliation Justification and Adoption And then also if Mr. Norton hold that Christ in his desertion suffered no more than this he doth crosseshins with his other Principle in p 123. That the execution of the evil of the Curse denies communion but not union with God but it is out of all controversie that Christ had communion with God in other things although Mr. Nortons supposition were true that hee was deprived of the sense of his favour The Judicious Reader will soon perceive that the pain of losse in the essentials of it must needs produce greater sufferings then only the losse of the sense of Gods favour for a time and Mr. Norton himself doth acknowledge as much in page 113. The pain of losse saith he consists not in the meer want of the favour or love of God The Reprobates whether men or devils are alwayes hated of God c. And secondly saith Dr. Ames Privation is the losse of an infinite good And thirdly These Scriptures rightly expounded will put more misery on the pain of losse taken essentially then onely the In his Marrow c. 16. Thes 2. want of the sense of the favour of God for a time Matth. 7. 23. Matth. 25. 41. 2. Thess 1. 9. 3 I will here produce one passage more from Mr. Norton in Mr. Norton cannot maintain his penal
That therefore the Law in Deut. 21. 23. was peculiar to the Commonwealth of the Jews and not common to other Nations it might have been granted to him And the like may be said of divers other political Laws of Moses that they were in force onely in the land of Canaan and that neither before Moses time nor after Christs death they were in force c. I grant also that there were many Judicial Laws that were partly civil and partly ceremonial and so it may be granted that the Law in Deu. 21. 23. had some ceremonial considerations about the burial of the dead body for it defiled all that touched it But yet it will not thence follow that it defiled the whole land in case it continued unburied till after sun-set and therefore it did not typifie that Christ should bear the moral and eternal curse on the tree for our redemption which is the very point that Mr. Norton hath undertaken to make good from Deut. 21. 23. This Exposition saith Mr. Norton in p. 95. 96. in making the man that was hanged on a tree a ceremonial curse And Christ hanged on a tree a moral curse is both generally received and every way agreeing to the analogy of Faith which is a rule of interpreting Scripture Reply 9. It is not so generally received as Mr. Norton would perswade his Reader it is well enough known that there were and are many godly and judicious ones that dare not hold that Christ suffered the moral and eternal curse for our redemption First I doe not finde that Peter Martyr held that Christ suffered Hell torments or the second death It is objected saith Peter Martyr that Christ for our sake In Rom. 9. 1 〈◊〉 in p. 240. did not onely give his life upon the cross but also that he was made a curse and was also after a sort forsaken of the Father when he cryed My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee And after a short Answer to another Objection he Answers thuâ— The second doubt faith he is concerning Christ for although he for our sakes suffered death yet was he not in very deed separated from God but his humanity was holpen when he suffered on the cross all extream pains he was also made a curse as touching the punishment of the Law which punishment he suffered for our salvation sake and he was counted as a blasphemer c and being as it were convicted of these crimes he was condemned But yet was he not by eternal damnation separated from God In this Answer Peter Martyr hath left his judgement upon record how Christ was forsaken on the cross and how he was made a curse by hanging on the tree he was made a curse saith he as touching the punishment of the Law in Deut. 21. 23. and saith he he was counted as a Blasphemer and an ungodly person and being as it were convicted of these crimes he was condemned but yet was he not by eternal damnation namely by suffering that which to the creature is eternal damnation separated from God By this answer it is evident That he held that Christ suffered no other curse but the outward curse of hanging on a tree just as Chrisostom and Theephilact spake as I have cited them in the former Chap. in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Mr. Norton said ere while that his exposition was generally received but here he may see two of the antient Divineâ— and Peter Martyr cited against him and Peter Martyrs Answer is to an Objection that was raised from such as held as Mr. Norton doth Fourthly Bucer makes Christ to suffer no other penal hel or inâ—ernum but his bodily death as I have cited him in Chap 7. Sect. 2. Fifthly I have also diligently perused all Tindals works and the works of Jo. Frith and of Dr. Barns being three godly Martyrs and they do all oppose the popish satisfaction and by occasion thereof they speak often of the true satisfaction that was made by Christ and I find not a word in any of them that concurs with Mr. Nortons sense of Hell torments but with the Dialogue sense of satisfaction by his bodily death and sacrifice Sixthly I find that others do cite Bullenger and Zanchy as not cleaving to Mr. Nortons Tenent of Hell Torments But I have not throughly searched them but in a great part I have and can find no such thing in them Let them that please search them fully Seventhly Mr. Broughton and his followers which to this day are many that are both pious and learned and they do reject the Tenent of Hell Torments on the cross as no Article of their faith I will cite onely two passages out of Mr. Broughton besides what I have cited in the Dialogue 1 Saith he That assertion that our Lord suffered Hell Torments In his positions on Hadâ—s p. 13. appeareth not true by any Scripture true modesty saith he would look to Scripture phrases in the handling of our redemption 2 Saith he to say that our Lords soul tasted the second death is the highest degree of blasphemy against our Lord and In his short Reply to Bilson p. 22 25. saith he in p. 25. The term second death used twice in the Apocalips is taken from the Thalmudistes and therefore by them it must be expounded And in their sense saith he it is The second death is a misery to the soul in the perpetual hatred of God ever taken for a misery to the Soul in the perpetual hatred of God and agreeable to this I have shewed in chapter 5. that Hell Torments and the second Death is always inflicted from the hatred of God Onkelos hath it in Deut. 33. and Jonathan in Isa 22. and Rabbins infinitely But saith Mr. Norton to avoid manifest blasphemy Christ was never in Gods hatred Therefore he might as well conclude that he never suffered the essential torments of Hell nor the second Death seeing they are not inflicted without Gods hatred And saith Bro. in Revâ—l p. 301. N. N. missed most Atheanly more than ever any since the Devil deceived Adam to say that our Lord was in the second Death 2 Mr. Ainsworth on Deut. 33. 6. saith the Chalde doth thus expound it Let Ruben not die the second death And saith he Jonathan in his Targum paraphraseth thus Let Ruben live in this world and not die with the death wherewith the wicked shall dye in the world to come And saith he in Psal 49. 11. The Chalde saith That wicked wise men die the second death and are adjudged to Gehenna And saith he in his preface to Genisis p. 6. The second death in Rev. 20. 8. is used by Jonathan in Isa 65. 6. 15. and saith he in Gen. 17. 14. Mamony in Treat of Repentance c. 8. Sect. 1. Speaking of eternal death saith And this is the cutting off written in the Law as it is said in Numb 15. 31. That soul shall be cut off he shall be cut off which we
affections either of joy or sorrow as in Psal 25. 1. it is put for cheerful affections See Ainsworth there and in Psal 86. 4. It is also put for the affections of compassion in Isa 58. 10. It is also put for the affections of sorrow and sadness 1 Sam. 1. 15. Psal 42. 5. Psal 62. 9. Lam. 2. 12. It is also put for vexation of mind Deut. 28. 65. It is also put for the grief and pain which they sustained in captivity as it is expounded in vers 64. 66. and 2 King 4. 27. Job 7. 11. Job 10. 1. Psal 13. 2. It is also put for the inward powers Job 21. 23. Psal 107. 26. Prov. 14. 1. Likewise in the New Testament Psyche the vital soul is put 1 For a willing heart Eph. 6 6. Col. 3. 23. 2 For one mind Act. 4. 31. Phi. 1. 27. 3 For the heart soul and mind Matth. 22. 37. Toto tuo sensitivo as Lyra interpreteth with all thy wisdome diligence and cogitation as Chrysostome with all thy life and with all thy mind as Austin with all thy will and mind as Glossa ordinaria with all thy life which thou oughtest to yeeld up for him as Origen See also Deut. 6. 5. Luke 10. 27. Mark 10. 45. Rev. 18. 14. 4 Psyche in the New Testament doth signifie for the most part the same that Nephes doth in the Old But saith Carlile in three places it signifies the immortal soul as in Mat. 10. 27 28. Jam. 1. 21. 1 Pet. 1. 9. And saith hee This kind of soul was that soul of Christ that was so exceeding sorrowful in Mat. 26. 38. By nature saith Carlile in page 155. All the parts of my body wherein there is any life do fear death my will is unwilling my mind vexed my affections moved my heart is A true description of the natural fear of death wounded my members shake my breast panteth my legs faint my hands tremble and my senses are amazed And saith hee The flesh of Christ was so troubled that hee desired if it were possible that he might escape death Mat. 26. 38 Mar. 14 34. Joh. 12. 27. 2 Mr. Wilmot renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matth. 26. 38. Mat. 26. 38. which we translate exceeding sorrowful by rounded about with sorrow for fear of his approaching ignominious death hee was rounded about in every part of his body according to the description above from Carlile and so David saith of his fear The sorrows of death compassed me about Psal 18. 5. And by this expression it appears that hee was in every part of his sensitive Psal 18. 5. soul blood and flesh in a quaking fear Mr. Ainsworth doth render it the pangs of death or the pains throws and sorrows as of a woman in child-birth and so doth the original signifie in Hos 13. 13 Isa 13. 8. Isa 66. 7. And so doth the Chaldee explain it Anguish compassed mee as of a woman which sitteth in the birth and hath no strength to bring forth being in danger of death Methinks these emphatical expressions of the fear of a bodily death should check such as sleight them that expound the fear of Christ of his exceeding natural fear of his bodily death 3 When our Saviour at Supper told his Disciples that one of them should betray him they were exceedâ—ng sorrowful Mat 26. 21 22. namely they were in evâ—ry pâ—â—â— of their body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 surrounded about with sorâ—ow 〈…〉 Châ—â—st doth compare their sorrows for his death 〈…〉 gs of a woman in travel Joh. 16. 20 21 22. The 〈…〉 2. and in verse 38. is the same and the Syriak doth translate them alike and Tremelius doth translate the Syriack in both places with the same Latine word So that the natural fear of an ignominious violent death doth extend it self to every part of the vital soul and body SECT IV. But saith Mr. Norton in page 87. His sorrow was lethal and deadly both extensively and intensively continuing unto the last gaspe intensively killing of it self in time had there been no other causes resolving and melting the soul gradually as wax is melted with the heat Psal 22. 14. Reply 15. In these words Mr. Norton doth make Christs body to be subject to death by natural causes not only externally Christs soul-sorrows could not be lethal and deadly because they were governed by right reason but also internally from his soul-sorrows as if he might now lose the rectitude of his own pure humane affections His heart indeed according to his voluntary Covenant to undertake our nature and passions did melt for fear of his ignominious and painful death in the midst of his bowels in his preparation to incounter it in the Garden but after a while by his strong crying and tears hee did overcome that fear and obtained a confirmation of his nature against his natural fear But I wonder how Mr. Norton can say as hee doth often that Christs sorrows were lethal and deadly and continuing to the last gasp seeing all his affections were regular and conformed to right reason can regular affections admit of such a kind of sorrow without sin I think not and yet I conceive that the measure of regular sorrow may bee so great that it cannot well be expressed by us otherwise than in the Scripture phrases which must not bee stretched by the conceptions of men beyond the context But to affirm that the kind of his sorrow was lethal and deadly of it self is as much as to say it was excessive and beyond the rule of right reason which must needs be sinful and it is worse to say that his lethal sorrows continued to the last And therefore Mr. Nortons kind of reasoning is most dangerous All Christs affections saith Martyr were in him voluntary they did rise in him when he pleased to shew them and they appeared not when he pleased to suppress them but in us saith he they are often involuntary and rise in us whether we will or no. But saith Mr. Norton in page 88. Christ was amazed He began to be sore amazed Mark 14. 33. which signifieth an universal cessation of all the saculties of the Mar. 14. 33. soul from their several functions Physicians call it a Horripilation wee usually a Consternation like a Clock in kiltor yet stopped for the while from going by some hand laid upon it That such intermission of the operations of his soul the effect of this formidable Concussion might be without sin is evident to him that remembers Christ slept sleep ordinarily implying cessation of the exercise of the intellectual faculties Reply 16. The word translated Amazed saith hee signifies an universal cessation of all the faculties of the soul from Christ was not fully amazed their several functions I acknowledge that the signification of the original is of necessary use for the right expounding of the blessed Scriptures provided the original word be not stretched to a sense
terrified namely with the fear of death because of them And this haste saith Ainsworth in Psal 31. 23. is through amazement or fear as the word commonly intendeth And that David through the fear of death did hast away from Saul is evident by 1 Sam. 23. 26. But yet this is to be noted that his fear or amazement was not in such a degree as Mr. Nortons definition doth hold forth for if all the faculties of his soul had now ceased universally from their several functions then David had not been capable to contrive such a wise course for his safety as he did on a sudden 4 Ethambesan is used by the Seventy to interpret the Hebrew word Bagnab in 2 Sam. 22. 5. which we translate fear The floods 2 Sam. 22. 5. of wickedness saith David made me afraid The former part of the verse runs thus The waves of death compassed me the Seventy for compassed have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exceeding sorrowful compassed or surrounded about in every part of his body with the fears of death Matth. 26. 38. And so David said just as Christ said The waves of death compassed me the floods of wickedness made me Ethambesan afraid and so said Christ to his Disciples I am rounded about with the fears of death Matth. 26. 38. and the floods of wickedness make me Ethambeisthai very heavy or afraid as the Seventy by that word do Mat. 26. 38. render the Hebrew word in 2 Sam. 22. 5. 5 The Seventy use the same Greek word for fear or terrors as in Cant. 6. 4 10. and in Cant. 8. 7. Eccles 12. 5. Ezek. 7. 18. The thing I aim at by citing all these Translations is to shew that Mr. Nortons definition of the word Amazed in Mark 14. 33. is larger than these Translations above cited do make it to be and larger than the context will own I do not think therefore that Christ was ever under such a degree of amazement as Mr. Nortons definition holds forth 6 Neither is his comparison suitable to express that Christ was so amazed for Mr. Norton compares the universal cessation of the exercise of all the faculties of Christs immortal soul from their several functions in his amazement to the cessation of the intellectual faculties in the time of sound sleeping any man may see that this comparison is no way fit for though the Intellects cease from exercise during the time of sound sleeping yet that is but to refresh nature for the better performance By consequence Mr. Norton doth impute the si◠of unmindfulness to Christ in the time of executing his Office of its office but by Mr. Nortons definition of Christs amazement he was dis-inabled thereby from doing the proper duties of his office in the very time that he was to exercise his office it was not now a time for all the faculties of his soul to cease from their proper functions as in the time of sleeping when there is no known danger at hand as there was now Doubtless to affirm that Christ was so amazed at this time is no less than to make Christ a sinner formally as I have shewed in the opening of Joh. 19. 28 30. in Chap. 4. Sect. 8. He could not be any further amazed than his perfect rational Will thought most suitable to the conditions of his Covenant which was to be touched with a quick sense of our passions when he would and as much as he would The Devil indeed did labor to deprive him of his reasonable soul as it is evident by his plotting of his ignominious and violent death and he labored to bring him into such amaze as Mr. Norton speaks of and if he could have effected it he had won the victory but blessed be God this wise servant was never no otherwise amazed but as himself pleased to trouble himself Joh. 11. 33. I confess I find the same Doctrine in M. Weams portraiture p. 248. He makes Christ forgetful in his Office as M. Norton doth by reason of the Agony astonishing his senses and thus this corrupt tenent doth spread like leven but saith Dr. Williams in p. 447. the passion of fear could not divert him from his desire nor darken his understanding nor disturb his memory nor any way hinder him in the execution of his Office But saith Mr. Norton in p. 88. He began not meerly to be amazed but also to be very heavy the word notes expavefaction which was such a motion of his mind superadded to his consternation whereby for the time he was disinabled as concerning the minding of any thing else being wholly taken up with the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God as the eye intrinsecally fixed upon some object taketh no notice of any other object before it for the while Reply 17. As I said of the former word Amazed so I say of this word very heavy it must not be stretched beyond the context But I have shewed that he hath stretched the word Amazed beyond the context therefore seeing he doth stretch this word very heavy beyond the word amazed It follows that he doth also stretch the Greek word Ademonein beyond the context Mr. Norton stretches the word very heav in Mark. 1433 beyond the context Try it by some Translations Tremelius doth translate the Syriack signification of this word Tristitia And Tindal doth translate it Agony And the Geneva great heaviness and Mr. Broughton full of heaviness And the Seventy by this Greek word do translate the Hebrew word Shamam in Job 18. 20. which we translate Affrighted and the Geneva Fear and Mr. Broughton Horror All these words in these translations doe well agree to that great natural fear and heaviness that Christ assumed at the sudden approach of his ignominious and painful death and the thought of it was much in his mind as it appears by his manifold speeches of it to his Apostles in Matth. 16. 21. and 17. 22 23. and 20. 18 19 24. and 21. 38. Job 12. 27. and therefore his mind was not dis-inabled at this time from thinking of it and it was the main request of his prayers to get a confirmation against his natural fear of it But saith Mr. Norton in p. 88. His mind was wholly taken up with the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God Reply 18. These words do make it evident why hee doth stretch the exposition of the two Greek words beyond the context namely for this very end that hee may hook in the dreadful sense of the righteous wrath of God upon Christs soul But I have said enough I think to confound this assertion And other Divines give another sense of Christs soul-sorrows in the Garden Dr. Lightfoot in his harmony on the New Testament p. 65. saith thus In an Agony he sweats drops like blood All the powers of hell being let loose against Christ as it never was against person upon earth before or since and
have resisted his pursuers 6. Austin speaks very much to this sense That Christ overcame the Devil by justice namely by combating justly according to the Laws of the voluntary Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. and not by force namely not by the power of his God-head any man may see that his discourse sounds to this sense His discourse is long but Mr. Worton hath abbreviated his method De Reconciliatione peccatords part 2. lib. 1. c. 21. and there he cites Bernard also to the same sense and thither I refer the Reader 7. Saith Dr. Willet on Dan. 9. 26. the justice of Christ is meritorious of eternal life for us because by it he overcame death and subdued the Devil none of all which Adams righteousness could do And it was one great part of the righteousness of Christ to agonize himself with the dread of that ignominious usage which his Combater was to inflict upon him And thus you see that the ancient Divines do agree That Christs greatest sufferings were from Satans malice by Gods permission and I perceive by conference with such as have been well read in the ancient Divines that they did not hold as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was a guilty sinner by Gods legal imputation nor that hee was pressed under the wrath of God but on the contrary they affirm that there was no sign of sin in him and that the Devil held him by no law of sin and that he was no way guilty of sin 8 Those few Hebrew Doctors that speak of the death of the Messiah do speak of his sufferings with his Combater Satan as I have noted their speeches in the Epistle to the Reader 9 The Apostle makes a like kind of reasoning in Heb. 2. 14. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood hee Heb. 2. 14. also himself took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the Devil Here two Questions may bee propounded and answered 1 How came the Devil to get the power of death 2 How came his power to be destroyed Adams first sin caused by the Devil was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death by original sin and that was the meritorious cause of Gods justice in appointing a bodily death and judgement To the first Question the Geneva Note doth answer because he was the author of sin none but the Devil was the author of Adams first sin in causing him by his deceitful reasoning to eat the forbiden fruit which sin brought in the spiritual death of original sin And then secondly The spiritual death of original sin was the meriting cause of Gods justice in denouncing a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. bodily death therefore was not the immediate effect of Adams first sin as most Expositors do carry it though I think they miss it for if bodily death had been the immediate effect of Adams first sin then the Pelagians cannot The Pelagians cannot be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granted that bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for they may say as most Expositors say That bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin and then the Pelagians may still hold that the death of Infants is not the punishment of original sin traduced from their Parents But the Apostle doth make the death of Infants to bee the immediate effect of original sin in Rom. 5. 12. and the Devil was the author of original sin because it was the immediate punishment of Adams first sin whereof the Devil was the author and so consequently it occasioned God in justice to denounce not only a bodily death to all the fallen sons of Adam but also to denounce eternal death by necessary consequence to so many of the fallen sons of Adam as did not beleeve their Redemption by the promised Seed for when God did first denounce a bodily death he did at the same time implicitly denounce a judgement as the Apostle shews in Heb. 9. 27. and to this sense of death doth Austin speak There is a first death Heb 9. 27. See Austin in Ser. 129. and a second death Of the first death saith hee there are two parts One when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator The other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods justice And the second death saith hee is the everlasting torment of body and soul And thus the Devil got the power of death The second Question is this How came this power of the Devil to bee destroyed The Answer is by the second Person in taking upon him the Seed of the woman in the fulness of time and by entring the Lists according to his Covenant in that nature as it was accompanied with our natural infirmities of fear sorrow c. and so by his constancy in obedience through all Satans conflicts he compleated his victory and it last hee made his vital soul a propitiatory sacrifice which was agreed and covenanted between the Trinity to be accounted for full satisfaction for the redemption of all the Elect And thus hee destroyed him that had the power of death The Devils plot was by some stratagem or other to make Christ a Transgressor as he had made Adam but because this Seed of the deceived sinful woman continued obedient to the death through all Satans malicious stratagems even to the death of the Cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice therefore hee got the victory and won the prize even the salvation of all the Elect. And thus through this kind of death he hath destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil But saith Mr. Norton in page 70. Christ in his Agony was pressed under the sence of the wrath of God and conflicted with eternal death Reply 23. This compulsary term of being pressed under the wrath of God is no way sutable to the voluntary obedience of a voluntary Covenanter I have shewed in Chap. 9. that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsary power When grapes or any other thing is pressed it is therefore pressed to force some thing from it Is this a fit speech to be applied to the voluntary Covenanters and to the voluntary undertaker of obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenanters Satan indeed did labour to oppress him to force him to impatiency but not God by his immediate wrath And the like strange expression I find also in the Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. By reason of the Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath guilt of our sins saith hee there fell upon him sorrow trouble of mind astonishment and heaviness to death Matth. 26. 38. when hee was to enter the Lists
and to fight the great combate hand to hand with his angry Father Ibidem in page 320. hee calls the said combate Handy gripes with his Father and his suffering on the Cross hee calls The main battel fought three whole hours with his Father all which time â—ugging in the fearful dark with him that had the power of darkness to hide from the eyes of the world the fire of his Fathers wrath which in that hot skirmish burnt up every part of him And saith Calvin Wee see that Christ was thrown down so far that by inforcement of distress hee was compelled to cry Just l. 2 c. 16. Sect. 11. out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And thus instead of entring the Lists with the Devil according to Gen. 3. 15. he saith He entred the Lists to fight the great combate hand to hand with his angry Father and instead of the Devils wrath they put in Gods wrath and instead of the Devils force they put in Gods force to compel the humane nature of Christ to suffer his immediate wrath And let the Reader take notice of this word Compelled most unadvisedly used by Calvin and others And now let the judicious Reader judge whether such descriptions of our Saviours Agony be sutable to the language of the holy Scriptures whether he was pressed and compelled by Gods immediate wrath And whether his Agony and Conflict were not rather from the pressure and compulsion of the Devil and his instruments according to Gods declared Decree in Gen. 3. 15. and judge if it bee not utterly unlike that the humane nature of Christ as it was accompanied with our infirmities was able to enter the Lists with his angry Father and to be pressed under his wrath and to conflict with eternal death as Mr. Nortons phrases are was his humane nature which was left by his divine nature on purpose that his humane infirmities might appear able to fight it out three whole hours on the Cross with his angry Father Perhaps you will answer hee was able because his humane nature subsisted in his divine I grant that it alwayes subsisted in the divine because the divine nature was never angry with the humane but yet it doth not follow that it was alwayes assisted and protected by the divine for then it could not have suffered any thing at all from Satan and his instruments I find it to be an ancient orthodox Tenent that the divine nature did often put forth a power to withdraw protection and assistance from his humane that the infirmities of the humane might appear and in this sense his infirmities in his sufferings were admitted by his divine power But let it be as the objection would have it namely that his humane nature being assisted by his divine was able to induce to bee pressed under his Fathers wrath Then it wil follow from thence that his divine nature did assist his humane nature against the divine Is this absurd language good Scripture-logick But saith Mr. Norton in p. 123. The divine nature was angry not onely with the humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him Reply 23. First I have shewed in p. 101. from Mr. Burges that sin was not imputed to the Mediator in both his Natures Secondly Was it ever heard that a Mediator between two at variance did fight hand to hand with the stronger angry opposite party to force him to a reconciliation Can any reconciliation be made whiles displeasure is taken and whiles anger is kindled against the Mediator that seeks to make reconciliation These are paradoxes in Divinity by which the clear Truth is made obscure Such Tenents are like the smoak of the bottomless pit that darkens the Sun and Air of the blessed Scriptures The Lord in mercy open our eyes to see better But saith Mr. Norton in p. 70. Through anguish of his soul he had clods rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body a thing which neither was seen nor heard before or since the true reason thereof saith he is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the If it be true that Christ sweat clods of blood then doubtless it was a miraculous sweat and then no natural reason can be given of the cause of it wrath of God Reply 24. If it be true that Christ through the anguish of his soul had clods of blood streaming down his blessed body then doubtless it was a miraculous sweat and then no natural reason can be given as the cause of it but I have all along affirmed that his Agony was from natural causes and that his sweat was increased by his strong prayers and cryes and that his sweat was not from the miraculous cause But I perceive that Mr. Norton himself is put in a wavering mind in p. 66. whether the sweat of Christ in his Agony was from the natural or from the miraculous cause for when he had expounded his Query he concludes thus We leave it to them that have leasure and skill to enquire And saith he Though the Evangelist mentioneth it as an effect proceeding from a greater cause than the fear of a meer natural death notwithstanding saith he our Doctrine is not built onely or chiefly upon this Argument Hence 1 Any indifferent Reader may easily perceive that Mr. Nortons answer to his own Query is but a very wavering and confused answer and therefore his bold conclusion aforesaid is built but upon a sandy foundation and therefore it is not sufficient to satisfie a doubting conscience 2 This speech of his our Doctrine is not built onely or chiefly upon this Argument is a plain acknowledgment that the Agony of Christ and his sweat like blood is no sound Argument to prove that Christ conflicted with eternal death and yet in p 70 39 68 89 c. he laies great weight upon his Agony as a true reason to prove that he died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death 3 Mr. Norton is wavering in this that he dares not affirm that Christ suffered the Torments of Hell but by Gods extraordinary dispensation as I have noted it in Chap. 7. Sect. 1. 4 Hence Mr. Norton might as well question whether the first touch or real impression of Hell pains would not utterly have dissolved the link and bond of nature namely of the sensitive soul that is between mans mortal body and his immortal soul in a moment Seeing he holds that his death was caused by the wrath of God For he saith That his blood was shed together with the wrath of God because it was shed as the blood of a person accursed For this is a clear Truth That the vital body of man cannot subsist under the Torments of Hell untill it bee made immortal by the power of God at the Resurrection 5 Hence it may be propounded as another question of moment whether
now seeing he held this as a Principle he could not hold that Christ suffered Gods penal and vindictive wrath except he had also held that the Elect do suffer Gods penal and vindicative wrath in this life But seeing all the punishments of the godly are called but chastisements even so the greatest of Christs sufferings on the cross are also comprised under Isa 53. 5. All Christs greatest sufferings are comprised under the word chastisements in Isa 53. 58. the word chastisement Isa 53. 5. But yet I grant also that Mr. Ainsworth held that as the Elect do often suffer Gods wrath so did Christ and in this last point I differed from him for though I hold that Gods chastisements on his own people are from his fatherly wrath yet I also beleeve that Christs chastisements were not from Gods wrath for correction to amendment as ours are But from the conditions of the voluntary Burges saith well that Jobs afflictions were to him as a storm or tempest is to a skilful Pilot or what a valiant Adversary is to a stout Champion on justif p. 28. and such was the nature of all Christs chastisements Covenant Christ was to suffer chastisements from the rage of Satan for the tryal of the perfection of his patience and obedience and because he continued constant in his obedience through all his sufferings from Satans rage therefore his sufferings have the condition of merit Besides this in all Mr. Ainsworths five Books on Moses and the Psalms which were published before this intercourse of Letters I find nothing in any of them that Christ suffered the Essential torments of Hell And therefore Mr. Ainsworth was not sound in the sense of these words Why hast thou forsaken me according to Mr. Nortons Tenent though he was far more sound than Mr. Norton is 2 I can instance the like in several other eminent Divines that held satisfaction by suffering Gods wrath in some degree and yet were far from holding as Mr. Norton doth that Christ suffered the very essential Torments of Hell both of loss and sense as Mr. Weams in his portrature p. 208. saith thus Because some things were unbeseeming to the person of Christ as the Torments of Hell the compensation of it was supplied by the worthiness of the person and to this purpose I could cite Ball on the Covenant p. 200. and others also 3 Our larger Annotations on Psa 22. 1. speak thus Christ as man did suffer partly in his body and partly in his soul but more in his soul than in his body more than can either be expressed by man or be imagined I do not see how any reasonable man can question that reads the story of his passion from his bloody swear unto the end and considers Christs own expressions recorded to us that we might know how much he hath suffered for us But saith the Annotation I will not say that there was a necessity that he should suffer so much just so much both in Body and Soul to make his sufferings available to our Redemption both of our bodies and of our souls This I dare not say because I have no warrant for it in the Scriptures and bare humane Ratiocination in these things is meet folly and madness This wary and judicious Annotation is quite opposite to Mr. Nortons Tenent for Mr. Norton holds no suffering to be available to our Redemption but a just satisfaction to 〈◊〉 namely Christs suffering of the Essential punis 〈…〉 ments both of loss and sense both in body and 〈…〉 this Annotation I will not say there was a necessity 〈◊〉 he should suffer so much just so much both in body 〈…〉 make his sufferings available to our Redemption 〈◊〉 our bodies and soul This saith the Annotation I dare not say because I have no warrant for it in the Scripture But Mr. Norton heaps up abundance of Scriptures to prove that Christ suffered the very essential torments of Hell both in Our larger Annotation on Psa 22. 1. doth account Mr. Nortons way of satisfaction to be but bare humane ratiocination which is but meer folly and madness body and soul and therefore according to this Annotation they must needs be wrested from their right sense for this Annotation accounts all that can be said for it to be but bare humane ratiocination and calls it meer folly and madness But Mr. Norton on the contrary doth boldly damn this denial in this Annotation to be Heresie such an antypathy there is between his Tenent and this Annotation But the Lord hath his time when truth shall prevail against Mr. Nortons most dangerous Scripture-less Tenent But saith Mr. Norton in p. 78. Psal 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by man instrumentally and by Gods anger as the efficient cause Reply 5. Mr. Norton affirms that Gods anger was the efficient cause of all the griefs that Christ suffered from his Cradle to his Cross But the Dialogue goes in another strain the Dialogue makes all Christs sufferings to be founded efficiently in the eternal Council and in the voluntary Covenant that was made between the Trinity for mans Redemption and therefore he was to perform all as a voluntary Covenanters and was not to be over-ruled by Gods judiciall imputation of our sins to him and by his supreme compulsory power in pressing him under the sence of his immediate wrath namely that Christ should take on him the seed of the deceived woman and in that nature should enter the Lists and Combate with Satan as I have often expounded Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. for it pleased God to put an utter enmity between the Devill and the seed of the woman even from the foundation of the world Gen. 3. 15. to try masteries and Isay fore-told that Christ should by his obedience to the death get the victory and divide the spoil Isa 53. 12. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 78. Anger in Scripture is sometimes taken for the hatred of God unto a person sometimes for the execution of vindicative Justice in this latter sense God was angry with Christ not in the former Reply 6. In Chapter 5. I have shewed from Dr. Ames that the essential torments of Hell are inflicted from Gods hatred And thence it follows That if Christ did suffer the essential torments of Hell then he suffered them from Gods hatred But saith Mr. Norton in p. 79. Christ doth complain in Psal 22. that God had forsaken him in anger for our sin Reply 7. I shall not need to make any other Reply to this than his own words in p. 42. To complain against God saith he is a sin and sheweth grudging But saith Mr. Norton in p. 79. Gods forsaking is either total and final so God forsakes the Reprobate or partial and temporal as concerning the fruition and sense of the good of the Promise so God forsook Christ and of this forsaking Christ complaineth in this place Reply 8. The punishment of loss is variously and
his secret disposition he would not use any manifest power he that came to destroy death and the author of death how should he have saved sinners if he would have resisted his pursuers Ibidem Christ saith he cried with a loud voyce Why hast thou forsaken me that he might make it manifest to all for what cause he ought not to be delivered nor defended but to be left into the hands of his persecutors which was to be made the Saviour of the world and the redeemer of all men not by any miserable necessity but of mercy not for lack of help but of purpose to die for us Ibidem And saith he Let us leave this to the Jews to think that Christ was forsaken of God on whom they could execute their rage with such wickedness who most sacrilegiously deriding him said He saved others himself he cannot save These last words of Leo do most fitly agree to the Prophecy of Isay in chap. 53. 4. there Isay foretold the Jews that though Christ did manifest the power of his God-head in healing sicknesses and carrying away their manifold infirmities from them yet out of Satans malice they would esteem him stricken smitten of God and afflicted namely in Gods anger for his own sins and thus the Prophet doth blame their gross mistake by imputing his sufferings to be from Gods wrath for his own desert And thus much I think is sufficient to demonstrate the reason why the Divine nature did forsake the Humane and why the Humane nature propounded this Query with a loud voyce My God my God why hast thou forsaken me it was that so the humane nature might suffer all that was written of him from his Combater Satan according to Gods declared Decree in Gen. 3. 15. SECT 3. Question III. How did God not forsake Christ on the Cross Reply 12. IN two respects God did not forsake Christ on the Cross 1 He did not forsake his soul in respect of the comfortable fruition of the sense of the good of the promises 2 He did not forsake him in the formality of his death namely he did not suffer Satan and his Instruments to put him to death formally by the power of their tortures First I say that God did not forsake Christs soul in respect of the sense of the good of the Promises And for the better understanding of the word Forsaken in Matth. 27. 46. Consider these six sorts of Dereliction 1 By dis-union of person 2 By loss of Grace 3 By diminution or weakening of Grace 4 In respect of assurance of future deliverance 5 By withdrawing protection 6 By depriving his soul of the sense of the good of the promises Divines do generally account it a most impious thing to affirm that Christ was forsaken of God any of the four first waies 1 They affirm that God did not forsake Christ in respect of union they affirm that the personal union of the two natures was never dissolved 2 They affirm that he was never forsaken in respect of the loss of Grace 3 They do generally affirm That he was not forsaken in respect of diminishing or weakening of any grace in him But yet some there are that do affirm that he was forsaken The Geneva note on the word Forsaken in Psa 22. 1. doth make Christ a sinner inherently by diminishing or weakening of the Grace of Faith in him The Geneva note on the word forsaken Psa 22. 1. saith thus Here appeareth that horrible conflict that he suffered between faith and desparation Is not this a blasphemous note to say that Christ was in a conflict with desparation through the weakness of faith is not this an imputation of inherent sin to Christ Mr. Norton tels me in p. 215. that the Geneva note which I there cited with approbation to the sense of the Dialogue must not be understood in the Dialogues sense but it must be interpreted according to the Doctrine of Geneva I would fain see how he by the Doctrine of Geneva can make a good exposition of this note affixed to Psal 22. 1. if he mean by the Doctrine of Geneva the Doctrine of Calvin then I find in Marlorat on Mat. 27. 46. where he cites Calvins words on the word forsaken thus He fought with desparation yet was he not overcome thereby this Doctrine of Calvin and the Geneva note agree together and therefore in likelihood that Geneva note was taken from Calvin at first though his latter Editions are now somewhat reformed and Mr. Norton himself doth censure Calvin to be unsound in this point for in pag. 61. he blames Calvin for saying that Christ suffered the pains of the damned and forsaken men Now if Christ was in a horrible conflict between faith and desparation as the Geneva note speaks then it follows that he was a sinner inherently for if there be any conflict with doubting which is less than desparation it is a sin Mark 14. 31. Jam. 1. 6. 7. Matth. 21. 21. Truly it is a lamentable thing that this note hath been printed and dispersed in so many thousand Bibles to corrupt mens minds so that now many can hardly have patience to hear any reasons to the contrary but I must needs acknowledge that our larger Annotation on Psal 22. 1. hath made a good Reformation 4 Divines confess that it was not possible that Christ should be forsaken in respect of assurance of future deliverance and present support because he had faith in the full Sea without any ebb 5 That Christ was forsaken by Gods withdrawing of outward protection and not delivering of him from the rage of Satan and his Instruments untill they had executed on him all their rage is acknowledged by the Dialogue and by many Orthodox lately cited 6 The last sort of forsaking is that which is affirmed by Mr. Norton namely That God forsook Christs soul in anger as concerning the fruition and sense of the good of the promises But in Chap. 4. I have shewed that he doth oftentimes leave out the word sense and makes Christ to be forsaken concerning the fruition of the good of the promise And this last kind of forsaking is suitable to his main Tenent laid down in his foundation-Proposition Reply 13. This last kind of forsaking as it is asserted by Mr. Norton is opposed by sundry eminent Divines 1 By Mr. Robert Wilmot whom I have cited before in this Chapter at Reply 9. 2 Our large Annotation on Psal 22. 1. which I have cited at Reply 4. 3 I cited Mr. Robert Smith and divers others at Reply 9. 4 I will now examine the word forsaken once more with the Christ was not so forsaken in his soul but that he stil had the sweet sence of the good of the promises on the Cross context for doubtless that is a sure Rule of a right interpretation 1 Christ doth interrogate in Psal 22. 1. Why hast thou forsaken me Is there not good reason that the Divine nature should forsake the Humane
in shew escaped the odium of Heresie in this place Thirdly By this means the Synagogue of Berea escaped from being ranked by the holy Ghost in the number of the other inraged zealous persecutors of the truth I do earnestly therefore intreat thee Good Reader as thou desirest to escape the odium of a Persecutor and as thou desirest to have the like commendations with those of Berea search the blessed Scriptures not only superficially and by some common received Expositors but search them deliberately and search them daily and then thou shalt be the better able to try which of us do give the true sense of the blessed Scriptures for as Peter saith of Pauls Epistle to the dispersed Hebrews some things are hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also other Scriptures to their own destruction 2 Pet. 3 16. and therefore be diligent in thy search and the rather because Interpreters give variety of interpretations and therefore look well to the Context and look well to the force and use of the original word by comparing it with the Context and with other Scriptures for when Paul went about to convince error and to confirm the truth he disputed out of the Scriptures Act. 17. 2. and so Apollos disputed out of the Scriptures Act. 18. 28. And our Savior said Yee erre not knowing the Scriptures Mat. 22. 29. meaning thereby that they did erre because they did mis-understand the Scriptures for though they knew the letter of the Scriptures and had them in great reverence yet they did erre because through a superficial perusal they took them in a wrong sense Now the first Scripture wherein the true Plat-form of our Redemption is first declared is Gen. 3. 15. In this Scripture God doth first proclaim an utter enmity between the seed of the Woman and the seed of the Serpent and in that Text God told the Devil that one of the seed of that deceived sinful Woman should in his true humane nature try Masteries with him and conquer him and he told Satan that he should have his full liberty to do what he could either by fraud or by force to hinder this seed of the Woman from breaking his Head-plot and so from winning the prize of mans Redemption and therefore God gave him full liberty to use him as a sinful Malefactor and to peirce him in the Foot-soals to try if by any means he could disturb his patience And in this Combate Christ covenanted that his humane nature should strive lawfully and not suffer his patience to be disturbed nor his obedience to be any wayes perverted until he had finished the Combate with Satan and then he also covenanted in the perfection of that obedience to make his soul a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Reconciliation And hence it also follows That God the Father had covenanted to and with Christ that he would accept his Combate and his Sacrifice as a valuable consideration for the procuring of his Reconciliation to all the Elect. And thus it was declared that the seed of the Woman should break the Devils Head-plot and win the prize which was the Redemption of all the Elect from Satans spoyl And first From this Proclamation of Enmity and from this first Declaration of the Combate with Satan and of the Victory by the seed of the deceived Woman in Gen. 3. 15. must all the following Scriptures have reference for their true Exposition And secondly From this Scripture it is most evident That all Christs outward suffering were by Gods appointment to be inflicted on him from the malice of Satan and his Instruments and that all his inward sufferings in his vital soul were to be assumed and exercised from his own true humane affections and passions which he took from the seed of the Woman in relation to his ill usage from his Enemy Satan And thirdly Neither in this nor in any following Scripture is there any mention that Christ was to be made a sinner by Gods judicial imputation there is no such Court-language in the Scriptures neither is the term Hell-torments nor the second death nor the term Inflicted from Gods immediate wrath applied to Christ neither in this nor in any other Scripture though Mr. Norton hath perverted most dangerously many of the blessed Scriptures so to speak Fourthly When this first Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. is rightly understood and conferred with all the other Scriptures that speak of Christs sufferings it will fully declare That Mr. Nortons Tenents are most dangerously erronious and it will confirm the truth of the Dialogue Fifthly This Text of Gen. 3. 15. being rightly understood will be a general Key to open all the other Scriptures that speak of the sufferings of Christ in their right sense Sixthly In this Scripture is set out both the person and office of the Mediator First The term he relates to his humane nature from the seed of the Woman And secondly The term he relates to his divine nature or else he could not have taken the seed of the Woman without original sin Thirdly His office is declared to be a Combater with Satan in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our true humane affections and passions And it was declared that Satan his envious Combater should have his full liberty to do his worst to provoke his passions to some distemper or other that so he might spoyl his obedience and so hinder him from making his soul a Sacrifice c. as it is further declared in this Reply Good Reader Let this eminent example of these ingenuous Bereans make thy spirit calm and deliberate to search into the blessed Scriptures daily whether of us have given the right sense that error may be avoided and that the truth may be imbraced and confirmed to thy soul and to the Church of God when we are dead and gone Thine in the Lord W. PYNCHON A Postscript AFter I had finished my Reply to Mr. Norton and after a good part of it was printed I received a Book lately published by Mr. Anthony Burges called The true Doctrine of Iustification the second Part wherein I found that he hath opposed some things in my Book of the Meretorious Price but yet with a differing spirit from Mr. Norton for he professeth that he likes not to be so deep in censuring as he sees some others are 1 In page 407. He doth oppose the Dialogue because it distinguisheth between Christs legal and Mediatorial obedience But in Chap. 3. and elsewhere I have justified the said distinction to be sound and good 2 In page 426. He doth oppose the Dialogue because it makes the formality of Christs death and sacrifice to be supernatural and in this point his answer is almost in Mr. Nortons expressions and therefore my Reply in Chap. 17. Sect. 3. and elsewhere is a sufficient Reply to him as well as it is to Mr. Norton 3 Hâ— holds differing things in the point of
Christs Satisfaction not only from me but also from Mr. Norton but I hope my whole Book is a sufficient Reply and a sufficient vindication of the truth 4 There is one Scripture in my following Reply which I have cited to my sense out of Mr. Burges in Vindiciae legis namely Mat. 5. 17 18. which he doth now expound in a differing sense from what he had done in Vindiciae legis namely That Christ came to fulfil the Law for our righteousness by Gods imputation This Exposition he did not give in Vindiciae legis but yet I perceived that he held it to be a truth in it self but by his former exposition I could not conceive that hee ever intended to hold it from this Text and Context or else I had not cited him and now I would have left him out had I not been prevented by the Press for the Exposition that I have now given of that Text in page 113. I beleeve is the truth and it hath the approbation of other eminent orthodox Writers And as for his two Reasons given in page 357. to prove that these words of Christs must bee understood of his Suretiship fulfilling they prove it not but according to the Context they do most fiâ—ly agree to Christs Doctrinal fulfilling as I have expounded that Text. Thus much I thought fit to speak to the Reader 5 Whereas it hath pleased him to give the term of many Novelismes to my Book I reply That every one knows that when any one doth labour to vindicate the true sense of the blessed Scriptures from some long accustomed errors that such Expositors will be accounted to hold Novelismes by them that hold such received errors when our Saviour did vindicate the spiritual sense of the Law in a differing manner from the Scribes in Mat. 5. doubtless they censured him for teaching Novelismes for in Mark 1. 27. they said What new doctrine is this But my earnest Request to the advised and deliberate Reader is To make a thorow search into what both sides say and then to judge between us such Readers as these do well deserve the same commendations that Paul gave unto the ingenuous Bereans And so resteth Thine in the truth of the Gospel W. PYNCHON A Table of the chief Heads But some of these Heads that have this Mark * are not printed therefore I desire they may be added by the Readers pen for the better observation of some Points and because some of them are too much for the Margin there set onely the first sentence and make a reference to the rest in the Table to the same page CHAP. II. THE Covenant of Works made with Adam was not made in relation to his obedience or disobedience to the Moral Law of Nature as Mr. Norton holds but in relation to his obedience or disobedience to a meer positive symbolical command about things indifferent in their own nature Page 3. Add this Note to the Text in pag. 16. at the end of ninthly and in the Margin to p. 118. The Ceremonial and Judicial Laws after the time of Adams fall is called the First Covenant of Works and these Laws Moses wrote in a Book and thereupon they are called the Book of the Covenant as Ainsworth noteth in Psal 25. 10. They are called also the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. and 87. But the Decalogue was wrote in stone by the finger of God Exod. 24. 7. 2. with ver 12. and with Heb. 9. 19. Add this Marginal Note to pag. 15. The outward observation of all the Oeconomy of Moses but especially the outward observation of the Ceremonial Rites Paul cals the Law of Works for indeed the outward observation of them was ordained by Gods Covenant to purifie their bodies and so to make them fit persons to appear before Gods holy presence in his holy Sanctuary Rom. 3. 27. and 9. 32. and yet these very Laws in their mystical sense Paul doth also call The Law of Faith to the spiritual Jews because in their spiritual use they guided their Faith to trust onely on Christ for Life and Salvation Gal. 3. 2 3. Rom. 2. 26 27. And so the divers conditions that belonged to these Laws did by Gods Ordinance make them to belong unto two differing Covenants namely both to the Covenant of Works and to the Covenant of Grace contrary to Mr. Nortons Tenent in p. 183 184. If Adams eating of the forbidden fruit had been a sin against the moral Law of Nature then Eveâ— desire to eat had been a sin before her act of eating p. 7 Adam sonned not in soul until he had first sinned in body p. 8 The command of God for Christ to die was not from the moral Law as Mr. Norton holds most erroniously but it was from a meer voluntary positive Law and Covenant made between the Trinity as equal and reciprocal Covenanters p. 9 122 293 308 * Add this marginal Note to p. 9. The death of Christ saith Grotius was not determined by any Law that was given to man but by a special Covenant Cite this also to p. 297. l. 1. The rectitude of Adams created nature was such that he could not will to sin against the moral Law of nature p. 10. Adams ignorance of that positive Law as of the event that was at the first given to the Angels which was to serve man though in the event many of them refused and thereby became Devils made him the more apt to be deceived by the Devils temptations p. 11 159 Original sin did not fall upon our nature through Adams disobedience to the moral Law but through his disobedience to a meer positive Law and Covenant in eating of the forbidden fruit which was in its own nature but a thing indifferent p. 13 34 The moral Law of Nature was not ordained for Adams justification but it was ordained onely to be the condition of his created perfections and therefore it should for ever have been the rule of his life if he had but been confirmed by his once eating of the Tree of Life in the first place p. 14 No act of Adams obedience was ordained to be imputed to his posterity for their obedience but his first act only in eating of the Tree of Life because no other act of his obedience but that alone was constituted by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant to be for the confirmation of his created natural perfections to his posterity p. 14 It was con-natural to Adam to live in the continual practise of moral obedience therefore that kind of obedience was not ordained for him to merit the confirmation of his created perfections p. 21 * * Add these four Sections to the Text in p. 22. just before the Conclusion 1 The Image of God in Adam was no true part of his essence 2 Neither did it flow from his nature essentially as the Faculties do from the soul for then it could not have ceased to be without the destruction of the subject
before he could make his death to be a Sacrifice of Reconciliation p. 92 309 CHAP. VII IT must needs be but a meer fantasie to bold that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell in this world seeing Mr. Norton doth acknowledge that the very Devils are not in sull Torments as long as they remain in this world p 105 If the humane nature of Christ had partaken of the essential joyes of heaven before his death as Mr. Norton holds then doubtless be had been confirmed against the sufferings of death p 107 * Add this Marginal Note to p. 107. Mr. Rutherfurd on the Covenant saith in p. 29 30 34 that Gods declarative glory is not essential to God Mr. Norton doth often fall from his foundation principle which is That Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell to that which is equivalent p. 107 113 72 The Metaphorical sense of Sheol and Hades is opened p. 108 It is to admiration that Mr. Norton doth interpret the same word in the same Scripture first to signifie Hell-torments and then secondly To signifie only the grave p. 109 * Add this as a Marginal Note to p. 109. In this Mr. Norton doth contradict his own rule in p. 76. which is That one and the same word especially not being typical is capable but of one sense in the same place The word Psuche for soul in the New Testament is most often put for the vital soul p. 111 320 CHAP. VIII MR. Norton doth often leave the point of satisfaction in an uncertainty because he doth one while affirm That Christ suffered the essential Curse and only that and another while that he suffered only that which was equivalent p. 113 1â—7 72 291 After Adams Fall outward obedience to the Ceremonial Statutes and to the Judicial Ordinances is called the First Covenant of Works p. 11 8 p. 16 The word Law in Rom. 8. 4. is no proof that Christ kept the moral Law for our righteousness by Gods imputation as Mr. Norton bolds because it alludes chiefly to the Ceremonial Law p. 119 p. 238 26 Add this Note to p. 121. 1. 2. The Decalogue was given to faln man as a Covenant of Grace and therefore it requires spiritual obedience to the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws as well as to the Moral Ainsworth on Num. 6. 12. faith One little pollution of the Nazarile at unawares did nullifie many dayes purity For faith he the Law requireth a perfect observation and curseth him that continueth not in doing all things commanded Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Deut. 29. 12. Ja. 2 10. But this is to be noted that if the said Law had not comprehended the Covenant of grace under it it had not so cursed the non-observers And faith Ainsworth in Deut 30. 19. the life which Mofes set before them was by faith in Christ c. And see more what he faith in Dâ—uâ— 6. 1. and 7. 17. And see what Rutherfurd on the Covenant faith in p. 62. of the better Covenant The justice of the Law is sometimes satisfied by payment in kind and sometimes by that which is equivalent p. 121 256 202 167 33 Christ did not make satisfaction by fulfilling the Covenant made with Adam as Mr. Norton holds but by fulfilling another voluntary Covenant that was made between the Persons in Trinity from Eternity namely that he should ossame the seed of the deceived Womon in personal union and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmitieâ— â—o combate with Satan for the victory by continuing constant in his obedience under all Satans ill usage and that at last in that perfect obedience he should make his vital soul a sacrifice and the Father covenanted that his death so performed should procure his reconciliation to all the Elect p. 122 p. 9 130 162 167 55 96 182 183 256 308 CHAP. IX THe ground of satisfaction or of that price that merits Gods reconciliation to the Elect is from the conditions of the voluntary Covenant p. 130. 139 55 82 83 96 102 122 257 Perfect ohedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenant and Combate do merit the prize p. 130 * Add this Note to p. 130. When a prize is merited by an exact and righteous observation of the Laws of the Combate such a prize so obtained may well be called the Prize or the Crown of Righteousness which the Righteous Judge will give and cannot deny to the lawful Victor 2 Tim. 4 8. But Christ was such a Righteous Victor in his 〈…〉 bate with Satan notwithstanding his ill usage to distur 〈…〉 patience and therefore the Ancient Divines do often say truly That Christ conquered Satan by Rightteousness as I have noted some of their speeches in Ch. 16. The difference in stating the voluntary Covenant betwixt Mr. Norton and my self p. 131 * Add this Note to p. 132. A Covenant from the voluntary Cause doth never yeeld to be over-ruled by the supreme compulsary Cause as Mr. Norton holds as I have often instanced in the Trial of Masteries Christ is Gods Mercy-seat in point of Satisfaction p. 136 Christs Sacrifice is called a Sacrifice of Attonement because it doth appease Gods aâ—gry face and procure his Attonement to all poor humbled and beleeving sinners p. 137 191 251 252 259 * Add this Note to p. 1. â—7 at Heb. 9. 14. Seeing the Altar was a type of the God-head of Christ the fire of the Altar must by the like reason be also a type of the God-head of Christ And therefore when Isaiah cryed out I am undone because mine eyes have seen the King the Lord of Hosts namely Christ in his glory as John expounds it Joh. 12. 41. then faith he One of the Zeraphims came slying unto me having a live coal in his hand which he had taken with the tongs from the Altar and he laid it upon my mouth and said Lo tâ—â—â— hath touched thy lips and thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin is purged Isa 6. 6 7. or as the Hebrew is thy sin is expiated by Attonement procured as Lev. 1. 4. and Rom. 3. 25. this fire was a type of the God-head of Christ which sanctified the offering Mat. 23. 19. Heb. 9. 14. 21 24. for Attonement to his lips The end why God declared his justice to be satisfied in the faid obedience of Christ from his Mercy-seat was first That he might be just according to his Covenant made with Christ And secondly That he might be just according to his New Covenant made with the Elect And thirdly That he might be the Justifier of beleeving sinners p. 139 As the Greek word Dicaios Just is put for one that is pious and merciful so the Hebrew word Chesed Mer 〈…〉 is put for one that is pious and just p. 141 CHAP. X. THe death of Christ could not be a penal death from Gen. 2 17. because God doth threaten none with a penal death neither in that Text nor any other but sinners
there is no setting of them out by any measure of time and why should wee think of any Physical adjunct of time after this world is ended shall there be Physical bodies and time then as there is now I wish the Learned to resolve this point Eternity saith Rutherfurd In Christ dying is not such a particular duration as time is that hath a poor point to begin with and end at Mr. Norton makes this point of duration to bee an adjunct only to Hell-torments by a comparison taken from the inability of the debtor to pay and therefore hee continues in prison But to this I have already answered in the second Section of this Chapter SECT 8. Giving some Reasons why Mr. Nortons Judgement cannot be sound in this Point of Christâ— suffering of the essential curse Reason 1. BEcause he doth often confute and contradict his foundation-Principles For 1. whereas the Dialogue doth propound this Quere Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his Body as well as in his Soul to redeem our Bodies as well as our Souls from hell torments His Answer in pag. 120. is this It is evident that as Christ suffered the torments of hell in kind in his Soul so who can deny but he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of Hell though not inflicted after the same manner Reply 1. Any man may see that in this Answer he doth plainly contradict and confute his first principal Proposition and also his Assertion in his first Distinction for in this and in other places also he doth affirm That Christ suffered the essential punishment of the curse and in pag. 123. he saith That Christ both in Soul and Body was separated from all participation of the good of the promise for a time but in his Answer he dares not venture to say that he suffered the torments of hell in his body in kind as he did in his soul But instead of making a clear Answer to my Quere he propounds another Quere Who can deny saith he but that he suffered also bodily torments equivalent to the torments of hell His first ground-work was that Christ suffered in a way of exact justice the essential punishment of the curse of the Law and now he flies to the word Equivalent all that know any thing of the strict justice of the Law do know that it will not alter one joâ— from the punishment threatned in kind to that which is equivalent if Mr. Norton being now put to a pinch to answer this Quere will allow of so much alteration from the letter of the Law to equivalency then he doth also affirm that the Law was relaxed to make a new Covenant for equivolency and yet in pag. 146. and in pag. 174 he denies acceptilation and thus he crosseth himself up and down and stands not fast to his first ground-work 2 He crosseth his first ground-work in page 121. It is sufficient saith he to integrate and make up the execution of the full measure of wrath upon Christ that if his bodily torments were not equal to the bodily torments of the damned yet what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul Reply 2. He that hath but half an eye may see that in this Answer he doth fully overthrow his first fundamental Proposition and his first Distinction for in those places he hath affirmed that Christ suffered the very Essential Torments of Hell in kind but now he saith it is sufficient to integrate and make up the full execution of the full measure of wrath that what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul first hee confesseth that Christ did not suffer the full essential Curse in his body and then by some Revelation he knows that what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul beleeve him that list and yet he crosseth this also in page 123 for there hee saith That Christ both in soul and body was separated from all participation of the good of the promise for a time And thus he makes the eternal Curse in Gen. 2. 17. one while to be executed in kind only and another while to be arbitrary and to bee suffered either in kind or else in that which is equivalent hee allows a lesse punishment to his body and so much more to his soul doubtless he must know this by some private Revelation for he cannot find any Scripture that is rightly interpreted that will own it But yet Mr. Norton doth labour to prove it thus The measure of Hell-pains saith he is made up without bodily pains in the Angels that fell Reply 3. What a deceitful kind of reasoning is this for all men know that the fallen Angels have no bodies and therefore they must needs suffer the full measure of Hell-torments without bodily Torments And in page 122. he saith according to his fundamental Proposition That Christ was tormented without any forgivenesse God spared him nothing of the due debt Reply 4. But Mr. Norton doth plainly crosse this Assertion also for hee said formerly that what was not executed on his body was made up in his soul here he acknowledgeth that Christ had some forgivenesse in respect of his bodily Torments And in page 122. Hee saith That Christ had not so much as the least drop of water to ease him in the least particle of his suffering that was due to him according to justice but was wholly forsaken in respect of any participation of the sense of the good of the promise for a time Reply 5. This he doth also plainly crosse for in page 68. hee doth acknowledge that Christ had a taste of consolation in the time of his Agony in the Garden so that hee doth sometimes give Christ a taste of consolation under his Essential Torments and sometimes not a drop of consolation either he must confesse that Christ was not yet under the essential punishment of the Curse in the Garden or else he must confesse that his Position in page 122. is not true But he doth affirm That Christ suffered the essential Cuâ—sâ— in the Garden in page 70. in these words Hee had clods rather then drops streaming down his blessed body a thing which neither was heard or seen before nor since And saith he The true reason thereof is Christ dyed as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death And in page 121. Christ suffered the Torments of Hell upon the Crosse where he bare the moral Curse Gal. 3. 13. and in the Garden Hence it follows that by these two last places he doth justifie his former Position in page 122. but still that is contradictory which I cited in page 68. And thus Mr. Norton doth confute and contradict himself and being uncertain in his principles he leaves the truth of Christs satisfaction uncertain to a scrutinous conscience Mr. Samuel Heiron saith in page 244. That the extremity of Hell-torments is made
16. and then the Devils Head-plot had not been broken but because hee continued obedient through all his sufferings on the Crosse and at last made his Sacrifice by his own Priestly power even by the joynt concurrence of both his Natures he hath through that kind of death destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil Heb. 2. 14. and all this was declared unto Adam in Gen. 3. 15. and exemplified in the sacrifice of a Lamb the Law maketh men High-priests which have infirmities Heb. 7. 28. namely sinful infirmities But the word of the Oath to David which was since the Law maketh the Son who is consecrated for evermore namely made perfect by his obedience in all his sufferings and so hee had no sinful infirmity but continues a perfect High-priest for us for evermore But this kind of voluntary Sarety doth differ as much from Mr. Nortons bounden Surety in the same Obligation with Adam as a free Redeemer doth differ from a bounden Surety I grant therefore that Christ was our Surety as he was our free Mediator and Redeemer but no otherwise and so in an unproper sense he may be called our Surety but not in a proper legal sense according to Mr. Nortons Court-language This way of satisfaction first declared in Gen. 3. 15. is the foundation upon which all after Prophecies touching satisfaction by Christs death and sufferings must have dependence and as it was first exemplified to Adam in the sacrifice of a Lamb as I have shewed in the Institution of the Sabbath and therefore all those positive Laws touching Priest and Sacrifice declared afterwards to Moses are but the further opening of the manner of Christs satisfaction and indeed those types were but the Picture of what was agreed on in the Eternal Covenant to bee performed in due time by the seed of the Woman 4 It may hence be gathered That God ordained no other afflâ—ctions for Christ to suffer but either from Sathans enmity in piercing him in the foot-soals meaning thereby his outward afflictions Or else secondly they were from himself in the inward man for as he was true man of the seed of the Woman so he must be inwardly touched with the feeling of our infirmities and therefore as often as objects of fear or sorrow c. did present he was to be touched as our merciful High-priest with a greater measure of these infirmities than any other man can be but no Scripture doth speak a word in Mr. Nortons Dialect that his soul was pressed under the sense of Gods immediate wrath for in case his Fathers immediate wrath had pressed those sorrows from his soul as Mr. Nortons term is then those sufferings had not been voluntary from his own will but constrained but say all sound Divines nothing was constrained in Christ by any supreme power and therefore not by Gods immediate wrath though the Devil had liberry to use what force hee could to his outward man yet hee had no liberty to force his soul but himself was the only voluntary Agent in all the affections of his soul hee feared hee sorrowed c. when hee would and as much as hee would and therefore was often touched with the feeling of our infirmities in a larger measure than any other mans soul can bee and thus hee was our voluntary Mediator and Surety Mr. Norton still makes Christ to bee our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam on the contrary I do still affirm that Christ suffered our punishments not from Gods judicial imputation of sin for then indeed he had suffered from Gods wrath but that he suffered our punishments only from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and such sufferings might be and were undertaken by Christ both without any judicial imputation of sin and also without wrathâ— as in the trial of masteries with Sathan Enmity upon Adams fall was proclamed and the seed of the Woman was commanded but not in wrath to enter the lists with Sathan and try masteries with him and the Devil must do his worst to disturb his patience and so to pervert his obedience and Christ must exemplifie the perfection of his obedience by the perfection of his patience even in that ignominious and painful death of the Crosse untill hee had finished all his sufferings for his consecration to his Priestly office and then at last make his soul a sacrifice for sin But this way of satisfaction Mr. Norton dams for heresie The Lord open his eyes to see better and the eyes of those that are misled by him 5 It was ordained in the Eternal Decree and Covenant that Christ should be consecrated to his Priestly office for the better making his death a sacrifice by afflictions Heb. 2. 10. Heb. 5. 9. Heb. 2. 10. God ordained all Christs greatest sufferings in his Passion to be for his consecration to his sacrifice To consecrate is interpreted by the Seventy to make perfect As for example when the people had worshipped the Golden Calf Moses by Gods special positive command in Exod. 32. 27. 29. commanded the Levites to consecrate their hands by doing perfect and exact justice upon the Idolaters without respect of persons not sparing their own sons or neer kindred and this act of theirs is recorded to their praise in Deut. 33. 9. and by this impartial act of perfect justice their hands were consecrated to God 2 The consecration of Aaron and his sons to the Priestly office was to bee effected by continuing seven dayes under the observation of certain particular Rites before their consecration could bee finished Exod. 29. 9. and Lev. 8. 22. and then the very next day after their consecration was finished Moses bid them draw near to the Altar to execute the Priests office by offering a sacrifice both for themselves and for the people Lev. 9. 7. But Christ needed not to offer any sacrifice for himself and therefore it was only for his people 3 As Moses is said to consecrate Aaron and his sons through many particular Rites exactly observed whereof one was no small affliction though willingly born by them at the Lords appointment namely Yee shall abide at the door of the Tent of the Congregation day and night seven dayes and shall keep the charge of Jeâ—ovah that ye dye not Lev. 8. 33. This exact watch for that space of time being separated from their wives and families under the penalty of death was doubtlesse a time of affliction to them though as I said before willingly born at the Lords appointment 4 It is said in Heb. 2. 10. It became him namely it became God the Father that hee should consecrate the Prince of our salvation through afflictions And it is also said in verse 17. That it behoved Christ to bee made like unto his brethren that he might bee a merciful and a faithful high Sacrificer in things concerning God and that hee might make Reconciliation for the sins of the people 5 In these two verses
we may observe the execution of some of the Articles of the Eternal Covenant touching Christs Priesthood both on the Fathers part and on Christs part 1 It is said of the Father That it be came him to consecrate the Prince of our salvation through afflictions that is to make his obedience perfect through afflictions or else if the Devil had not had full liberty to try his obedience by afflictions hee would have objected thus against Christ In case I might have had full liberty to try his obedience as I had to try Adams obedience this seed of the Woman would have been disobedient to God as Adam was Therefore it became so perfect a Work-man as God was to declare that Sathan had full liberty to enter the Lists with the seed of the Woman and to do his worst to pervert his obedience Gen. 3. 15. And secondly It behoved Christ to be made like unto his brethren and to enter the Lists with Sathan not in his divine nature but in our nature and to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities and therefore it is also said That it behoved Christ to suffer Luke 24. 46. according to the Decree and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that so his obedience being made perfect he might bee fully consecrated to the execution of his Priestly office in making his Soul an acceptable Sacrifice to make Reconciliation for the sins of Gods people and thus hee became obedient to the death Phi. 2. 8. And thus it became God to consecrate and Christ to be consecrated through afflictions and therefore presently after the Fall God said to Sathan Thou shalt pierce him in the foot-soals and accordingly God is said not to spare his own Son but to deliver him up into the hands of Sathan for us all to try the combate Rom. 8. 32. So David said The Lord bade Shemei to curse David For saith Dr Preston In Gods All-Sufficiency There is no creature in heaven or earth that stirreth without a command and without a warrant from the Master of the house God sent Sathan to bee a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs false Prophets God is without all causes and the cause of all things no creature stirs but at his command and by his providence Eccles 3. 14. And thus Herod and Pontius Pilate the Devils Agents did unto Christ whatsoever God had before determined to be done Act. 4. and thus God declared his will to Sathan Thou shalt pierce the seed of the deceived Woman in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor but yet for all this he shall continue obedient and at last break thy Head-plot by his sacrifice of Reconciliation flesh and blood could not effect this way of consecration The Father delivered Christ to death saith P. Mart. not that the Father is bitter or cruel hee delighted not in evil as it is evil But I may adde he delighted to see him combate with Sathan not for the evil sake that fel upon Christ but for the good of his obedience in his consecration to his death and sacrifice And all this was done not from the row of causes as in Courts of justice from the imputation of the guilt of our sins but from the voluntary Cause and Covenant only But saith Mr. Norton in Page 13â— The soul that sinneth shall dye Ezek. 18. 20. Good saith he man sinned ergo man dyed Christ was a sinner imputatively though not inherently And the soul that sinneth whether inherently or imputatively shall dye Reply 7. It is a plain evidence that the Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ as our legal Surety is a very unsound Doctrine because it hath no better supports hitherto than Scripture mis-interpreted The sense of this Text is this The soul that sins i. e. the very soul that sins namely the very same numericâ—l and individual person that sins formaly and inherently shall die for the text speaks plainly of sin committed and it argues that Mr. Norton took little heed to the circumstances of the Text that did not mark that and the Text sheweth the effect that sin hath upon a sinner that repents noâ— namely he shall dye Now to this Exposition compare Mr. Nortons Answer Man sinned saith he mark his evasion for he doth not speak this of man numerically taken as the Text doth but he speaks it of man generally or of all mankind in Adam Ergo man died saith he here he takes the word man not for the particular individual sinner as the Text doth but for the individual person of Christ and so his meaning amounts to this Mankind sinned and Christ died By this the Reader may see that his Exposition agrees with the Text no better than Harp and Harrow Therefore unless Mr. Norton do affirm that Christ was a sinner formally and inherently he cannot from this place of Ezekiel gather that Christ was to suffer the second death neither can he gather it from Gen. 2. 17. because both these places speak of sin as it is formally committed and not alone of the effects of sin as guilt Neither of these Scriptures do admit of dying by a Surety neither doth the Law any where else admit of dying such a death as the second death is by a Surety to deliver other sinners from that death as these Scriptures do testifie Ps 49. 7 8 9. Job 36. 18 19. The Apostle saith the sting of death is sin but his meaning is plainly of sin inherent and not of such an imputation of sin as Mr. Norton makes to be the ground of Christs suffering the second death Adams first sin saith Bucanus was common to all mens nature but his other sins saith he were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. the soul that sinneth shall die But I wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Austin for the spiritual death of Christs soul from Gods imputing our sins to him Austin saith he in p. 130. calleth it a death not of condition but of crime it is as evident as the sun that Austins meaning is this Christ was not necessitated to die through any sinful condition of nature as fallen man is but that he was put to death as a criminal person by the Jews sinful imputations and that Austin infers it was therefore just that seeing the devil had slain him who owed nothing the debtors whom he held in durance beleeving in him that was slain without cause should be set at liberty See Austins sense more at large in Wotton de Recon â—pec par 2. l. 1. c. 21. Austins sense is no more like Mr. Nortons sense than an Apple is like an Oyster But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 41. If Christ had suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 8. If Mr. Norton from the Voluntary cause and covenant should undertake to strive with his opposite Champion for the All Christs sufferiâ—gs were from the vâ—luntary Covenant and not from Gods judicial imputation of our sins to
him mastery according to the Rules of the said voluntary Law I beleeve that he should by experience find that he must bear many a sour stroak and brush and it may be shed much blood which I think would be accounted a true punishment though it be not a vindictive punishment from the sense of an angry Judge and yet all this without any imputation of sin from the Superiors in the voluntary Covenant unless he should disobey their Laws in the manner of trial in like sort God told the Decree in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put enmity between Christ Gen 3. 15. and the Devil and that the Devil should drive hard at him all the time that he executed his Office and that at last the Devil should prevail so far as to pierce him in the foot-soals as a sinful Malefactor and it pleased the Lord thus to bruise him and put him to grief Is 53. 10. even at the same time when he should make his soul a sin The Lord took much delight and pleasure to behold the knowledge and skil the valor and wisdom of this his righteous servant in this conflict continuing obedient to the death according to all the Articles of the Covenant untill he had triumphed over all Principalities and Powers on his cross and so he won the prize namely the salvation of all the Elect. According to this way of punishment Christ suffered our punishments no punishment was due to him from the imputation of sin and therefore no punishment was inflicted on him from Gods anger as our punishments are We indeed do justly suffer according to that Court-language which Mr. Norton hath expressed but Christs punishments though they were as true punishments in sense and feeling as ours are and more sensible to his nature than to us yet they were not inflicted on him from the same compulsory ground and Law as ours are on us but all his were from the voluntary Law and Covenant as I have before declared And in chap. 12. at Conclus 1. I have shewed that any imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 96. Christ is expresly said to be made a curse Gal. 3. 13. It will thence unavoydably follow saith he that sin was some way judicially upon Christ for we read of no curso inflicted according to the determinate and revealed way of proceeding with the reasonable creature but it presupposeth sin wherefore he could neither have been made a curse nor die since the onely cause of the curse and death is sin from which he was free but because he had taken upon him our sins Reply 9. Sin saith Mr. Norton was some way judicially upon Christ Why then is it not proved and made manifest by Scripture I find no other proof of it but Scripture mis-interpreted as I have shewed already and as for Gal. 3. 13. it doth clearly faile him as the Reader may see in my examination of his Conclusions from the Text. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 55. God charged Christ with sin as the supreme Law-giver and Judge Christ accepts the charge as a Surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of Justice which is the part of a Surety And in the said page God cannot be just without a judicial imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety And in pag. 34 28 and 136. he saith It was requisite that Christ should be made sin i. e. that the guilt of sin should be legally imputed to him 2 Cor. 5. 21. Reply 10. These speeches and others do imply that God could not impute our sins to Christ unless he had been first a legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam but that hath been all along denied and disproved and therefore now except Mr. Norton can more clearly prove than hitherto that Christ was a true legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam All that he hath said hitherto about Gods imputing our sins to Christ will come to nothing As for his great proof that Christ was such a legal Surety from Heb. 7. 22. it shall have a full examination and reply in my Reply to his third Argument and touching his many proofs of imputation from 2 Cor. 5. 21. See more there But saith Mr. Norton pag. 70. Through anguish of soul he had clods rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body a thing which was neither seen nor heard before nor since The true reason thereof is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Reply 11. Touching his sweating clods of blood I have replyed in Luk. 22. 44. if it were clods of blood doubtless it was miraculous and if it were miraculous how is that a proof that it was caused from the pressure of the sense of Gods wrath But I beleeve his Agony was from natural causes namely because his pure nature did so much abhor that ignominious and painful death which he did grapple withall in the garden and I beleeve if Mr. Norton had made his Agony to proceed from the voluntary cause conflicting in his earnest prayers with Satans temptations and with the natural fear of death untill he had overcome that natural fear that so he might perform his oblation in all exact obedience according to Gods positive Covenant he had come far nearer to the true cause of Christs Agony than by making his Agony to proceed from the compulsory cause Being pressed under the wrath of God it seems his word pressing doth allude to that violent constraint that is used to press out the blood of grapes but yet it is also beyond it because he makes the wrath of God to press out clods of blood in Christ it makes me tremble at such expressions of violence from Gods immediate wrath against Christ But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 219. As Christ was guilty of our sin so also he was sensible of an accusing conscience and alittle after saith he the question is not whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently but whether he may not be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively Reply 12. In words Mr. Norton saith Christ was not guilty of our sins inherently but his arguing doth prove him a sinner inherently for his whole drift is to prove that Christ suffered the essential torments of hell and the second death and none can possible suffer the second death until they be first inherently guilty of the first death of sin 2 If he was polluted with our sin by Gods imputation as Mr. Norton holds then his death and sacrifice must needs be abominable in the sight of God But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 123. The Divine Nature was angry not onely with the Humane Nature but with the person of the Mediator becausâ— of sin imputed to him Reply 13. Mark the dangerousness of this Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ for here Mr. Norton makes God
effects But saith he moral causes work according to the agreement and liberty of the persons that are moved thereby as for example God the Father is moved through the death of Christ to pardon the sins of such persons for whom he dieth so this rule must be applyed to the voluntary and eternal Covenant and also to the event as from the voluntary cause CHAP. VII His Fifth Distinction Examined which is this Distinguish between a Penal Hell and a Local Hell Christ suffered a Penal Hell but not a Local Hell Reply 1. THis Distinction makes two Hells that have the same Essential Torments one Temporary and the other Eternal one for Christ alone in this world and the other for Reprobates in the world to come By the like Reason there are two Heavens that have the same Essential blessednesse the one Temporary and the other Eternal for if Scripture may be judge there are as many Heavens for Essential blessednesse as there are Hells for Essential torment I thinâ— the judicious Reader may well smile at this odde Distinction and yet I do not see how Mr. Norton can maintain that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hell without this Distinction This penal Hell was first devised and is still maintained for It is a meer fantacy to say that Christ suffered the essential Torments of hell in this world seeing it is acknowledged by Mr. Norton That the Devils are not in full Torments here the sake of Christs sufferings only I never heard it used in Mr. Nortons sense for any body else no not for the Devils themselves as long as they are in this world For first saith Mr. Norton in page 124. the full Torments of Hell are not inflicted upon the Devils before the day of Judgement Secondly neither dares he affirm that any man in this life did ever suffer the Essential torments of Hell For in page 115. he saith That the reason why Eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body is partly because of the inability of the nature of man in this present state of mortality to indure the wrath of God without separation of the soul from the body namely to indure Gods penal wrath as hee doth presently after call it such as Christ bare And in Chap. 13. he saith There may be some doubt concerning the capacity of a meer creature to hold such a measure of Torment 1 Hence it follows from his own confession that no mortal man can suffer the penal wrath of God or the Essential Torments of hell in this life 2 Hence it follows that there is no such penal Hell for any other in this life but for Christ alone 3 That none but Christ can dye the second Death till they be first dead in sin 4 Neither dares Mr. Norton affirm that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hel in this penal Hell by Gods ordinary dispensation For in Page 120. he saith That according to the ordinary dispensation of God the full pains of hell are not suffered in this life But saith he according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not onely could but did suffer the pains of Hell in this life And truly seeing this penal Hell hath need of miracles to support it it shall have my vote to be matched with Purgatory as a like fiction SECT 2. But Mr. Norton labours to confirm his said Distinction three wayes 1 By a compartive Argument 2 By the Testimony of the School-men 3 By Psal 16. 10. 1 His comparative Argument is this Christ might as well suffer the pains of Hell out of Hell as partake of the joyes of Heaven out of Heaven His words in page 119. are these As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joyes of Heaven out of the place of Heaven as Luke 9. 28. if not at other times yet after the Resurrection so might it suffer the pains of Hell out of the place of Hell Reply 2. HIs sense of Hell-torments must all along bee remembred to bee the Essential torments of Hell For according to his first Distinction in page 8. he saith That the essential part was that and onely that which Christ suffered Luke 9. 28. Who ever is paâ—tâ—ker of the essential joâ—es of heaven is confirmed against the suffering of death In like sort he must be understood that Christ did partake of the Essential joyes of Heaven out of Heaven by Luke 9. 28. and then I beleeve his body had been glorified and so consequently confirmed against the suffering of death for if his Man-hood had partaken of the essential joyes of Heaven then hee must bee cloathed with such essential glory as himself doth mention in Joh. 17. 5. Glorifie me with thy self and in vers 24. That they may behold my glory which thou hast given me or else he reasons imperâ—inently and not to the point in hand And thus hee hath abused the sense of Luke 9 28. If he had affirmed these suffâ—rings of Christ and these glorious Revelations in a metaphorical sense then hee might have aâ—corded with the Scripture sense for great joyes by an hyperbole may well bee called the joyes of Heaven but not the Essential joyes neither do I beleeve that the Man-hood of Christ did partake of the Essential joyes and glory of Heaven till he came there neither doth that place in Luke 9. 28. nor any other Scripture prove it 2 Mr. Norton doth labour to confirm his said Distinction by the School-men For in page 120. hee saith The sounder School-men teach that Christ was in such a penal Hell namely where he suffered the Essential torments of Hell before his death But in case the School-men did not teach so much then Mr. Norton doth wrong both them and the Reader to cite them to his sense But according to my learning they were far from Mr. Nortons Tenent But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The soul is understood by judicious Authors properly Hell metaphorically for pains equivalent to the pains of Hell it self Reply I confesse I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often use the word Equivalent seeing his fundamental principle is Mr. Norton flies from his foundation principle of essential torments to that which is equavalent That Christ suffered the very Essential Torments of Hell and yet ever and anon hee is glad to flye to the word Equivalent in the point of satisfaction and yet he doth oppose the use of it in the point of satisfaction in the Dialogue Hee said in page 8 That the Essential part of Hell torments was that and only that which Christ suffered But here he is forced to leave that Principle and to flye to that which is Equivalent sometimes he holds close to the very letter of the Law as if God could not alter one jot because Christ was in the same obligation with Adam but presently after hee doth admit of the word Equivalent such uncertainty there is in his foundation-principles 2 The metaphorical
there is a differing sense hee that shall point to a Priest making a sacrifice for sin may say there is a sin and he that shall point to Cain killing Abel may also say there is a sin the word Sin therefore must bee taken in each place where it is used as the Context shall direct sometimes in a proper sense and sometimes in a metaphorical And for the want of this observation a man may make a contrary signification of Piaculum or else not The word Sin in Exod. 30. 10. is there put for the Sin-offering and that sin is by the Seventy called the purgation of sin and in 2 Chron. 29. 24. they render it the expiation of sin and in Exod. 29. 36. the cleansing of sin and in Ezek. 43. 22. the Propitiation or Reconciliation and in Ezek. 44. 27. the appeasing for sins and in Num. 19. 12 13 19. the Purification And the reason why sin is named by these several names is because the Sin-offering was ordained to appease Gods anger to expiate to purge and to cleanse the sinner from his sin yea the word sin is rendred by the Seventy the change or the exchange in Zach. 13. 1. and that most fitly because the sin namely the Sin-offering doth cause a true change in the sinner from unclean to clean and from enmity to Reconciliation These and such like phrases given to sin by the figure Metonymia shews the word to have a differing sense but not a contrary sense as Mr. Norton affirms to amuse his Reader the like happily may be said to his other Instances But for further light See what I have replied to the signification of Aâ—ab in Psal 22. 1. 4 I will now return to speak further of the Hebrew word Pagah take it without the conjugation Hiphil and then it signifies only to meet but the particular occasions of every meeting must bee sought out by the circumstances of each place where the word is used As for example 1 It signifies the meeting of the bounds of the Tribes in this or that place 2 It may signifie the meeting of time as when the Forenoon doth meet with the Afternoon or the meeting of words or the meeting of persons for this or that end either in mercy or in wrath 3 Pagah to meet is applied to Gods meeting with man or to mans meeting with God in his worship Moses and Aaron said unto Pharaoh The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us and commanded us to go into the wildernesse to offer sacrifices to him therefore wee pray thee let us go three dayes journey to sacrifice to the Lord our God lest hee meet us with Pestilence c. Exod. 3. 18. and Exod. 5. 3. So also in Numb 23. 3 4 5 15. 16. Balaam did mee the Lord with sacrifice and the Lord was pleased to meet him with words of advice what he should say to Balack In these places Pagah is put for Gods meeting with man and mans meeting with God And in Gen. 23. 8. Abraham said to the people of the land If it bee your mind that I should bury my dead meet with Ephron for mee namely meet him by way of intreaty the Seventy say Speak for mee And so Ruth said to Naomi Meet mee not to leave thee that is to say Meet me not by thy earnest intreaties to leave thee Ruth 1. 16. So Jacob met Esau namely with an acceptable present to cover his face that is to appease his anger Gen. 32. 20. as we see it did in Gen. 33. 8 10. These Instances shew that Pagah is used for a meeting in divers respects And after this manner God ordained Christ to bee our High Priest to meet the Lord with that most acceptable gift of himself Christ attoned his Fathers wrath with the Sacrifice of his body blood in a Sacrifice for it is of necessity that every Priest that meets with God to mediate his reconciliation to sinners must have such an excellent thing to offer unto God as hee will accept and therefore it must bee that which is constituted by a mutual Covenant Heb. 8. 3. and the thing appointed was the â—est thing that Christ had to meet God withal and that was his vital soul with his body and blood offered in perfect obedience to Gods will notwithstanding Sathan endeavoured to disturb his obedience with this present Christ did meet his offended Father that was most justly provoked by Adams sin and by our sins and so according to Covenant God accepted this Priest and Sacrifice for the attoning and the appeasing of his wrath as the word Attonement doth signifie Of which word see more in Chap. 14. pag. 142 143. In this sense I say the Father made or caused the Mediator to meet him for the iniquities of us all 1 He met his Father in his eternal Council and Contract And 2 In the execution of it Pagnin renders this verse two wayes indifferently 1 Occurrere fecit ei poenam 2 Vel rogere fecit eum pro iniquitate And both these readings may well agree to the same sense 1 He made the iniquities of us all to meet upon him namely hee made him to undertake our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice to make Attonement for them and in this sense the Dialogue hath expounded this verse 2 The Lord made him to meet for the iniquities of us all or caused him to meet him as our Priestly Mediator with the Sacrifice of his body for the iniquities of us all And thus both readings do agree to the same sense but because the last is more exact according to the Hebrew therefore now I follow that The Chaldy Paraphrase of this verse speaks thus And the So Mr. Clendon in Justification justified p. 11. Eternal is well pleased to remit the sins of us all for his sake And Tindal translates it thus But through him the Lord pardoneth all our sins From these Translations and Expositions it follows 1 That the Doctrine of Gods imputing our sins to Christ in Mr. Nortons sense was not held forth by these Translators neither can it be proved from this verse nor from any other when the right interpretation is given and Mr. Norton himself consesseth thus much in general That the guilt of ouâ— sins could not bee imputed to Christ unlesse unlesse he did first become our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam in Gen. 2. 17. But I have shewed in Chap. 2. and elsewhere with the concurrence of sundry eminent Divines that Christ was not our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam and therefore by his own consession untill hee prove that Christ was Adams Surety Gen. 2. 17. his Doctrine of Imputation is without a foundation and thence it follows that it must needs bee an unsound Assertion to hold that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his death and sufferings But yet though I deny Christ to bee our legal Surety I do
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 to unite them to Christs that so they might be fit subjects for the said righteousness I say this voluntary and reciprocial Covenant between the Trinity doth constitute all the causes of a sinners righteousness and in particular the Covenant on the Fathers part doth constitute the formal part of it This positive created Righteousness was unknown to natural Philosophers it is not framed from the moral Law of Nature but it is a Righteousness for sinners created on purpose by the voluntary positive Law and Covenant of the Trinity 4. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton should so much plead for the moral righteousness of Christ to be the matter and the imputation of it to be the form of our righteousness seeing it did not formally constitute Adams righteousness as Mr. Norton himself doth also acknowledge in p. 261. and Mr. Burges on Justification p. 8. and indeed the reason thereof is very plain because God required that Adam should first eate of the tree of life as the meritorious cause for procuring the formality of his moral perfections and this tree had this efficacy from Gods voluntary positive Covenant with Adam As I have shewed more large already chap. 2. The Dialogue saith that sinners in themselves namely as long as they continue to be sinners which is as long as they live in this body of sin can have no other righteousness than a passive righteousness proceeding from Gods merciful attonement pardon and forgiveness But Mr. Norton in p. 231. leaves out these words in themselves and then makes a false Argument of the Dialogues sense But I dare say no judicious Christian that will but make through search into all the types of legal Justification shall find any other way of making sinners righteous but by Attonement or Reconciliation in not imputing sin Reckon up the legal terms by which Attonement is expressed and that will justifie what I say as by expiating sin not imputing sin mercifully forgiving sin purging sin purifying washing cleansing sin to the sanctifying the flesh these and such like are abundantly used in the Law but never any for making righteous by imputing moral righteousness which doubtless would have been ordained to typifie the imputation of Christs moral righteousness in the formal cause of Justification if any such thing had been intended for the only formal cause 5. It seems to me that Mr. Norton doth wilfully stumble at the stile of the Dialogue because it makes a sinners righteousness to be procured by Christs sacrifice of Attonement but any one may see that this phrase the Sacrifice of Attonement at which he stumbles is a usual Scripture phrase for the publick yearly Sin-Offering is called the Sin of Attonements Ezâ—d 30. 10. and the Ram of Attonement Numb 5. 8. And all Sacrifices were ordained by Gods voluntary Covenant to procure Gods Attonement and Justification from all their legal sins even peace-Offerings were sometimes offered to procure peace by Gods attonement and in relation to their typical use the sacrifice of Christ may well be called a Sacrifice of Attonement Reconciliation or Attonement described both in the meritorious formal causes for the procuring of Gods attonement for all our moral sins and so consequently for our moral justification and this is most cleer because the Apostle doth define Gods reconciliation to sinners by his not imputing their sins to them 2 Cor. 5. 19. for as long as sin is imputed it makes a jar between God and the sinner but when God doth not impute sin then there is no more jar but reconciliation with God And therefore the sin of Attonement which was offered on Reconciliation-day is called by the Septuagint the Purgation of sins because it procured Gods Attonement by which only sin is purged away Exod. 30. 10. and this place the Apostle applies to the sacrifice of Christ Heb. 1. 3. namely as it is the meritorious cause of Gods reconciliation whereby our sins are fully purged The Hebrew word for Reconciliation doth signifie to cover pacifie or appease noting thereby the meritorious cause Gen. Gen. 32. 20. 32. 20. Prov. 16. 14. and to bee pacified doth note the formal cause It doth also signifie to satisfie or recompence noting thereby the meritorious cause 2 Sam. 21. 3. Exod. 21. 30. Psal 49. 8. Gen. 31. 29. and to bee satisfied doth note the formal cause of Reconciliation as in Mat. 3. 17. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased satisfied or reconciled and so in Psal 85. 1 2. Lord thou hast been favourable or well-pleased with thy land Thou hast forgiven the iniquities of thy people and covered all their sin These three several phrases are Synonimas and do set out the formal cause of Reconciliation or Justification but whether the Psalmist is to be understood of outward or inward Reconciliation needs not now to be disputed because the outward is but an exemplification of the inward And hence it follows that Christs sacrifice may well bee caled a Sacrifice of Attonement because it was exemplified by the legal sacrifices of Attonement and because it was ordained to procure Gods Attonement and in this respect also all Sacrifices of Attonement are called Sacrifices of Righteousness Deut. 33. 19. Psal 51. 19. Deut. 33. 19. Psal 4. 5. Psal 51. 19. not only because they were offered in faith as Mr. Norton doth too unadvisedly restrain the sense of the word Righteousness in p. 208. but they are also called Sacrifices of Righteousness because they did legally compleat a sinners righteousness in respect of his ceremonial sins and so also they did exemplifie how a sinners righteousness should be compleated by the meritorious and formal causes in respect of his moral sins sacrifices must be performed in righteousness that is to say without spot or wrinkle for then they were offered in
beyond the context or else there is great danger of abusing the Scripture to an erronious sense as I have formerly noted from the large signification of Sheol and Hades in Chap. 7. and from Nasa and Sabel in Chap. 11. And the like I must say of this Greek word Ethambeisthai For 1 Ethambesen is used by the Septuagint in 1 King 14. 15. to express the sense of the Hâ—brew word Ragaz to root namely to root up Israel out of that good land 2 The Septuagint put Thambos for a dead sleep namely for that dead sleep that was fallen upon Saul and his men when their senses were so bound up that they could not awake 1 Sam. 26. 12. 3 The Septuagint put Thamboumenos to express the sense of Pacâ—az for light headed or inconstant persons in Judges 9. 4. This Hebrew word saith Ainsworth in Gen. 49. 4. dâ—th signifie unstable or light and soon moved And this word saith he is alwayes used in the evil part Zeph. 3. 4. Jer. 23. 32. These three senses considered who dares say that is well advised that this Greek word Ethambeisthai in Mark 14. 33. ought to bee stretched to the utmost sense of the word these and such like things I find by conference with the Septuagint in Kirkeroes 2 I wonder why Mr. Norton saith That Physicians call it a Herripilation doth hee think that Christ was in such a dreadful distemper of mind and body that it made his hair to stand upright why else doth hee bring a name for it from that distemper of nature which is called by the Physicians a Horripilation I never heard that Christs humane nature was subject to diseases till now Truly Mr. Norton seems to have too mean a conceit of the perfection of Christs humane nature in his Agony 3 The Text doth not say as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was fully amazed in a passive sense but that hee began to bee amazed in an active sense and there is as much difference between being fully amazed and beginning to be amazed as there is between a sound sleep and beginning to bee asleep when Peter walked on the Sea to go to Christ hee began to sink and yet he did not sink Mar. 14. 30. So though Christ began to be amazed yet he was not fully amazed hee voluntarily began to be amazed in consideration of that unnatural and terrible evil of an ignominious and violent death on the Cross which was now at hand to bee inflicted on him by Satan whom God had armed with authority to do it in the most ignominious and violent lingring manner that he could devise according to Gen. 3. 15. to provoke his patience But yet he was far from being so amazed as Mr. Norton Gen. 3. 15. doth make the word according to its large sense to speak Hee saith that the original word signifieth an universal cessation of all the faculties of the soul from their several functions what though the word in the largest extent doth signifie so much Yet I say also that Christ was not so amazed he was not fully overcome with fear as men amazed are for if all the faculties of his soul had now ceased universally from their several functions as Mr. Norton affirmeth then how could Christ at this very instant have behaved himself so Religiously and advisedly as he did for now hee uttered words of reason and understanding words of counsel and advice to his Disciples even at the same time when hee began to bee amazed telling his Disciples in what manner hee began to bee amazed he said unto them My soul is exceeding sorrowful even to death or even to consider the manner of my usage in the time of my death Mar. 14. 33. 34. or thus I am surrounded with the sorrows of death as I have opened the Greek word a little before on Matth. 26. 38. And then also hee said unto his Disciples as one that had the use of his intellects Tarry yee here and watch me or as Luke expresseth it Watch and pray that yee enter not into temptation Luke 22. 40. and then hee went a little forward and fell on the ground and prayed That if it were possible that hour of his dread might passe from him namely his natural dread of that Satanical usage that was at hand vers 34 35. Do not all these circumstances of his wise and religious deportment prove that he was not amazed though at first he did voluntarily begin to bee amazed Methinks a judicious Divine should look as well into the circumstances of the Text as into the large sense of the word Methinks a judicious Divine should know and beleeve that Christ had at this time all the powers and faculties of reason and understanding in a far more excellent measure than any other man whatsoever that is in his best senses and that the faculties of his soul were so perfect that they could not cease universally from their several functions in the time of executing his office All his passions were voluntary and followed the rule of right reason saith Damasen and therefore he could not bee so amazed as Mr. Nortons definition doth charge Christ to bee 4 Let us try the sense that is given to the word by other Translators who minded the sense of the Context more than the largest extent of the word 1 Tremelius doth translate the Syriack word which is the same both in Mat. 26. 37. and in Mark 14. 33. I say he translates the Syriack in both places alike though the Greek words do differ he translates Mat. 26. 37. thus Et coepit moestus esse tristitia affici and he translates Mark. 14. 33. thus Et coepit moestus esse affici tristitia 2 Tindal doth translate Mar. 14. 33. thus And he began to be abashed and to be in an agony 3 The Geneva thus he began to be troubled and to be in great heaviness 4 The Seventy render this Greek word by several Hebrew words that signifie Frighted Feared Terrified and the like as Dan. 8 17. At the sight of the Angel saith he I was afraid and fell on my face In this his fear he used the same gesture of reverence that Christ did in his prayers and this gesture was suitable to one that had the use of his intellects 2 The Seventy use this Greek word to explain the Chalde word in Dan. 7. 7. which we translate Terrible and so terrible was the apprehension of an ignominious violent death to Christs humane nature 3 The Seventy use this Greek word to translate the Hebrew word which we translate Haste namely such a haste as ariseth from the sudden fear of death and of such like evils as in 2 King 7. 15. This Hebrew word saith Ainsworth in Deut. 16. 3. implies a trembling and a hasty flight from the fear of danger as in Deut. 20. 3. You approach this day unto the battel against your enemies let not your hearts fear and hasten not away neither be yee
thy worst to disturb his patience c. God speaks thus to Satan in Zachary just as he did in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Satan shalt peirce the seed of the woman in the foot-soals as a wicked malefactor Weight the whole Text in Zachary which runs thus Awake O Sword against my Shepherd That is to say rouse up thy self O Satan and bring a band of men armed with swords and staves against my shepherd and against the man that is my fellow as we see he did in Mat. 26. 47. Smite thou the shepherd for I have given thee full liberty without any restraint to use thy best skill to make him a sinful malefactor and to smite him as a sinful malefactor that thou mayst disturb his patience if thou canst and so mayst make him a transgressor as thou didst Adam Or it may be read at it is in Matthew I will smite the shepherd For I God have given Satan full liberty to smite him that I may see the proof of his patience and obedience And in this form of speach God is said to afflict Job and therefore Job said The Lord hath taken away my cattle and my children Job 1. In these words you see that Job ascribes all the evils that fell upon him to God because God permitted Satan to do what he did and therefore saith Job in Chap. 19. 21. The hand of God hath touched me In these words he called the Devil Gods hand because God gave the Devil leave to afflict him so as he did to try his patience and we see that Jobs patience in his first encounter with Satan was not disturbed And in this sense the word I must be understood in Matthew I will sinite the shepherd that is to say I God will give Satan leave to smite the shepherd This is the true sense of Matthew and therefore this is no proof that God smote Christs soul from his immediate vindicative wrath The second Scripture to be examined is Isa 53. 10. It pleased Isa 53. 20. the Lord to bruise him and to put him to grief when he shall set out or give his soul to be a Trespass Offering or as the Seventy read it a sin For this phrase set see Ains on Gen. 21. 13. 27. 37. and in Psa 8. 2. and Gen. 9. 12. 17. 5. This Scripture being rightly interpreted doth not mean that God was pleased to bruise Christ actively and so to put him to grief by his immediate wrath But it means that it pleased the Lord passively to put that is to permit and suffer Satan to bruise him and to put him to grief and so speaks our larger Annotation on these words He put him to grief or as some saith the Annotation he suffered him to be put to pain or torment because this form saith the Annotation hath oft in it a notion of permission as in Psal 37. 33. Psal 119. 10 116. and Isa 63. 17. and see more for this form in Reply 22. and in Ains in Psa 39. 9. and in Psa 16. 10. In this sense I say It pleased the Lord to bruise Christ and to put him to grief and just so it pleased the Lord to put an utter enmity between the Devil and the seed of the deceived sinful woman in Gen. 3. 15. there the Lord appointed the Devil by Gen. 3. 15. his permissive Commission to combate for the victory with the seed of the woman and in case the Devil could prevail to disturb his patience then the Victory was to go on his side but in case the seed of the woman did persevere in his patience and obedience through all the Devils ignominious trials and at last in that perfect obedience did make his vital soul a Sacrifice by breathing out his immortal soul by his own Priestly power then the victory was to go on his side and then hee was to have the prize namely the Redemption of all the Elect. And in this sense also is Isa 53. 5. to bee understood He was Isa 53. 5. wounded for our trangressions he was bruised for our iniquities God may be said to do this though not from his immediate wrath because he permitted Satan to do all this as I have expounded these words formerly And in this sense it is said in Psal 69. 27. They persecuted him whom thou hast smitten God is here said to smite Christ but yet not from his immediate wrath but by Satan and his Instruments God permitted Satan to do his worst to Christ to manifest the perfection of his obedience for his Priestly consecration to his sacrifice but the Devils end was to disturb his patience and so to pervert him in his obedience that so his death might not be a sacrifice And thus it pleased the Lord to bruise him and put him to grief namely by Satan and his Instruments and not by Gods immediate wrath And this 〈◊〉 beleeve is the plain genuine sense of Isaiah And because I judge this interpretation to bee of necessary consequence I will once more repeat it with some inlargement It pleased the Lord according to the counsel of his own will which hee first declared to us in Gen. 3. 15. to permit Satan to enter the Lists with the seed of the deceived woman to deceive him if he could and to that end he gave him his full liberty to deceive him by fraud or to provoke him by force to some sinful disturbance or other And thus it pleased the Lord to permit Satan to bruise him and to put him to grief by an ignominious and long lingring violent death to disturb his patience and obedience if hee could even at the same time when his soul shall set or give it self to bee a Trespass-offering that so hee might spoyl his death from being a sacrifice if he could and thereby might save his first grand Head-plot from being broken And it pleased the Lord also according to the counsel of his own will to Covenant to and with the Mediator that in case he held constant in his obedience through all Satans malicious stratagems and at last in that perfect obedience did give his soul to be a Trespass-offering then his obedience in his said sufferings should be for his perfect consecration and then his death should be accepted as an acceptable sacrifice of Reconciliation for all the Elect and then Gods Covenant with him was that hee should see his seed and prolong his dayes and that the pleasure of the Lord for mans actual Regeneration and Reconciliation should prosper in his hands But Mr. Norton doth often torment this heavenly sense of Isaiah with a contrary for hee makes Christ to combate with Gods immediate wrath and to suffer as a legal sinner and as our legal Surety from the judicial vindicative wrath of God even from his judicial vindicative Judgement-seat as in page 55 63 85 122 143 165 192 213 39 c. The third Scripture to bee examined is Rom. 8. 32. God spared not his
the Greek word for this bloody sweat be not stretched beyond the Context as well as hee hath done the word Amazed in Mark 14. 33. as I have shewed before 6 Hence it may be considered what a learned Divine saith There are some saith he that take Christs bloody sweat in that grievous agony to be a symptom of infernal pains But saith he from what grounds either in Phylosophy or Divinity I know not If the pains of Hell or hellish pains so some distinguish be procured by the fire of Hell be that material or immaterial bloody sweat saith he can be no probable effect of the one or of the other fire nor is such sweat any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or demonstrative sign of pains more grievous than may be inflicted or suffered by patience meerly natural For saith he however in cold Countries bloody sweats be as rare in mens bodies as showres of blood in the Air. Yet as a good Phylosopher hath long ago observed To sweat blood Curaus is not usuall to Italians yet usual onely as I take it to men of that Climat in some particular diseases The most remarkable instance which I have read of bloody sweat in a man not oppressed with any disease is a Captain an Italian if I mistake not who being surprised by the subâ—leâ—y of his Enemy whom he had trusted too far upon a Tristee of Parly and thereby inforced either to yeeld up the Fort which he had stoutly maintained or otherwise to be presently hanged The consideration of this perplexity wherewith through his own folly he had intangled himself did make such a deep impression into his generous spirits that it squeezed blood out of his veins And as this sudden fear squeezed blood out of the veins of this Captain so in Reply 20. I have cited the speech of a Physician that saith thus It sometimes happeneth that servent spirits do so dilate the pores of the body that blood passeth by them and so the sweat may be bloody And saith the former Author our Savior no doubt as man had a more deep touch of all the malicious disgraces and cruel indignities which his enemies could put upon him than this Captain had The measure of his bodily sufferings and personal wrongs were in number far more and for quality more grievous than ever were intended to this Captain or any other mortal man by their enemies And though the death of the cross was in it self an ignominious and cruel death yet in our Saviors particular that was most true * Of the ignominious manner of his death and what I have said on 1 Sam. 31. 4. There Saul did so loathe to be put to a disgraceful death by the mockings of the Philistims that he prayed his Armor-bearer rather to kill him as I have noted it in Gal 3. 13. at Reply 6. And Sampson rather than to live to be an ignominious mocking-stock to the Philistims desired to die Judg. 16. 25 26. Mortis modus morte pejor The manner of his Apprehension of his double Arraignment and Conviction of his usage before he was brought to the place of Execution and all the time whiles the malice of the Jew and Gentile was wrecked upon him was more grievous than the death of the Cross it self without these grievous concommitants could have been 7 I find that many Divines though they hold that Christ suffered in soul from the immediate wrath of God upon the cross yet they do not hold that his Agony in the Garden was from the sense of the immediate wrath of God upon his soul But his sorrow and dread there they make to be in relation of what he was afterwards to suffer upon the cross and the fear of that say they was the cause of his bloody sweat First Dr. Williams saith That the clear sight and considerstion Dr. Williams in his seven golden Candlesticks p 143 144. Bradshaw on justific p. 75. of that cup which he was to drink was the cause of his Agony Secondly Saith Mr. Bradshaw Whiles he hung upon the accursed tree he had such a deep sense of the incomparable wrath of God that the very apprehension thereof before it seized upon him made him sweat drops of blood Thirdly Saith George Downham The fear of Gods wrath In his Coven of Grace p. 68. when he was in his Agony caused him to sweat great drops of blood Luk. 22. 44. And saith he the sense thereof on the cross made him cry My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee Fourthly Saith Mr. Wall In his Agony in the Garden he sweat drops not of water but of blood c. and all this in Wall in his none but Christ p. 27. expectation of what he should suffer when no hand touched him but his own thoughts of what he was to suffer I could cite divers others that speak to this purpose But these are sufficient to evidence thus much that many of the learned do hold that though Christ suffered the wrath of God upon the cross yet they deny he suffered the wrath of God in his Agony in the Garden and therefore his bloody sweat is no certain reason to prove that he was pressed under the sense of the wrath of God in the Garden as Mr. Norton holds though after he hath affirmed it he doth again leave it doubtful which doth not well agree to the property of a Judicious Confuter Fifthly Seeing such eminent Divines as I have above cited do hold that Christ suffered the wrath of God not in the Garden but on the cross onely once for all It shews that Mr. Norton hath not so many Divines on his side as he intimates ever and anon by us and our and we say as in p. 44 c. 8 It is also very considerable that there are sundry learned Divines that deny that our Savior sweat blood and therefore they do much more deny that he sweat clods of blood as Mr. Norton affirms he did for the original word they say his sweat was as it were great drops of blood And first So speaks the Greek Text plainly And secondly So do our Translators interpret it And thirdly Saith Dr. Hammon in his paraphrase on Luk. 22. 44. He sweat as men in agonies are wont great glutenous drops like those of blood when it drops on the ground and saith hee in his Annotation That Christ sweat drops of blood is not affirmed in this place but only that he sweat drops of sweat of a strange thickness or viscousness and consequently as big as when blood is wont to fall upon the ground So saith Justin Martyr Theophylact and Entymius And truly I may well adde this That seeing his sweat was in the open air and in a cold night it might well thicken as it ran down his body and bee glutenous before it fell to the ground And saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as or as it were doth note some resemblance as saith he the Spirit
contrariously delivered by Mr. Norton as I have shewed at large in Chap. 4. and therefore I refer the Reader thither for a full answer to this place But I come now to open the word Forsaken in Psal 22. 1. And I will open the sense by answering these three Questions I. How did God forsake Christ on the Cross II. Why did God forsake Christ on the Cross III. How did God not forsake Christ on the Cross Question I. How did God forsake Christ on the Cross Reply 9. I Have in part shewed how in the Dialogue but I will add somewhat to confirm it 1 Therefore I say that God forsook Christ on the Cross by not protecting him from the hands of Satan and his Instruments God forsook Christ on the cross by not protecting him against his crucisiers Or thus God put enmity between the Devil and the seed of the deceived woman and it was agreed between the Trinity from eternity that Christ in his humane nature should try masteries with the power policy of Satan and his Instruments therefore it was agreed also that God should leave the humane nature of Christ alone to manage this Combate and it was agreed also to permit the Devill to use all his power and policy to do his worst to disturb the patience of the humane nature and so to pervert him in his obedience that so his first Head-plot might not be broken I say in this Combate the God-head was to leave the Humane nature to its own principles and to permit the Devil to use his utmost power and policy to incounter with his Humane nature and therefore he brought into the Garden a Band of Souldiers armed with Swords and Staves to apprehend him and to bind him like a Felon and to carry him as a prisoner first before the Priest and then before Pilat and there to lay many criminal accusations against him and at last to crucifie him for a notorious malefactor with all manner of ignominy and torturing pains and in all these injurious abuses God did not protect him nor put out any power to deliver him And thus God forsook Christ on the Cross and left him helpless as a Combater ought to be in the trial of Masteries 2 This exposition of the word Forsaken must needs be the right interpretation because it agrees to the Context in Psal 22. whence it is taken and therefore I will make it appear by comparing it with the Context 1 The next adjoyning sentence to the word Forsaken is this Why art thou so far from helping me namely against my envious Adversaries his condition was such that it needed some help from God to suppress them but it had not been so fit to call upon God to help him to suppress his own vindicative wrath if any such thing had been as Mr. Norton affirms 2 The next sentence doth also explain the former Why art thou so far from the words of my roaring for though God had heard his earnest prayers in the Garden and had fully delivered his humane nature from the dread of the Cup yet not from the Cup it self of his sufferings and it is also cleer by verse 11. that God heard him in regard of inward support though not in regard of outwrd deliverance Be not far from me because trouble is neer and there is none to help me that is be not far from supporting my inward man for there is none to help me in regard of my outward man I know by thy revealed Decree in Gen. 3. 15. that thou hast given Satan power over my outward man to put mee to death as a Malefactor on the Cross 3 He prayes again in verse 19. Be not far from me O Lord my strength hasten to help me deliver my soul from the sword my desolate soul from the power of the Dog In these words Christ doth acknowledge God to be his strength even now in this time of his greatest passions And hence it follows that when he cryed My God my God why hast thou forsaken me that he felt God to bee his strength in the inward man at least though at the same time God did forsake him by leaving his outward man into the hands of Satan and his instruments or else his mouth and his heart did not go together when he did acknowledge God to be his strength and when he cryed out My God my God This appellation shews that God was his strength in the inward man though God left his outward man to the power of Satan and his Instruments to crucifie him as a Malefactor and therefore his next Petition is Hasten to help me that so my body may also bee delivered from the power of these Dogs by my Resurrection on the third day according to his faith in Psal 16. 10. 4 And lastly This is remarkable that Christ did not utter these words My God my God why hast thou forsaken me until hee had fulfilled all his appointed sufferings from the Devils instruments as it was declared in Gen. 3. 15. and as they are largely expressed in this Psalm and therefore the word Forsaken doth relate to Gods outward leaving him in the whole course of his sufferings from his apprehension to his death 2 This interpretation of the manner how God did forsake Christ is strengthned by the concurrence of sundry eminent orthodox Divines 1 P. Martyr on Phi. 2. enumerating the calamities that Christ suffered begins thus The first calamity saith hee is to lose estimation the Theef was preferred above Christ Barabas was dismissed and Christ was counted among the wicked 2 Saith hee Another calamity was touching bodily deliverance he was destitute of Gods help My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee And he cites Austin to his sense But I pray take notice that hee applies this speech My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee to his bodily deliverance How far wide is he from Mr. Nortons essential torments on Christs soul but for want of due observation Mr. Norton thinks that all the Orthodox run on his side but upon better search hee may see the contrary 2 Bucer in Mat. 27. 46. saith Christ here complained that he was forsaken or left of his Father into the hands of the wicked to indure all their rage 3 Bullinger in Mat. 27. saith To forsake in Christ upon the Cross is to permit so that this was the meaning of Christ Why dost thou suffer meâ—â—â—o be thus afflicted Why dost thou permit these things to mine enemies When will thou deliver me 4 Dr. Lightfoot in his Harmony on the New Testament page 72. saith thus My God my God why hast thou forsaken me not forsaken him as to the feeling of any spiritual desertion but why left to such hands and to such cruel usage Ibidem In his Commentary on Act. 2. 27. he saith Why should not these words My God my God be translated Why hast thou left me and given me up to such hands shame and
touched so deeply with the sensible feeling of mans infirmities as I ought to be 3 Else it could not be known that I am so sensible of them as I am unless I did express it by crying out as a man in misery why hast thou forsaken me 4 Else it might well be questioned whether ever I had a true humane nature or no if I should not declare my sense of my present sufferings 5 Else I cannot make it manifest that I am a true mercifull High Priest except I make it manifest that I am eminently touched with a true sense and feeling of mans infirmities 6 Neither can I be a compleate consecrated Priest except the perfection of my patience and obedience be true and manifested through sharp and harsh sufferings Heb. 2. 10. 17. 7 Neither can I make my death to bee a propitiatory sacrifice until I am compleatly consecrated by induring afflictions Therefore that I may make it evident that my humane nature is thus qualified I must cry out with a loud voyce at the end of all my sufferings My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee or left me to the prevailing powers of darkness to indure such an ignominious and painful death 8 It is most evident that the last extrinsecal part of Christs Priestly consecration was ordained to be finished by his sufferings from the malice and enmity of his proclaimed enemy Satan according to Gen. 3. 15. compared with Heb. 2. 10 17. and Heb. 5. 8 9. And this is yet the more to be marked Heb. 2. 10. because God ordained that the consecration of Aaron and his Sons should not be finished without some trial of his obedience under some kind of affliction for God commanded them to keep a strict watch at the door of the Tabernacle for seven dayes and seven nights together in all which space they were separated from their Wives and Families upon pain of Gods heavy displeasure by death and untill they had manifested the perfection of their obedience under this appointed measure of affliction they might not offer any sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement Levit. 9. 7. but as soon as they were thus consecrated then the very next day they were commanded to draw near to God and to offer sacrifices of Reconciliation And to this purpose I have given another hint from the words of Mr. Trap in Reply 27. Hence I reason thus If the Divine nature had protected the Humane nature of Christ against the power of his proclaimed enemy Satan in this appointed hour for the Prince of darkness to exercise his utmost power against as he did in former times from the prevailing power of Herod in Matth. 2. and from the prevailing power of his Towns-men at the hil Nazaret Luk. 4. 29 30. and from his conspirators in Joh. 8. 59. then he could not have fulfilled Gods appointed and declared Decree in Gen. 3. 15. his own Covenant which was that he would enter the Lists in his Humane nature from the seed of the woman with his combater Satan and give him so much liberty as to pierce him in the Foot-soals as a sinful malefactor and yet that he would continue obedient through all his greatest temptations and tryals And his Father covenanted that his temptations and trials from his Combater Satan should be for his ultimate extrinsecal consecration and that then he should make his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation for the breaking of the Devils Head-plot Therefore that he might manifest the perfection of his obedience through all his sharpest sufferings from his malignant Combater Satan his Divine nature must forsake or rest or cease or leave his Humane nature that so his humane nature alone might undergo the combate from the malice of his proclaimed enemy and might manifest the truth of his humane nature by evidencing that he was eminently touched with the quick sense and feeling of our infirmities and by manifesting the perfection of his patience and obedience under all before he could make his soul a propitiatory sacrifice And to this sense do the Orthodox speak Ireneus saith That Christ was crucified and died the word namely the Divine nature Resting that is saith Bastingus In his chap. of Christs sufferings not using his power not putting forth his strength to the intent he might be crucified and die And hence we may take notice that this phrase The Divine nature resting is the very same with Gods forsaking or leaving of the humane nature of Christ in his combate with Satan as it is expounded by sundry Orthodox which I will cite Because the humane nature was no true part of the divine person but an appendix only therfore the divine nature could and did leave the humane nature alone to combate with Satan that so it might be touched with a quick sense of all his ill usage and might manifest the same by crying out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me by and by But saith Mr. Norton in p. 79. If the pain of loss be not joyned with the pain of sense there can be no sufficient cause given of so bitter and lamentable a cry from that person that was God and man Reply 11. Though that person was God and man yet that hinders not but that his humane nature might make that bitter and lamentable cry from the sense of the Devils ill usage his being God and Man in personal union did indeed priviledge his humane nature from sinful perturbations in his passions and so consequently from Gods coacted Justice but it did not hinder him from his own voluntary passions nor from his voluntary sufferings from his malicious enemy Satan nor from manifesting his true sense and feeling of them because his humane nature was no true part of the divine person for then it could not have been left of his divine nature to suffer any thing at all except Mr. Norton will say That his divine nature was passible But because it was no true part but an Appendix only to his divine person as Zanchy sheweth in his Appendix to his Confession of the Faith therefore the divine nature might and did rest cease leave or forsake the humane nature to manage the combate alone with Satan that so it might be sensible of his sufferings from Satans power granted to him in Gen. 3. 15. more than other men can be because of the exact purity of his natural temper above all other men and in these respects it came to pass that he did make that bitter and lamentable cry My God my God why hast thou forfaken me I say that the union of his humane nature to his divine person was so ineffable that the divine nature could and did forsake leave cease or rest from protecting or assisting his humane nature that so it might undertake the combate alone with Satan and that so it might be touched with the quick sense and feeling of our infirmites more than other men can be and so it made him
to cry out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me But saith Mr. Norton in page 191. Though the humane nature of Christ from its first union had its dependance subsistance in his divine person yet such is the singleness and unmixedness of the divine nature in this union that it could and â—id leave the humane nature to act of it self according to its own natural principles As the humane nature of Christ did not subsist alone so neither doth it perform any humane operations alone dependance in respect of subsistence inferreth a dependance in respect of operations c. In these words Mr. Norton doth argue more like to a natural Philosopher than to a judicious Divine for though the humane nature of Christ did ever subsist in his divine person from the time of the union yet it did not subsist in his divine person according to the order of natural causes but after the ineffable manner of the voluntary cause of which the rule is not true pesuâ caus â sequitur effectus for such voluntary causes do work according to the liberty of the voluntary agreement of the persons in Trinity 2 I say also that the form of this union cannot be exemplified from any natural or civil union and therefore the operations that flew from this union may well differ from the operations that flow from all other unions I grant that Athanasius doth in some respects fitly exemplifie this union to the union of our soul and body making one See Pareus Notes on Athanasius Creed Art 4. man but yet in some respects it will not hold In two things saith Pareus this similitude doth not agree 1 Because in man by reason of the union of the reasonable soul and body some third thing specifically different is made up to wit man of matter and form neither of which alone is man It is not so saith he in Christ because the word Assuming the flesh was God and the same person both before and after the Incarnation heretofore without flesh and afterwards cloathed with it 2 Saith he The soul of man receives into it the passions of the body with which it grieveth and rejoyceth but God the word is void of all affection and passion Therefore seeing this union is so unexpressible the operations of each nature may well differ from the operations of all other unions 3 Seeing it was the will of the blessed Trinity according to their agreement in the voluntary Covenant that the two natures of the Mediator should keep each nature and their properties distinct Thence the Mediator might act either as man only or as God only or as God and man joyntly And this observation is of necessary use for the right understanding of many Scriptures as it is noted by the Dialogue from Mr. Calvin in p. 111. and to him I will adde Mr. Thomas Wilson for in his Theological Rules for the right understanding of the Scriptures hee saith In his 111. Theological Rule p. 164. thus Some of the works of Christ were proper to his God-head as his miracles Secondly Some to his Man-hood as his natural and moral works Thirdly Some to his whole person as his works of Mediation in which each nature did that which was proper to it but Mr. Norton makes no good use of this rule And all these several operations do arise from the unexpressible nature of this union which doth work according to the agreement of the persons in the voluntary Covenant And of this I have also given a touch before in page 174. 2 I have made it evident in the former Chapter That the most excellent temper and tender constitution of Christs humane nature did make all his sufferings to be abundantly more sharp and keen to his senses than the like can be to us that are by nature born the bond-slaves of sin corruption and death for in that respect our natural spirits are of a blockish and dull sense and therefore we cannot abhor misery and death with that quick sense and feeling as the pure constitution of Christs humane nature might and did do and therefore wee cannot cry out with such a deep sense of it as hee did 3 In obedience to Gods declared Decree in Gen. 3. 15. and in obedience to his own Covenant to enter the Lists with Satan with his humane nature as it was accompanied with our infirmities It behoved his divine nature to rest and to leave his humane nature to feel the power of Satans enmity because it was now the very appointed hour for the powers of darkness to exercise their utmost enmity according to Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. So then the operation of his divine nature in this appointed hour was to withdraw assistance from his humane nature and not to protect it as it did at other times but to leave his humane nature alone in the combate and to let the Prince of darkness have his full liberty to disturb his patience and so to pervert his obedience if he could or in case he could not prevail then it was agreed that these trials should be for the consecration of him as of the Priest and Prince of our salvation to his sacrifice And to this sense do the Ancient Divines speak 1 The Passion of Christ saith Austin was the sweet sleep of his Divinity Mr. Rich. Ward in his Commentary on Mat. 27. 42. doth thus paraphrase on these words of Austin As in a sweet sleep saith he the soul is not departed though the operations thereof be for a time suspended so during the time of Christs sufferings his God-head rested as it were in a sweet sleep that so the humanity might suffer in all points according to Gods Decree and to this sense also doth Mr. Perkins speak on the Creed fol. 121. 2 Theodoret on Psal 22. saith Christ called that a dereliction which was a permission of the Divinity that the Humanity should suffer 3 Isyehius in Lev. li. 5. ch 16. saith Christs Deity is said to depart by withdrawing his own power from his Humanity that he might give time to his passion 4 The Master of the sentences saith the Divine nature did forsake the humane nature First By not protecting it And secondly By withdrawing his power that so he might suffer And saith he in lib. 3. dist 2. the Deity severed it self because it withdrew protection And secondly saith he it separated it self outwardly not to defend but it failed not inwardly to continue the union If saith he it had not withdrawn but exercised power Christ could not have died 5 Leo de passi Dom. Ser. 170. saith That the Lord should be delivered to his passion it was his Fathers will as well as his own That not onely the Father might leave him but that after a sort he should forsake himself not by any fearful shrinking but by a voluntary cession or resting for the power of Christ crucified contained it self from these wicked ones and to perform
as I have noted it in the Dialogue In Fox tom 1. p. 50 80 tom 2. p. 130. p. 58. In the conflict saith Ball on the Covenant pag. 284. his Faith was most firm not shaken with any degree of unbeleef And saith Dr. Sibs on Matth. 27. 46. Christ was not forsaken in regard of Grace as if Faith or Love or Joy in God or any other Grace were taken from Christ O no saith he he beleeved when he said My God my God Unto these words of his I put in the Grace of Joy in a parenthesis because he had said before in general That Christ was not forsaken in regard of Grace and thence I infer that then he was not forsaken of the Grace of Joy in the good of Gods promises for that is one of the Graces Gal. 5. no not then when his sufferings were most grievous to his flesh his Joy in the apprehension of Gods Fatherly love in his promises was not then interrupted and therefore out of that his never interrupted apprehension or rather joyful view of the light of Gods countenance and of the good of his promises he like a conquering Combater indured the cross and dispised the shame Heb. 12. 2. 6 Seeing Christs soul was as full of Grace as the Sun is full of light without any eclipse and as full of Grace as the Sea is full of water without any ebb as it is acknowledged by almost all Divines how can it be true which Mr. Norton affirms that he was in the spiritual death of his soul when he said My God my God why hast thou forsaken me For where there is any true Grace there the soul is spiritually made alive and therefore true Grace is called the Grace of life 1 Pet. 3. 7. where the Spirit of God abides there the soul is in life and therefore the Spirit of God is called the Spirit of Life Rom. 8. 2. and therefore Christ could not be in the spiritual death of his soul because he always had the Spirit of Grace in him above measure Abominable then to God must that doctrine needs be which Mr. Norton hath published that makes Christs soul to be under the power of a spiritual death Some learned Divines do say That none can die the second spiritual death in soul before they die the first death in sin therefore Mr. Nortons Tenent must needs be a Paradox in Divinity that makes Christs soul to be spiritually dead under the pain of loss and sense for by that Doctrine he doth also necessarily make him to be devoid of all Grace and so consequently to be spiritually dead in sin which is horrible blasphemy 2 His Tenent in making Christs soul to be without the comfort of a promise at the very instant when he made his soul a sacrifice doth make Christ to be a blemished Priest and so consequently it makes his death and sacrifice to be an abomination to God for a Priest that is a mourner in soul is a blemished Priest therefore a Priest must not be a mourner in soul at the time of offering any sacrifice Lev. 10. 19. 21. 12. for the time of offering sacrifice is a time of procuring Gods Reconciliation and Gods Reconciliation procured is a matter of rejoycing Num. 12. 14. Lev. 10. 19 20. Deut. 16. 11 15. Neh. 8. 9. doubtless therefore all Christs soul-sorrows and sadness in the consideration of Satans ill usage was fully over as soon as he had done his prayers in the Garden and yet I grant also that when he hung upon the Cross he was under most grievous tortures and pains to his sences but yet I say also that those pains born with perfect patience did not hinder the sweet sense of his inward joy that had both conquered Satan and made reconciliation with God and that now had recovered the Elect and so had divided the spoil with the strong adversary Satan which act of dividing the spoil is always done with joy 1 Sam. 30. 26. Heb. 12. 2. Isa 9. 3. Judg. 5. 35. Isa 53. 12. I will divide saith God and he shall divide the spoyl with the strong 7 Take Mr. Nortons words into consideration in p. 89. Christ saith he knew that God was his Mat. 27. 46. fully understood the glory of the blessed and that his soul presently upon his dissolution should be in Paradice Luk. 23. 43. Doth not Mr. Norton in these words prove that Christ was not totally deprived of the sense of the good of the promises For now in his greatest torments on the Cross he saith he promised paradise to himself as well as to the penitent theef and thus at last Mr. Norton hath confuted his own Assertion SECT 4. Secondly I come now to shew that God did not forsake Christ on the Cross in the formality of his death Reply 15. I Grant that God by his declared permission to Satan in Gen. 3. 15. did allow him so much power as to pierce Christ in the foot-soals namely to crucifie him as a sinful malefactor with the soars of death just like to other malefactors that were formally killed thereby But yet for all this I say also that God did not give the Devil so much power as to put Christ to death formally because he had ordained Christ to have a Priestly power in the formality of his death by his unchangeable oath to the end that he might make his death a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to Covenant But in case he had been put to death formally by the power of Satan and his Instruments then his death could not have been a sacrifice unless he will say that God ordained the Devil to be a Priest it could have been no more but a death of Martyrdom But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. The Scripture mentioneth no other death then what is inflicted justly for sin Reply 16. In this speech M. Norton doth much wrong the sense of the blessed Scriptures for in Job 10. 17 18. Christ saith This commandement have I received of my Father to let none take away my life from me formally but to lay it down or as Tendal translates it to put it from me of my self Hence it is evident that the blessed Scripture doth make a plain difference between the formality of Christs death and the death of all other men as I shall more at large expounded this Scripture by and by 2 His death is called a sacrifice and none could make it to be a sacrifice but such a Priest as was called of God to be the Priest and no other act could make it to be a sacrifice but such an act of such a Priest as did formally take away the life of the sacrifice Therefore he must be the onely Priest in the formality of his own death Heb. 9. 26 28. 10. 12. and no other mans death is called a sacrifice formally but his 3 All other men die by co-action because they are sinners in Adam but Christ was no sinner
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 fear of death When the pains of death have astonished sanctified reason in Martyrs then no man can express what conflict there is between nature and death which conflict was not in Christ whiles they have had the use of their sanctified reason yet afterwards as soon as their torments have astonished nature and by that means deprived them of the use of their sanctified reason then the same soul that was so fearless at first doth begin to shew the terrors of nature at the dominion of death and then no man can express what conflicts of fear and horror there is in nature against death but the manner of Christs death was far otherwise for at the utmost point of death Christs humane nature did not conflict with fear and horror as all Martyrs do But hee expressed his natural fear and horror of death beforehand in the Garden as it were in private to three of his Disciples that they might record it as a proof of his true humane nature for he did manifest it First By his speeches before he prayed And secondly in the time of his prayers but not after his prayers there was no mention of any more fear for by his prayers he had obtained a confirmation of his nature against the fear of his ignominious usage and against the fear of death I say it once more that it may be the better marked that after his prayers hee never shewed any fear of death more yea when he was at the very point of death upon the Cross hee did not express any natural strugling or striving with the pangs of death for there was no pangs in his death because the formality of it was supernatural and therefore his nature was not now subject to strive with the pangs of death as nature doth in all Martyrs the formality of his death did far surpass the death of all Martyrs because he had obtained a deliverance and a confirmation from his natural fear of death by his strong crying prayers and tears in the Garden Heb. 5. 7. So that when hee came to breath out his soul in the open view of all men both of his persecutors and of his godly friends he did without Heb. 5. 7. any trembling or strugling of nature instantly and quietly breath out his soul by his own Priestly power even whiles hee was in strength of nature and this I hope is contrary to the course of nature in the death of all Martyrs And by this last act of Christ in his death he declared himself to be our Mediator in his death and to be our High-priest in his death and sacrifice Lord saith Cyprian thou didst profess thy self before thine Cyprian de Past Christi Apostles to be sorrowful unto death and for exceeding grief didst powre forth a bloody sweat But saith hee I admire thee O Lord that being once fastened to the Cross amidst the condemned to be now neither sorrowful nor fearful but despising the punishments with thy hands lifted up to triumph over Amaleck Here you see that Cyprians judgement was That Christ was neither sorrowful nor fearful for his death when he hung upon the Cross as hee was in the Garden and therefore hee held that Christ had overcome this fear and horror of death by his prayers in the Garden And secondly That in the Garden hee did powre forth a bloody sweat for fear of his bodily death Thirdly Hee held that Christ triumphed over Amaleck that is to say over Satan by his unconquerable patience on the Cross Conclusion from the Premises Hence it follows that the two reasons of the Dialogue afore cited stand stronger and firmer than they did notwithstanding Mr. Norton hath endeavoured to shake them to nothing by his windy reasoning But in Page 58. Mr. Norton doth vindicate Calvin from the Dialogue sense to his sense Reply 9. What the Dialogue cited out of Mr. Calvin touching Christs troubled fear of death where his words run without any mention of Hell-torments was at the first useful to me and I thought that the same speeches might bee of the like good use to others especially seeing the Dialogue doth annex unto the former speeches of Calvin his expressions of Christs troubled soul-sorrows for the death of Lazarus by his weeping and groaning in spirit and troubling himself Joh. 11. 33 35. In which soul-troubles so pathetically manifested no man can imagine that he suffered any thing in soul from Gods immediate wrath or from Hell-torments and therefore why should we not likewise expound his other soul-sorrows to be in relation to his ignominious and painful death But seeing Mr. Norton is not willing to accept his words as I cited them to the sense of the Dialogue let him take Mr. Calvin on his side the truth of the Dialogue I hope may stand well enough without him and in case hee shall except against any other that I have cited for illustration I shall not much pass as long as I cite the Scripture sense according to the Context But for all this it seems that Mr. Norton is not very well pleased with Mr. Calvins judgement for in page 61. Mr. Norton doth cite him on purpose to confute him Mr. Calvin saith hee doth affirm that Christ suffered in his soul the terrible torment of the damned and forsaken men But saith Mr. Norton because the sufferings of the damned differ in some things from the sufferings of Christ latter Writers chuse rather to say That he suffered the punishment of the Elect who deserved to be damned then that he suffered the punishment of the damned Reply 10. This distinction may please such as had rather take mans word without the Scripture sense than take the pains to dig out the true Scripture sense But I wonder what difference there is betwixt this speech of Calvin