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 he did ordain nature but it was inflicted as a punishment for Original sin and then he also ordained 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 unmindfulness to Christ in the very time when he did 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 aâ— 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 Christs 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 bave any Faith p. 76 Payment in kind leaves no room for God to exercise his free pardon p. 77 and see P. Martyr in Rom. p. 382. ult 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 â—4 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 torments 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 he did not undergo his sufferings from Gods vindicative justice by imputing the guilt 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 fâ—uit then his nature as it was â—he feuntain 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 he must have suffered the vindicative curse of death in sin which is blasphemy in the highest degree to affirm Therefore none but Adam as he was the head of mans nature by natural 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 he 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 he be said to be our lâ—gal 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 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 hold that Christ suffered the essential Torments of Hell in this world seeing Mr. Norton doth acknowledge that the very Devils are not in full 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 he 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
Bishops that held justification by works doth give the cleer sense of Lev. 18. 5. Dr. Barnes is joyned with Tinda's works p. 218. 240. Rule 293 294. and of Rom. 2. 13. and of Rom. 3. 31. according to the sense of the former his words I omit because they are long 7 Mr. Wilson in his Theological Rules for the right understanding of the Scripture cites this Rule from Luther Precepts saith Luther presuppose faith as where it is written Keep the Commandements that is by Christ or by faith in Christ also Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. that is in Christ or by faith in Christ also Do this and thou shalt live that is do it in Christ and so of the rest of this kind 8 Mr. Trap doth thus expound Lev. 18. 5. As the creature lives by his food so the spiritual life is maintained by an Evangelical keeping of Gods Commandements 9 The true sense of Lev. 18. 5. compared with the Context is this Do this and live is a general command and requires obedience to all the three sorts of Laws in Moses namely to the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws as well as to the Moral Law as the Context doth cleerly evidence by naming all the three sorts of Laws in these three termes Judgements Ordinances and Statutes wherein they were commanded to walk namely in sanctified obedience and then the promise is added Which if a man dâ— he shall live in them Lev. 18. 4 5 26 30. The like Command and Promise is given for their obedience to the judicial Laws Deut. 17. 10 11 19 Deut. 21. 9. and to all their Laws in general Deut. 5. 1 10 31 32. Deut. 6. 1. Deut. 7. 11 12. Deut. 12. 1. 28. Deut 30. 16. Luke 10. 28. And this Command in this form of words is often used to urge them to the observation of the Ceremonial Laws as Deu. 12. 14 32. Do the Feast of Weeks Exod. 34. 22. so it is in the Hebrew Do the Sabbath day Deut. 5. 15. Exod. 31. 16. compared with vers 13 14. Do the Passeover Deut. 16. 1. Mat. 26. 18. Do the Feast of Boothes Deut. 16. 13. Do Sacrifice Exod. 10. 25. 1 King 12. 27. Jer. 33. 18. Do thy Sin That is Do thy Sin-offerings Lev. 9. 7 22. Lev. 16. 9. Exod. 29. 36 39 41 42. But because the carnal Jews looked no further in the doing of all this but to an outward conformity their services were rejected whence it is evident that the Lord commanded the doing of all these things in the obedience of faith and so the Lord did expound his mind and meaning to Cain If thou do well shalt thou not be accepted intimating that well-doing did not consist in an outward form only nor only in the excellent quality of his offerings which he presented but in the qualification of his heart in the manner of his offering Heb. 11. 4. and because he wanted faith with his offering the Apostle concludes that his works were evill because his good sacrifices were done in an evill manner for lack of faith So that Gods Command Do this and live implies do it in faith and live as Christ saith in Matth. 7. 21. he that doth the will of my Father namely that doth it in faith and then the Promise is annexed This is the will of my Father that he which beleeveth in the Son should have life everlasting Joh. 6. 40. and sâ—â—d the Jews to him in vers 28. What shall we do that we may work the works of God Jesus answered This is the work of God that ye beleeve on him whom he hath sent vers 29. The like Question and Answer is in Act. 16. 30 31. and therefore beleeving is commanded in the Law as the chief work 1 Joh. 3. 23. Act. 17. 30. 1 Thes 1. 3. unto which we must give obedience Rom. 1. 5. and there are no good works that can proceed from any that will be accepted of God for good works but from those that are created in Christ Jesus unto good works Eph. 2. 10. Thus far I have made it evident that Lev. 18. 5. is to be undetstood of such a doing of the Law as belongs to the Covenant of grace and therefore it is no proof that the moral Law of nature was the condition of the first Covenant But saith Mr. Norton in his fifth Proposition in page 3. Adams obedience to the moral Law was by Gods free Covenant ordained to merit life by 2 Reply If Mr. Norton had proved as well as affirmed that God Adams obedience to the moral Law of nature was con-natural tohim and therfore it was not ordained to merit life by had ordained the moral Law by his free Covenant to merit life by then he had hit the nail upon the head but his proofs hitherto have failed and I beleeve it is past his skill to give any cleer proof of it True it is saith Mr. Ball page 133. that the promises run upon this condition If ye obey my Voyce and do my Commandements But saith he Conditions are of two sorts Antecedent or Consequent Antecedent when the condition is the cause of the thing promised or given as in all civill Contracts of justice where one thing is given for another The like may be said of the first Covenant made with Adam God by way of free Covenant did condition to confirm him in his created perfections for one act of obedience namely in case he had but first eaten of the Tree of life As I have shewed more at large in Sect. 1. 2 There is a Consequent condition when the condition is annexed to the promise as a qualification in the subject or an adjunct that must attend the thing promised And in this latter sense obedience to the Commandements was a condition to the promise not the cause why the thing promised was vouchsafed but a qualification in the subject capable or a consequent of such great mercy conferred Secondly I do further reply thus That the doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant of works as Mr. Norton affirms 1 Because it speaks only of the manner of obedience in the Covenant of grace 2 It is not the same with the moral Law of nature in respect of duties for the moral Law of nature is not a compleat rule for duties to us without some supply from the Gospel for the Law of nature doth not command us to worship God in Christ as the Decalogue doth the moral Law of nature doth not command us to beleeve to repent and to yeeld subjection to Christ as the Decalogue doth as Mr. Burges hath largely observed in Vindiciae legis neither doth the Law of nature forbid sins against the Gospel as unbeleef impenitency and contempt of grace as the Decalogue doth neither doth the Law of nature command us to sanctifie every seventh day as the Decalogue doth All these things are added by the Covenant
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. â—7 â—3 words translated by Carlisle 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 Marbecks 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 than what Christs suffered in this world The opinions are very neer a kin though in other matters I esteem Mr. 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 word 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. Joh. 10. 11 15 17. and 15. 13. and at the last he saith thus these words Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell teach us Christs Resurrection as if he should say Thou wilt not leave me to the power of Death or Grave to be consumed Mark this close of Mr. Ainsworths hee interprets Hell to bee Deaâ—h 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 as Bucer did at fourthly above Thou wilt not leave my vital soul to Death and by a consequent saith Bro. nor my body in the Grave nor my soul among souls till my body see corruption And in his explication of the Article of Descent into Hell page 16. he saith thus Peter and Paul both citing this 16. Psalm do cite it to no further death then that which all must feel 3 Mr. Carlisle saith thus on Psal 16. 10. Thou wilt not leave Nephes my body in the Grave for indeed the vital soul is a part of In his book against Christs local Descent p. 32. the body and thus speaks our larger Annotations on Psal 16. 10. I confesse it is to my admiration that Mr. Norton should commend that exposition of the word Soul for Christs immortal soul properly and yet by Sheol and Haides doth understand no The soul in the N. T. is often put for the vital soul more but the Grave in page 110. And thus you see that Mr. Norton hath confounded his own Distinction The Hebrew Nephesh and the Greek Psuche
our Saviour if we be more willing as we should to take a sense from the Scripture than to bring one to it doth not the whole context saith he evince it And in p. 55. he cites Irenaeus to the same sense our Lord saith Irenaeus instead Ireâ—aeâ—s of Thou shalt not commit Adultery commands not so much as to lust Instead of Thou shalt not kill not so much as to be angry Instead of to tithe to distribute all we have to the poor c. all which saith he is not of one that dissolves the Law but fulfilleth and inlargeth it Secondly Mr. Burges saith Although it be true that Christ Vindiciae legis p. 177. may be said to fulfil the Law divers wayes yet I think he speaks here most principally for his Doctrinal fulfilling of it for he opposeth teaching the Law to breaking the Law And in p. 253. he saith thus Christ is said to fulfill the Law in respect of the Pharisees who by their corrupt glosses had evacuated it and in p. 273. lect 29. He opens Mat. 5. 17. 18. to his former sense Thirdly Tindal saith thus Here hast thou dear Reader an In his Prolog in Mat. 5. 17 18. Exposition of Matth. 5 6 and 7. Chapters wherein Christ our spiritual Isaak hath digged again the Wells of Abraham which the Scribes and Pharisees had stopped and filled up with the earth of their false Expositions he restoreth the key of knowledge And on vers 17. he saith thus I came not to destroy the Law but to repair it onely and to make it go upright where it halteth And presently after I do but onely wipe away the filth and rotten glosses wherewith the Scribes and Pharisees have smeared the Law And saith he in vers 21 22. Christ beginneth not to destroy the Law as the Pharisees had falsly accused him but to restore it again to the right understanding and to purge it from the glosses of the Pharisees And saith he in vers 48. This Text doth not say ye shall be as perfect as God but perfect after his example To be perfect saith he is to have pure Doctrine without false Opinions and that thy heart be to follow that learning Fourthly Dr. Barnes answers the Popish Justiciaries thus Barns in Tindal p. 229. Our Master Christ in Mat. 5. doth there reprove the false interpretation which they did set to the Law but he teacheth no new works nor is a giver of any new Law Fifthly Marlorat on Mat. 5. 17 18. saith The Law is destroyed or broken when it is made void and of none effect by false Expositions and traditions of men or else by a wicked life but here he understandeth the destroying of the Law after the first manner namely by false expositions and therefore it follows that Christ came to fulfill it by filling up the sense for the regulating of the inward as well as of the outward man Sixthly Mr. Blake on Mat. 5. 18. saith thus Christ indeed as In vindiciae Foederis p. 49. See also Dr. Hammonds Annot on Mat. 5. 17 18 in his Practical Cat. p. 104 105. in his 5. Edâ—tion soon as he publickly appeared in the work of Redemption was charged that he came to destroy the Law but this he did utterly disavow professing that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and saith he presently after Christ asserts a necessity of a higher degree of obedience than the Scribes and Pharisees taught or practised saying Except your righteousness exceed c. which must be understood of righteousness inherent in conformity to the Law as it appears by the precedent words and is more fully confirmed in the words that follow and upon this occasion Christ openeth the Commandements of the Law and how far we must transcend them if ever we come to the Kingdom of Heaven And to this purpose doth Mr. Ball expound Mat. 5. 18. on the Covenant p. 111. Seventhly I will now conclude with Mr. Calvin Although saith Calvin Christ might worthily have boasted that he came to fulfill the Law with the perfection of his life yet here notwithstanding he treateth of Doctrine and not of his Life You see that Calvin doth deny that Christ spake of fulfilling Calvin on Mat. â— 17 18. the Law in Matth. 5. 18. in Mr. Nortons sense he treates here saith Calvin of Doctrine and not of his life much less of suffering the essential punishment of the curse as Mr. Norton would have this Text to speak for the proof of his Assumption I may justly retort his own words against himself in p. 145. Let not the Reader be moved with the multitude of Scriptures which he hath mis alledged against the Dialogue but know the erring and private interpretation of them to be but a very fallacy of putting that for a cause which is not a cause namely that which is not a divine Testimony for a divine Testimony The letter of the Scripture alleged not according to its sense is not Scripture No Hereticks or Hetrodox as such ever cited the word of God His second Argument is this in pag. 11. Either Christ suffered the wrath of God i. e. the punishment due to the sins of the Elect or else God is untrue in that commination He that sins shall die because the Elect themselves do not suffer it But God is true 1 Sam 15. 29. Tit. 1. 2. Reply This Argument is just like the former they are both founded on the same supposition namely that the essential curse of hell torments threatned in the first Covenant must either be executed on the Elect or on their Surety in their stead As for his proof of his Proposition The soul that sinneth shall die Ezek. 18. 20. This Text I have examined and brought it from the Context to speak to another sense in chap. 6. at Reply 9. 2 As for that in Gen. 2. 17. I have denied it in his sense in the former Argument But it had been more true if he had framed his Argument thus Either the Elect suffered the spiritual death in sin threatned on all mankind in Gen. 2. 17. or else God is not true as I have opened the sense of Gen. 2. 17. in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. But God is true c. His third Argument is this in pag. 11. He that was the Surety of the Elect was bound to pay their debt and consequently to satisfie the Law for them But Christ was the Surety of the Elect Heb. 7. 22. Reply I deny the major for I have shewed in Chap. 2. that if it were indeed true that Christ was a Surety in the same obligation with Adam to pay his debt of obedience and to suffer the curse of his disobedience according to the conditions of the first Covenant Then 1. Christ must go to the land of Eden to eat of the tree of Life that so he may truly perform that act of obedience for Adam And 2. He must be dead in
his obedient death on the Crosse The Apostle doth tell us that we have Remission of sins by vertue of Christs satisfaction namely by his bloody death and sacrifice Heb. 9. 15 26 28. Heb. 10. 10 14. without any mention of his suffering of the essential torments of Hell in all the Scripture though the blessed Scriptures are often perverted by Mr. Norton to that sense The rest that follows is built but upon this sandy foundation and therefore it will fall of it self His eight Argument examined which is this If justifying faith establish the Law then Christ the object of faith hath established that is fulfilled the Law for otherwise the Law cannot be established by faith But justifying faith hath established the Law Rom. 3. 31. Therefore Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law Reply 1. If by this conclusion Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law he means no more but this namely that Christ fulfilled the Law in the Preceptive part of it then hee proves no more than the Dialogue and all good Christians do grant But if he mean that Christ fulfilled the vindicative part of the Law by suffering the punishment of the eternal Curse which doubtlesse is the great thing that he aims at then any ordinary Reader may easily see that his Argument doth not conclude so much This Argument therefore makes nothing to the point in hand except it be to fill up the number of Eight But yet I will examine the premises of his Syllogism 1 I except against the consequence of his first Proposition for though the Text doth expressely say That justifying faith doth establish the Law yet it doth not thence follow That Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled it in his sense 2 Else the Law cannot be established by faith this also is another Paradox for many Orthodox Divines do shew how the Rom. 3. 31. Law may be established in other respects Reply 2. I say that Mr. Nortons exposition of establishing the Law in Rom. 3. 31. is nothing neer the Apostles meaning What though Beza and Pareus go that way that Mr. Norton doth yet Dr. Willet whom Mr. Norton doth often much approve doth reject their exposition and that upon this ground because the Apostle speaks there of fulfilling the Law by the members of Christ and not by Christ the Head alone And Beza in his short notes doth expound it as Dr. Willet doth Wee sairh he make it firm and effectual But Calvin renders the text thus It is established and confirmed And so speaks Piscator in his Moral Observations on that text refuting the Antinomians Mr. Burges saith It is a Metaphor borrowed from corroborating In Vindiciae legis lect 21. p. 209. or strengthning a pillar that is ready to fall Peter Martyr accords with Calvin and Piscator namely that to establish is to confirm in opposition to abrogate or disanull And truly seeing the latter part of the verse doth run in opposition to the former it follows that to establish the Law must not be expounded to fulfill the Law as Mr. Norton doth carry it for saith hee Christ the object of faith hath fulfilled the Law But because four of Mr. Nortons eight Arguments are grounded on his exposition of this Text and also because he makes this Text to be one of his great proofs of Heresie against the Dialogue Therefore I will labour to shew the Reader what the Spirit of God speaks in it 1 I intreat the Judicious Reader to take notice That the Question betwixt us is not whether faith doth establish the Law or no for the Text it self doth affirm it But the point in difference is In what sense doth faith establish the Law Mr. Norton saith That Christ doth establish the Law by suffering the essential curse of Hell-torments But in that sense I deny it Neither will I tire out the Reader by relating the various apprehensions of the Learned but pitch upon such as I beleeve are foundest 1 Take notice that Peter Martyr on this place doth copiously shew how the Law is established several wayes and yet he hath not a word in any of his expositions that Christ suffered the essential curse of the Law he comes nothing neer to Mr. Nortons sense 2 Aretius shews how the Law is established three wayes by faith and yet he hath not a word of establishing it by Christs suffering of the essential curse 3 Mr. Wotton in his Answer to an Argument taken from this Text by Heningius shews that the Apostle speaks of establishing De Recons peccatoris part 2. l. â— c 5 n. 7. p. 120. c. the Law as it is a Rule of Justice which is in very deed the proper end of the Law and for this sense hee produceth the Testimony of Augustine Anselm and Primasius 4 Mr. Burges brings in three opinions of the Orthodox who In Vindiciae legis lect 21. ult in p. 120 121. shew how the Law is established by faith But he rejects Mr. Nortons way of establishing as Dr. Willet did and concludes with the judgement of Austine that the Law is established because by the Gospel we obtain grace in some measure to fulfill the Law and in this he agrees with Mr. Wotton and his second Doctrine upon this Text is this That the Doctrine of Christ and grace in the highest and fullest manner doth not overthrow but establish the Law 5 Mr. Blake saith thus Paul foreseeing that this very thing In vindiciae Faederis p. 50. would be charged upon him as it was upon Christ namely that he came to destroy the Law Mat. 5. 17 18. saith Do we make void the Law through faith yea we establish the Law Rom. 3. 31. our Doctrine is a confirmation and no abolition of it and in other words he proceeds to shew that faith doth establish the Law as it is the Rule of sanctified walking 6 Saith Mr. Ball The Apostle doth not perpetually and absolutely Ball on the Coven p. 115. oppose the Law and the Covenant of grace for he teacheth expresly that Faith establisheth the Law Rom. 3. 31. for saith he the Apostle understood the force and sentence of the Law to consist in Faith But because the Jews addicted to the letter of the Law did pretermit the force and life of it Paul proves that the Law so taken and separated from Faith to be the cause not of life but of death c. 7 Tindal saith Faith onely justifieth maketh righteous and In Tindals works fol. 41. fulfilleth the Law for it bringeth the Spirit through Christs deservings The Spirit bringeth lust looseth the heart maketh him free and giveth him strength to work the deeds of the Law with love even as the Law requireth then at last out of the same Faith springeth all good works of their own accord and that meaneth he in Rom. 3. 31. for after he had cast away the works of the Law his speech sounded as though he would
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 ¶ wonder why Mr. Norton saith That Physicians call it a Horripilation 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 terrified namely with the fear of death because of thâ—â— 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 Bagnah 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
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 smite 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. â— 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 I beleeeve 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 own Son but delivered him up for us all Hence Mr. Norton infers in page 122. That Christ was tormented without any forgiveness God saith he spared him nothing of the due debt Rom. 8. 32. Rom 8. 32. To this interpretation I Reply That Gods not sparing his Son but delivering him up for us all must not bee understood of Gods delivering him up to his own immediate wrath as Mr. Nortons sense doth carry it But of Gods delivering him up to his Combater Satan that so Satan might have his full liberty to do his worst unto him to provoke his patience and so to pervert him in his obedience by his ignominious and cruel usage that so he might spoyl his death from being a sacrifice if he could and that so hee might hinder him from breaking his first grand Head-plot In this sense God spared not his Son but gave him up for us all and in this sense God gave Satan liberty to use Pilate as his instrument to make Christ bear our sins in his body on the Tree 1 Pet. 2. 24. And therefore Christ said unto Pilate Thou couldest have no power
to us whereby we are truly both counted just and also are so indeed For Paul affirmeth that Justification doth consist herein that our sins are forgiven uâ— and that they are no more imputed to us And saith he in p. 410 The disputation is not about any Righteousness that cleaveth unto us but about Justification which is the forgiveness of sins But this Righteousness saith he hath no place or seat in our minds but in God onely by whose will onely our sins are forgiven us These speeches taken from him on the 10 and 11 chap. of the Romans must needs be his last and most refined expressions of the Formal cause and he doth also apply the imputation of Christs Righteousness to the meritorious cause as I apprehend by comparing his whole drift together or else he should cross his said definition of the Righteousness of God Reconciliation hath two parts namely Justification and Adoption or thus Gods gracious pardon is the whole of Reconciliation p. 233 in p. Hhat 3. and in p. 253 Sacrifices of Attonement and washings from legal uncleanness were ordained for their outward ceremonial Justification from their ceremonial sins under the first Covenant and so it was a lively type of our true justification in Gods sight under the New Covenant p 235 * Add this Note to p. 239. at 5. Dicaioma was used by the Seventy for the Jews outward justification in observing their judicial Laws as well as of their ceremonial Rites And so also this word Dicaioma is applyed to the Heathen Judicials in Rom. 1. 32. And saith Dr. Willet on that verse this word Dicaioma is not there meant of the moral Law as some Interpreters do expound it but of the judicial Laws of the Heathens and again it is sometimes applied as a proper word to denote either their judicial Laws or their religious though idolatrous Rites as in 1 Mac. 1. 14 51 and 2 Mac. 2. 21. The Jews after their Prophets ceased abused the use of their typical and ceremonial Justifications by the works of the first Covenant to claim thereby an eternal justification in Gods sight p. 245 The material cause of Justification disputed and explained p. 248 Reconciliation or Attonement described both in the meritorious and formal causes p. 251 252 255 137 191 * Add this Note to p. 252. Mr. Ainsworth in Lev. 8. 30. and in other places also doth agree with the Dialogue in making Attonement to be a term Synonima to justification in the formal cause of it and so doth Peter Martyr often as in Rom. p. 228. Herein saith he consisteth our justification to have our sins forgiven us and to bee reconciled to God And so Calvin speaks often as in Inst b. 3. c. 11. sect 11. They saith he be judged righteous that be reconciled to God the manner how is declared for that God justifieth by forgiving And saith he in c. 14. sect 17. to touch it by the way this righteousness standeth of reconciliation And saith Tindal in his Prologue to Rom. ult by justifying saith he understand no other thing then to be reconciled to God and to be restored into his favour and to have thy sins forgiven thee c. These and sundry others do accord with the Dialogue that Reconciliation which is the same with Attonement is the formal part of justification Price That only ought to be called the full price of mans Redemption that was constituted to be accepted of grace as the full and formal price by Gods voluntary positive Covenaxt p. 256 221 267 77. 202 * Add this Note to p. 259. at the word Caphar and also to p. 235. Gods Attonement procured is said to sanctifie the sinner because it did justifie him from the guilt of all his sins and so the word Sanctified must be understood in Act. 26. 18. of being made extrinsecally sanctified as it is in Heb. 10. 10 14. and so the word purified in Act. 15 9. must be understood of their being purified from the guilt of their sins or of their being made righteous by justification as Peter Martyr on the Rom. p. 392. and others do explain it for this Text is an answer to the question touching the necessity of Circumcision and of their other legal purifyings for the false Apostles esteemed the beleeving Gentiles to be unclean unless they did observe their legal purifyings Act. 10. 14. 15. 24 28. so likewise the word Cleansed in 1 Joh. 1. 7. and in Tit. 2. 14. is put for their being cleansed from the guilt of their sins by Gods Attonement or for their being justified and not for their inherent sanctity though it is also true that none are justified or made extrinsecally righteous and holy by Gods Attonement until they be first inherently sanctified Peter Martyr in Rom. 1. 6 7. on these words Called to be Saints saith If we will search out the strength of the signification of the word Sancti that is Saints or holy It cometh saith he as Austin teacheth of this word Sanctio to Constitute for that saith he is called Holy which is constant and firm and appointed to abide but nothing saith he doth more let us to abide for ever than doth sin therefore it cometh to pass that holiness consisteth chiefly in the forgiveness and remission of sins and this exposition in the same page he doth also apply to our being sanctified by justification in 1 Cor. 6. 11. but this kind of justifying holiness by Gods Attonement and forgiveness which makes a sinner to abide for ever righteous just and holy in Gods sight Mr. Norton doth damn for heresie And in p. 228. he calls this Attonement and forgiveness A pestilent fiction and abomination O blindness and blasphemy extream in the typical sense and use of the legal word Sanctified purged cleansed purified made righteous and justified was the Jews a holy Nation by inherent righteousness or rather was it not because of their constant practise to make themselves holy according to the first Covenant by their typical holiness CHAP. XV. THe outward manner of Christs death in being crucified on a Tree was first declared in Gen. 3. 15. by this phrase Thou shalt peirce him in the Foot-soals p. 263 Stoning to death and hanging up of the dead body on a Tree to be gazed on for a further infamy after his stoning to death was accounted to be the most accursed of all kinds of death because of the infamy that was contracted by hanging after he was stoned to death p. 268 * Add this Note to p. 268. When the Jews had killed the ten sons of Haman on the thirteenth day of Adar then Ester requested the King that their dead bodies might be hanged on a Gallows all the fourteenth day for their greater infamy reproach and curse in relation both to Hamans execrable plot and also to Gods ancient curse upon the Amalekites for they came of the stock of the Amalekites that God had eminently cursed Ester 9. 12 13 14. Exod. 17. 16. 1
end that God might impute his fulfilling of the first Covenant to us for our formal justification Such absurd consequences as these will often necessarily follow from Mr. Nortons Doctrine of Gods imputing Christs obedience to the first Covenant of works for our justification Eighthly Hence we may learn how to understand Rom. 5. 19. namely as by one mans disobedience to a meer positive Law the Rom. 5 19 Many as well as the reprobate were made sinners So by the obedience of one to a meer positive Law in his death and sacrifice shall the Many be made righteous Ninthly Hence iâ— follows That it is altogether untrue which Mr. Norton affirms in his first Proposition that Christ did covenant with his Father both to fulfill the Law of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that thereby the might exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction to Gods justice for mans justification Tenthly Suppose the first Covenant was made in relation to the moral Law which is not granted nor cannot be proved yet in that sense there is an answer ready in the words of Pareus That God did never require such a double fulfilling as Mr. Norton layes down in his first Proposition namely that Jesuâ— Christ did enter into a covenant with his Father both to do the Command in a way of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that so he might thereby exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction for our Righteousnesse It was never heard saith Pareus that the Law did oblige In his Epist to Whitgenstenius at the end of Vrsinus Catechisme p. 797. both to obedience and punishment at the same time but every Law obligeth dis-junctively and not copulatively either to obedience or to punishment for so long as obedience is performed the Law obligeth not to punishment that is it pronounceth no man guilty of punishment But when obedience is violated then the Law obligeth the sinner to punishment This is generally true saith he both of divine and humane Laws Therefore their Suppositions saith he which they do here assume are untrue and repugnant to Gods justice namely that man after his Fall and so the Mediator for man was obliged both to fulfill the Law and to suffer punishment When obedience indeed is violated the sinner is bound to make satisfaction by suffering punishment This being performed he is no more a sinner and he is tyed to obedience not to that for the violation of which he hath suffered punishment but to another new obedience or if again he violate this to a new punishment I have cited this of Pareus for the sake of such as hold the true nature of the first Covenant to consist in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law and so hold as Mr. Norton doth That no satisfaction can be made to Gods justice except Christ be our surety to fulfill the first Covenant by doing the Command in a way of works and by suffering the Essential punishment of the Curse in a way of Satisfaction But I have described the true nature of the first Covenant to lye in Adams obedience or disobedience to the positive Command only and shewed from the Orthodox that Christs obedience in his Incarnation and Death was not to the moral law but to a positive Law for satisfaction to Gods justice for our Redemption and Justification SECTION 2. The Examination of Lev. 18. 5. I Will now examine how Mr. Norton doth prove That the first Covenant was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of Nature and that is by Lev. 18. 5. and Gen. 2. 17. Reply First I will examine Lev. 18. 5. This do and thou shalt live whether it have his sense or no for he makes high account of this Scripture for his purpose because he doth often cite it as in page 14 140. 149 189 191 225. c. But I must needs say I cannot but wonder at his unadvised citing of this Text to prove the first Covenant of works to belong to the moral Law of nature seeing it is so clear a proof of the Covenant of Grace These words saith Mr. Ball Do this and live must not be interpreted Lev. 18. 5. See Bâ—ll on the Covenant p. 136. as if they did promise life upon a condition of perfect obedience and for works done in such exactnesse as is required But they must be expounded Evangelically describing the subject capable of life eternal not the cause why life and salvation is conferred And by doing is to be understood sincere uniform and unpartial obedience not exact fulfilling the Law in every tittle Do this and live saith he what is it more then this If ye will obey my voyce and do my Commandements ye shall be to me a peculiar treasure Exod. 19. 5. and to this purpose he citeth Psal 119. 1 2. Psal 106. 3. Psal 112. 1. James 1. 25. Rom. 2. 7. Luke 1. 6. All these places saith he are to be understood of sincere and upright walking to shew who are justified and to whom the promises of life do appertain but not why they are justified In like manner saith he that speech of the Apostle The Rom. 2. 13. Doers of the Law are justified Rom. 2. 13. may be expounded Evangelically not of them that fulfill the Law to be justified by their works but of them that soundly obey who are justified of grace by faith And hence it appears what works the Apostle opposeth to faith in the matter of justification not only perfect works done by the strength of nature of which sort there be none at all but works commanded in the Law as it was given to Israel such as Abraham and David walked in after they were effectually called These works cannot be causes together with faith in justification 2 It is evident that the Law was given to fallen man as a Covenant of grace And this Mr. Ball shews abundantly in page 102. 130 135 166 178. c. 3 Mr. Burges saith thus Paul describeth the righteousnesse In Vindiciae legis p. 233. Rom. 10. 5 6. of the Law in Rom. 10. 5 6. from these words Do this and live which are said to have reference to Lev. 18. 5. But saith he We find this in effect in Deut. 30. 16. yet from this very Chapter the Apostle describeth the Righteousnesse which is by faith and saith he Beza doth acknowledge that that which Moses speaks of the Law Paul doth apply it to the Gospel 4 Mr. Burges doth also abundantly shew that the Law was given as a Covenant of grace in page 229. c. and page 271. and there he doth most justly blame Beza and Perkins because they affirmed that we attain salvation by fulfilling the Law Do this and live 5 Mr. Baxter saith Do this and live is a Gospel condition In his Saints Rest p 9. 6 Dr. Barnes in his Answer to our Popish
eternity is prevented This reason which Mr. Norton hath here given makes Eternity essential to Hell-torments The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell-torments thâ—reby to make Eternâ—ty no more but a circumstance hath four inconveniences attending it This distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell-torments whereby hee labours to make Eternity to bee no more but a circumstance hath these four inconveniences attending it 1 It supposeth that Divine justice in the execution of the legal curse admits of a satisfaction contrary to Psal 49. 7 8 9. Job 36 18 19. 2 That Eternity of Hell-torments is not absolute without some Ifs or And 's but onely conditional in case the damned cannot give satisfaction sooner 3 To say that Eternity is not an essential part of Hell is to say that Hell may be Hell and yet not be Eternal 4 If this part of the curse viz. Eternity may bee taken away from Hell-torments then Mr. Norton may as well take away any other part from it It is safest therefore as I conceive to say and hold that eternity of punishment flowing from the Curse is from the voluntary cause or from the free constitution of Gods good pleasure as the due reward of sin Mr. Sam. Hieron saith That the extremity of Hell-terments are made known to us two wayes See Hierous works p. 294. 1 By the Universality of them in every part 2 In that they continue without intermission after they are once begun But Mr. Norton opposeth both these 1 Hee dispenseth with the Universality of the extremity of them in every part hee saith That Christ suffered the torments of Hell in his body but not in full extremity and therefore hee saith what he wanted in his body hee made it up in his soul-torments in page 121. 2 Hee dispenseth with the eternity of continuance and grants an intermission contrary to the Scripture that telleth us That the worm dyeth not and that the fire never goeth out The Torments of Hell saith Austin de Spiritu Anima lib. 3. c. 56. as I find him cited in Carlisle are perpetual terrible Terrors fear without faith pain without remission the Hang-man strangling the Hell-hounds scourging the worm gnawing the conscience accusing and the fire consuming or rather continuing without mercy end relaxation or ease See also at Reply 5. These and such like things propounded in the Dialogue Mr. Norton answers not but puffes them away with this breath They are circumstantial and not of the essence of Punishment SECT 3. The Essential Punishment of the Curse saith he in page 7. is the total temporal privation of all the sense of the good of the promise called by some The pain of Losse Reply 3. IN this point of the pain of Losse Mr. Norton is like to lose himself for hee delivers himself variously and contrariously as may bee seen by comparing his expression in this place with his various expressions in other places In page 31. line 5. Hee calls it the privation of the present fruition of the good of the promise Here the word sense is left Mr. Norton affirms that Christ suffered the pains of losse in respect of the fruition of the good of the promise but otherwhiles he saith it was in respect of the sense of the good of the promise by which wide differing expressions he leaves the Reader in the dark to grope out his meaning See Dr. Ames in Psal 22. cited also in Sect 4. out In page 68. Hee saith That Christ had a taste of consolation at present in the Garden But saith he his desertion was total in respect of Sense upon the Crosse In page 111. he saith That the pain of Losse is the not enjoying of ought of the good of the promises and in page 112. he calls it The privation of the good of the promises In both these places the word sense is left out Now seeing Mr. Norton delivers himself thus variously it may justly stumble any judicious Reader how to understand him whether hee bee to bee understood as leaving out the word sense or taking it in for that word left out or taken in doth much alter the sense In page 118. Hee tells us in the Margin of Separatio quo ad substantiam in respect of substance quo ad sensum in respect of sense and feeling Dr. Ames in Psal 22. saith Wee are not to understand that the desertion of Christ was real but only in respect of sense and feeling and so must the privation of the good of the promise bee understood either that Mr. Norton doth mean it is real or in respect of sense and feeling only The former is a total privation the latter is only partial The former is judgement without mercy Jam. 2. 13. The latter remembers mercy in judgement though it may not be discerned at the present Now if Mr. Nortons meaning bee that Christ suffered such a privation of the good of the promise as is real namely as it is contra-distinguished from privation in sense and feeling then the word sense might well have been left out because it being put in doth cast a mist before the eyes of the Reader But if he mean no more but such a privation of the good of the promise as consists only in sense and feeling and as it is distinguished from the said real privation thâ—n it is very improperly called a total privation and then the pain of losse doth contain much more in it than this for a godly man may meet with as much as this in his life time as Spira did if wee suppose him to be godly This Essential punishment saith hee in page 8 was that and only that which Christ suffered Reply 4. I cannot but wonder at his various delivery of himself For in his 5 Dist page 10. He saith That Christ suffered the pains of Hell due to the Elect who for their sins deserved to bee damned And in page 22. He makes it one branch of the death threatned Gen 2. 17. in Gen. 2. 17. to bee separated from the sense of the good 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 this 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 penally yet partially and temporally not totally 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 ouâ— 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 hee 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 separated from al 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. Joh. 16. 32. 16. 32. I am not alone the Father is with me Now if the Father 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 favour 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 hell in this life without Gods extraordinaray dispensation page 120. The dispensation of God saith he is either extraordinary or ordinary According to the ordinary dispensation of God saith he the pains of Hell cannot be suffered in this life but according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not only could but did suffer the pains of Hell in this life Reply 5. Ere while he said that the pain of losse was onely the losse of the sense of the favour of God for a time if his sufferings were no more then so then it is evident that God in the course of his ordinary dispensation doth suffer many of his children in this life to bee wholly bereft of the sense of his favour for a time Therefore in this case what need is there that Mr. Norton should flye to Gods extraordinary dispensation except hee think that the pain of sense over and above the pain of losse could not bee suffered without an extraordinary dispensation According to Gods ordinary dispensation hee grants that Christ could not suffer Hell-torments in this life But saith he
that manner of Gods imputing our sins to Christ surely Rom. 4. can have no respect of agreement to the Argument in hand Therefore it is only cited to prove that the word impute is used in Scripture as if any one that reads the Scripture were ignorant of it but if any please to see the sense of the word Impute in Rom. 4. let them read Mr. Wotton de Reconc peccatoris part 2. l. 1 c. 15. Rom. 4. But saith Mr. Norton in page 25. It is certain that Christ was couched and comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant It is very probable saith he That the Tree of Life was a figure of Christ And saith he If Christ be be not within the compasse of the Text the Text is not true And saith he Elect sinners not dying in their own persons must dye in their Surety or else the Text should not be a truth Reply 5. It hath been sufficiently shewed I think that Christ was not Adams Surety in the first Covenant 2 Neither was Christ revealed to Adam as Mediator as yet Had Mr. Norton but consulted with Mr. Shepherd in his 178. and 133. Thesis on the Sabbath he might have been better advised than to say as he doth that Christ was comprehended in some part of the revealed will of God during the first Covenant and that the Tree of Life was a typical figure of Christ if he can find no better Arguments to prove that Christ was our Surety in the first obligation with Adam he must be contented In vindiciae legis lect 14. p 133. 135 136 with his liberty to be fond of his conceited notion 3 Mr. Burges also doth dispute against this Tenent of Mr. Nortons and against such as hold a necessity of Christ to Adam in the time of his innocency 4 Mr. Ball doth oppose it in his Book on the Covenant page 9. 11. 13. 5 Mr. Blake on the Covenant saith thus in page 14. The first Covenant was immediate no Mediator intervening All the blessing of the first Covenant saith he flowed from the Trinity as the creation it self did without respect to Christ incarnate there was no Revelation of that high mystery to man in innocency 6 Mr. Burges saith That all those that hold a necessity of Christ to Adam and Angels must also necessarily maintain that In vindiciae legis 135. though Adam had not fallen Christ would have been Incarnated And this was the opinion of Osiander That Christ had been Incarnate though Adam had not sinned And truly Osiander might as well maintain his opinion as Mr. Norton may That Christ was in the same obligation with Adam as his Surety in the first Covenant he saith That Elect sinners must dye in their Surety or else the Text should not bee a truth had he but said or else I am mistaken and have not given the right sense of the Text then hee had spoken humbly and truly and then I had beleeved him Re. 6 Though hitherto I have denyed that Christ was our bounden Christ was our voluntary Surety but not our bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam Surety in the same obligation with Adam yet this I do also acknowledge that presently after Adams fall he was declared to be Adams voluntary Surety namely to be his free Redeemer For it pleased God to declare the Decree of the eternal Covenant that was agreed on between the Trinity for mans Redemption from Sathans Head-plot in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God by way of Threatning told the Devil in the hearing Gen. 3. 15. of Adam and Eve That the seed of the deceived woman should over-match him at last and should break in peeces his crafty Head-plot and he gave the Devil leave to do his worst to hinder it and for that purpose hee proclamed an utter enmity between them and bid the Devill pierce him in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor on the Crosse to disturb his patience and so to pervert his obedience wherein the root of an acceptable sacrifice doth lye that so his death might not be a sacrifice 2 It is also manifest by the said Declaration that Christ had Covenanted from Eternity to take upon him the seed of the Woman and the sinlesse infirmities of our true humane nature and in that nature and with those infirmities to enter the lists with Sathan and to continue obedient through all his afflictions temptations and trials to the death even to the death of the Crosse Phil. 2. 8 9. 3 It is also manifest by the said Declaration That God the Father had Covenanted that in case Christ did continue obedient through all his sufferings temptations and trials that then his obedience through all his temptations and trials should bee accounted as the upshot of his Priestly Consecration which indeed must be compleatly finished before he might make his soul a sacrifice and it is out of controversie that his sufferings were ordained for the perfecting of his Priestly Consecration by Heb. 2. 10. 17. with Heb. 5. 9. and therefore as soon as ever hee Heb 2. 10. had finished all his sufferings that were written of him He said It is finished Joh. 19. 30. and then as a compleat Consecrated Joh. 19 30. Priest he made his Sacrifice saying Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit and so he bowed his head and gave up the Ghost This last act was properly and formally his Death and Sacrifice and it was properly and formally full satisfaction and this powring out his vital soul and rendring his immortal soul into the hands of God was the act of his Eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. Yea his Death Sacrifice must be done by the joynt concurrence of both his natuesr or else he had not been the Mediator of the New Covenant through death Heb. 9. 15 16. and then the Devils Head-plot had not been broken but because hee continued obedient through all his sufferings on the Crosse and at last made his Sacrifice by his own Priestly power even by the joynt concurrence of both his Natures he hath through that kind of death destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil Heb. 2. 14. and all this was declared unto Adam in Gen. 3. 15. and exemplified in the sacrifice of a Lamb the Law maketh men High-priests which have infirmities Heb. 7. 28. namely sinful infirmities But the word of the Oath to David which was since the Law maketh the Son who is consecrated for evermore namely made perfect by his obedience in all his sufferings and so hee had no sinful infirmity but continues a perfect High-priest for us for evermore But this kind of voluntary Surety doth differ as much from Mr. Nortons bounden Surety in the same Obligation with Adam as a free Redeemer doth differ from a bounden Surety I grant therefore that Christ was our Surety as he was our free Mediator and Redeemer but no otherwise and
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 130. 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 numerical 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 in fers 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 cpec 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 sufferings were from the voluntary 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 four 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. 1. 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 preâ—ail 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
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 joyes 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 accorded 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 founder 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 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 dye 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
sin that so he may suffer the curse of his disobedience for his sinful act in eating of the tree of Knowledge of good and evill If Mr. Norton will say that these things could not be done and suffered by Christ thence I infer that Christ then was not a Surety in the same obligation with Adam to pay his proper debt of obedience and to suffer his proper curse in kind Secondly I deny the minor namely that Christ was such a Surety that place cited to prove it in Heb. 7. 22. is miserably abused to his sense and yet he doth often cite it to prove his sense of the word Surety and he puts very great weight on the word Surety in his sense and therefore he doth repeat it above twenty or thirty times and his proof is still from Heb. 7. 22. as in pag. 85. 149 c. Therefore I will now examine the sense of the word Surety in Heb. 7. 22. and then it will appear to have a differing sense Heb. 7. 22. from Mr. Nortons sense The Text speaks thus By so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better Testament namely by so much as Gods oath is a more infallible assurance of the perpetual Priesthood of Christ above the temporary Priest-hood of Aaron and his Sons by so much is the Priesthood of Christ to intercede for us more certain than theirs For when the Covenant of the Priesthood was conferred and See Ains in Lev. 8. 36. confirmed unto the Tribe of Levi in Aaron and his Sons Lev. 8 which Covenant was life and peace Mal. 2. 5. called also Gods Covenant of peace Numb 25. 13. for God gave the office and maintenance to the Priests by Covenant Numb 18. 7 8. 1 Sam. 2. 27 35. they were made Priests without an oath because God would be at liberty to alter that Covenant also they were many Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death These Priests served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things offering gifts and sacrifices which could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscienceâ— for they were carnal Ordinances imposed on them till the time of Reformation that is until the coming of Christ who is now sprung out of the Tribe of Judah and was made a Priest of God with an oath and a Surety of a better Testamental-Covenant established upon better promises and because he continueth for ever he hath a Priesthood that passeth not from him to another Secondly Dr. Hammon doth thus paraphrase upon Heb. 7. 20. 21 22. God sware and will not repent which saith he is an argument of the immutability and weightiness of the matter and of the ternal continuance of this Priesthood of Christ and so of the preheminence of it beyond the Aaronical which was not established by God with an Oath and so much as a durable immutable and eternal Priesthood is better than a transitory mutable and final Priesthood such as the Levitical being fixt in mortal persons one succeeding the other and as was it self mortal not to last any longer than till the coming of Christ so much better was that Covenant wherein Christ was Sponsor and Surety for God that it should be made good to us on Gods part confirmed to us by Christ in the Gospel a better Covenant than that of the Law wherein Moses undertook for God to us This Scripture thus expounded is so far from confirming Mr. Nortons sense of the word Surety that it utterly over-turnes it For this Exposition makes Christ to be Gods Priest and Gods Surety to us but Mr. Norton makes this Surety to be our Surety to God in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant The Priests in the Law were ordained by God to make attonement for the people for their ceremonial sins by sprinkling the blood of their sacrifices on the Altar for their attonement but Christ was ordained by an oath first made to David Psa 110. That he would raise a Priest out of his loyns after the order of Melchisedech and that by his own blood he should make attonement to assure their conscience of the pardon of all their moral sins and so he should be Gods Surety of a better Testamental-Covenant as Mr. Ainsworth translates it for the greek signifies both a Covenant and a Testament It is called a Covenant saith Mr. Ball in respect of the manner of agreement and a Testament in respect of the manner of Ball on the Coven p. 196 confirming a Covenant in respect of God a Testament in respect of Christ who dyed as a Testator and confirmed by his death the testamentary promise made before of God for the obtaining of the eternal inheritance by the remission of sins Hence I conclude that this word Surety in Heb. 7. 22. cannot be understood of Gods making Christ to be our Surety in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant Secondly For his proof of the consequence of his Argument by Rom 3. 31. I refer the Reader to my Reply to his eighth Argument Thirdly He confirms his Argument by this Reason We are to know saith he that the Covenant of Grace it self obligeth us to fulfill the Covenant of Works in our Surety Thirdly I grant that the Covenant of Grace doth oblige â—â— to observe the moral Law as a Rule of our sanctified walking as I have shewed at large in my exposition of Lev. 18. 5. in cha 2. sect 2 But the Covenant of Grace doth not obligue us to fulfill the first Covenant of Works given to Adam for the Covenant was about things indifferent in their own nature and it was but temporary to last no longer than till the trial of Adams obedience or disobedience was made by one act as I have shewed in Chap. 2. 2 In case the first Covenant had been made in relation to the De Reconc pec p. 2. l. 1. c. 3. n. 4. c. 5. n. 7. moral Law of Nature yet in that sense Mr. Norton doth answer such an Argument as this gathered from Illyricus and Hemingius drawn from Rom. 3. 31. and I beleeve a judicious Reader will find more satisfaction in his reasoning than in Mr. Nortons But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 11. The word Better is not to be referred to either Covenant it self but to the manner of the despensation of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel Reply It is evident that the word Better is to be referred to the Covenant of Grace which is better than the outward legal ceremonial Covenant But it seems to me that Mr. Norton doth not understand the Apostles comparative Argument how Christ was made a Surety of a better Covenant but for the Readers information I will open my understanding of the word better Covenant First Consider that God made two Covenants with his people Israel at Mount Sinai First An outward typical Covenant Secondly an inward spiritual Covenant namely a Covenant of Works and
to do according to the will of his Father and that his Father willed he should obey the Law of Works and suffer the Essential punishment of the Curse for the exact fulfilling of the first Covenant as our Surety as his first Proposition speaks and hence he makes all Christs sufferings to be inflicted upon him from Gods vindicative Justice as from the supreme Law-giver and Judge because Christ was our Surety and so a sinner by Gods impuration and so he makes the Rule of Gods proceedings in justice against Christ to be legal according to the natural order of Courts of Justice against Delinquents and therefore he makes all Christs obedience both in his incarnation life and death to be all legal and to be all grounded on the moral Law But in Cap. 2. I have shewed not only sufficient Reasons but also the concurrence of eminent Orthodox Divines that I beleeve will sufficiently satisfie a judicious Reader that the whole order of Christs satisfaction is from the voluntary cause and from other conditions in the voluntary cause and that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsory power as I have here and there expressed in sundry parts of my Reply It is true saith a learned Divine That Christ merited as well as satisfied for us but saith he that by which he merited was not his never sinning or perfect obedience for that was due to the Law under which he was born but his free and voluntary giving up himself to death without any obligation to that duty lying upon him as man so to do according to that of Heb. 10. 7. and Phil. 2. 6. Being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto the death even the death of the Cross which obedience is there set as the foundation of his merit wherefore God hath highly exalted him But all this you see is quite another matter from his active obedience or fulfilling the Law as being so imputed to us But touching the difference of his mediatorial obedience from his humane legal obedience See more in chap. 3. I have also I think sufficiently shewed that nothing though never so excellent in it self can be called a price till it be made a price by a mutual covenant and contract and therefore when the blood death of Christ is called the price of our redemption even before the foundation of the world 1 Pet. 1. 19 20. it is a sure and certain proof to our conscience that it was formally made to be the ful price of our redemption by a mutual Covenant and Contract between the Trinity before ever the foundation of the world was laid 3 His Minor is also faulty as it is to be understood in his sense but let others of a differing judgement take this sentence of his in point of Justice in their sense and then such persons will not stumble at the minor But take it as Mr. Norton doth expound the Justice of the first Covenant in Gen. 2. 17. and then the minor must be denied and the Scriptures produced by him to prove it must be shewed to be corruptly cited And therefore for the better clearing of the truth I will search into the clear sense of those Scriptures First That of Rom. 3. 31. hath already been tried in the ballance of the Sanctuary and found too light in his sense in the eighth Argument of the former Chapter Secondly As for that in 1 Joh. 1. 9. If we confess our sins he is 1 Joh. 1. 9. just to forgive us our sins Reply 1. No man will deny that God is just in forgiving sins to such as do truly confess them because the Text in terminis doth affirm it But the great matter of the dispute is in what sense is God said to be just in forgiving sins to such as do confess them Mr. Norton saith That God is just in forgiving because he had the satisfaction from Christ by suffering the same Essential torments of Hell that were threatned to Adam in the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. But I have made a sufficient Reply to this in Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Reply 5. namely that full satisfaction in kind and free forgiveness cannot possibly stand together because they are contrary to each other But because the blessed Trinity in their voluntary Covenant did agree that such a performance by Christ should be accepted of God for the procuring of his Attonement or Reconciliation to such sinners the Holy Ghost for Christs satisfaction sake did undertake to unite to Christ by faith as the conditional promises in the New Covenant do testifie Therefore God cannot but shew himself to be just according to his said Covenant with Christ by forgiving the sins of such sinners and so cleansing them from all unrighteousness And thus God is just both according to his Covenant with Christ and also according to his new Covenant to beleeving sinners revealed to them from his Covenant with Christ And this was clearly typified in the Law by the practice of confession of sin and by laying their hand on the head of the sin-offerings for the procuring of their Attonements in Lev. 1. 4. and 4. 29. c. as I have rightly explained the matter in the Dialogue p. 32 33 35 36 and 155 and in this Reply also in Chap. 13. So then the ground of Gods Justice wherby he hath made himself a Debtor to forgive the sins of beleevers is his voluntary Covenant with Christ namely that upon his undertaking to perform the Combate with Satan without any disobedience to the Laws of the Combate and at last to make his soul a Sacrifice then he would be reconciled and forgive the sins of such sinners as did beleeve their Attonement thus procured through Christs death and sacrifice as I have formerly hinted it in my Reply to his fourth Proposition in Chap. 2. And this forgivenesse both as it relates to his Covenant with Christ and to his new Covenant with the Elect is called Gods Righteousnesse in Rom. 3. and in 2 Cor. 5. 21. for God must needs be as just and righteous when he performs his Covenant of Forgivenesse made first to Christ in reference to his satisfaction and so made also to all the members of his new Covenant As when he doth execute his vindicative threatnings upon the impenitent and therefore such poor humble sinners may by faith call upon God to make them partakers of his Righteousnesse namely of his gracious forgivenesse This Exposition How God is just hath a more firm foundation in this Text of 1 Joh. 1. 9. than Mr. Nortons Exposition hath The Examination of Rom. 3. 26. To declare at this time his Righteousnesse or his Justice That Rom. 3 26. hee might be just and the Justifier of him which beleeveth in Jesus This Text Mr. Norton doth put both in the Frontispiece and also in the conclusion of his book and he doth repeat it sundry other times also in his book as
that this speech in verse 4. He hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows doth intend so much but a judicious Reader may easily see that the scope of this Chapter is to set out the operations of the divine nature as well as of the humane and of several other things that belong both to the Person and Office of Christ and therefore the simple Reader may easily bee deceived by telling them thus That the Prophet in this Text by griefs and sorrows intends such sufferings by Christ as are due to us namely Hell-sorrows as is plain from the Chapter 2 He tells the Reader that this sense is plain by comparing of the fourth and fifth verses with 1 Pet. 2. 24. and thus hee doth winde in the fourth verse with the fifth verse whereas indeed the fifth verse only doth answer to 1 Pet. 2. 24. and so the Dialogue doth parallel it and explain and thus hee deceives both himself and the Reader by joyning both these verses together in one sense which in the Dialogue are handled asunder in a differing sense and the Dialogue gives this evident reason for it namely because the bearing away of our griefs in vers 4. is expounded by Matthew of his bearing away of our infirmities and diseases by the power of his God-head and to this very sense Matthew doth translate this verse of Isaiah saying That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the Prophet himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses and besides the Prophet himself doth confirm this sense in the last clause of this fourth verse saying Yet we did esteem him stricken smitten of God and afflicted The Dialogue doth open this clause thus Though the glory of his God-head did shine in our eyes by his miraculous bearing away of sicknesses and infirmities yet we esteemed him but as a grosse Impostor and therefore put him to death as a vild Malefactor and then we judged him that had done so many miraculous cures to be stricken smitten of God and afflicted for his own deserved faults And thus the Reader may see the true sense of this verse to bee cleered by the context as well as by Matthews translation But if his bearing our sorrows had meant that he bare our Hell-sorrows then the last clause must have run thus And wee did rightly judge that hee was plagued and smitten of Gods wrath with Hell-sorrows But Mr. Norton cuts off this last clause with these words The rest saith he is either impertinent or uncontroverted so that it seems hee makes his last clause to bee impertinent for it is not uncontroverted And now let the judicious Reader judge of his Answer by my Reply SECT II. But Mr. Norton goes on to prove That Christ bare our very sorrowâ— as a Porter bears a burden in page 35. From the collation of the two Hebrew words used in this fourth verse For saith he Though Nasa he hath born be of more general use and doth sometimes signifie to bear as a Porter bears a burden and sometimes otherwise Yet saith he Sabal hee hath carried signifies properly to bear as one bears a burden This restraineth the sense of the former word and limits it to the received interpretation Reply 2. BY this Exposition of Nasa with Sabal Mr. Norten shews himself to bee a greater Scholar than the Evangelist Matthew For saith he Sabal signifieth properly to bear as one bears a burden and therefore saith he this restraineth the sense of the former word Nasa to the received interpretation by this hee tells the Reader that Matthews interpretation is not the received interpretation but that Mr. Nortons interpretation is the received interpretation They may receive it that please The blind will eat many a flye but I hope the Lord will help me to receive Matthews interpretation before it But secondly If Sabal doth signifie properly to bear as one bears a burden and doth restrain Nasa to the same sense then it follows that either Christ took the infirmities from the sick and bare them upon his own body as a Porter bears a burden or else that Matthew gives a wrong interpretation of Sabal And thus Mr. Norton hath put himself into a Dilemma and therefore now hee must either blame his own interpretation to justifie Matthew or else he must still blame Matthews interpretation of Sabal to justifie his 3 I conceive that Mr. Norton had reasoned more like a Scholar if hee had said that though Sabal doth ordinarily signifie to carry as a Porter bears a burden yet sometimes when it is joyned with Nasa it may signifie lifting up or bearing away as Nasa doth usually I am no Linguist yet with a little help from others I do sometimes make use of Kirkeroes Hebrew-Greek See Ainsw in Num. 6. 26. Lexicon and there I see that Sabal is twice used with Nasa in Isa 46. 4. in a metaphorical sense for Gods merciful delivering his people from Babylon and a metaphorical sense may bee compared with the litteral in some respects but yet such comparisons must not alwayes run on four feet I find also that the Seventy do there render Sabal by two differing Greek words and neither of them do signifie to bear as a Porter bears a burden and I find they do use it also in other various senses I find also that Sebel of Sabal is rendred by our Translators the charge in taking care for the well-ordering of things in 1 King 11. 28. But suppose that Nasa and Sabal do signifie that Christ bare our griefs and sorrows as a Porter bears a burden as hee did in his affections of compassion for it is after said when they brought diseased persons to him That he had compassion on them and in this respect hee took our nature with our sin-less infirmities that so hee might bee touched and might thereby know how to pity us Heb. 2. 17 18. But this bearing will not serve Mr. Nortons turn it is an amazing kind of bearing which Mr. Norton makes all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be Hell-pains Mr. Norton mantains namely That all Christs bodily sufferings were born as Hell-pains For saith he in page 107. the penal wrath of God or Hell-pains were either outward viz. such as hee suffered in body or inward viz. such as be suffered in soul Reply 3. By this Tenent of his it necessarily follows that Christ bare all his outward sufferings as a Porter bears a burden from his birth to his death as Hell-pains It is just with God that he that keeps not close to the Context when hee doth expound the blessed Scriptures especially when the sense is already made by conference of one Scripture with another as Isaiah is by the Holy Ghost in Matthew which is a sure rule of true Exposition that God should leave them to wander after their own vain fantasies Sentences of Scripture saith Peter Martyr must not bee more largely understood than the place it self wherein they are written may bear
for otherwise saith he Wee may bee soon lead into error in his Com. pl. part 1. pag. 208. It is equally dangerous saith another Reverend Divine to add to the truth and to take from it yet saith hee men do more generally offend in adding to the truth being naturally inclined to foster those brats which their own fantasies have conceived and brought forth CHAP. XII SECT I. Isa 53. 5. Examined He was wounded for our transgressions bruised for our iniquities c. THese words saith the Dialogue do plainly prove that Christ did bear divers wounds bruises and stripes for our peace and healing But the Text doth not say That hee bare those wounds and bruises from Gods wrath Mr. Norton answers true But yet saith hee Christ was wounded not onely by Sathan and his instruments God is the universal Efficient Rep. 1. Aâ—â— that he speaks to this point namely That God is the universal efficient is to little purpose except it bee to blind the Reader to make him beleeve that the Dialogue doth make the Devil to be the universal efficient without Gods appointment but any one that pleaseth to peruse the Dialogue may see that it makes all Christs sufferings to bee from Gods appointment as the universal efficient for the Dialogue propounds this Question Who did wound him and bruise him and then it makes this answer It was Sathan by his Instruments according to Gods Prediction in Gen. 3. 15. for God said thus to Sathan Thou Sathan shalt pierce him thou Sathan shalt put the promised Seed to Death as a wicked Malefactor by thy Instruments the Scribes and Pharisees and the Roman Souldiers thou shalt peirce his hands and feet by nayling them to the Crosse according to the determinate Counsel of God and in this respect God may bee said to wound him Thus farre I have repeated the words of the Dialogue and now I leave the judicious Reader to judge whether Master Norton had any just cause to except against the Dialogue as if it did not make God to be the universal efficient in all Christs sufferings The like flourish he makes against the Dialogue in other Master Norton doth often wrong the sense of the Dialogue points thereby labouring to make the simple Reader beleeve That the Dialogue doth hold that which it doth abhor as in Psaâ— 103. 114. 130 c. See my Reply in Cha. 14. Repl. 4. so also in p. 40. after he had drawn a false inference from the sense of the Dialogue then he concludes with this scoff Sure you mistake your self in arguing out of this text from the word Nasa against concluding the Doctrin of imputation there-from because Nasa is not in the text Repl. 2. The Dialogue doth not say that Nasa is in that text of Es 53. 6. but the Dialogue doth frame its Argument from the translated tearm in Es 53. 6. thus If you will build the common Doctrin of imputation upon this translated phrase The Lord hath laid our iniquities upon Christ as many Interpreters do then by the same phrase you must affirm That the Father laid all our iniquities upon himself by imputing the guilt of our sins to himself for the Father is said to bear our sins in Psa 25. 18. and in Psa 32. 1. as well as Christ and Psal 25. 18. Psal 32. 1. Kirkeroes Hebrew Greek Concordance tells me that Nasa is in both those places and in many other places and Reason tells me that the tearm of laying any thing upon a mans self or upon another is to bear it and so the tearms He hath laid our iniquities upon him Es 53. 6. and He hath borne our iniquities in Psal 32. 1. Psal 25. 18. Exo. 34. 7. c. are tearms in English that are Synonima and therefore the Argument of the Dialogue is sound and good against such as maintain the Doctrin of imputation from the translated tearm in Es 53. 6. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all and I beleeve that any indifferent judicious Reader will judge it so to be The like unjust quarrel Mr. Norton makes against the Dialogue about the word Attonement for saith he in p. 260. The Dialogue throughout all its Discourse concerning attonement seemeth to understand pardon of sin by Attonement but here saith he it seemeth by Attonement to understand Reconciliation Rep. 3. What can Mr. Norton mean else by this speech but to make the Reader beleeve that I did not in all my Discourse concerning Attonement till now make reconciliation to bee meant by Attonement the vanity of this unjust quarrel the Reader may please to see by the words of the Dialogue in the beginning namely in p. 14. there I explain Attonement by Reconciliation in these words of the Apostle in 2 Cor. 5. 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself or saith the Dialogue by way of explanation making attonement between the World and himself and so in p. 32. I call the Judges Attonement a reconciliation but I passe over several other such like unjust exceptions because I will spend my time the more in the substance of the main Controversie SECT II. The Conclusion of the Dialogue Discourses is this That God did not wound Christ as an angry Judge for our sins but it was for the trial of his Mediatorial obedience and therefore he is said to learn obedience by the things that he suffered Heb. 5. 8. IT seems that Mr. Nortons great exception is at this conclusion for he answers thus Sathan and men were Instruments of such a stroke therefore it is no stroke of Divine vindicative Justice This saith he is no good Consequent Rep. 4. It seems that Mr. Norton by this answer holds that all Master Norton makes all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be Hell paines and every stroke of any Affliction that Christ suffered from the Devil and his Instruments was from the revenging Justice of God and therefore hence it follows that when the Devil stirred up Herod to seek the Childes life which also did occasion his Parents to carry him into Aegypt it was from Gods Vindicative wrath although to prevent it God in mercy warned Joseph to take the Child and to fly into Aegypt It seemeth by Mr. Nortons distribution of the Curse in Gen. 2. 17. that he holds this for a firm conclusion That all the outward afflictions of Christ were from Gods Vindicative wrath and therefore he calls them the outward penal Torments of Hell as I formerly noted in Chap. 11. But yet Mr. Norton in the same Page doth acknowledge That The true nature of all Christs greatest Sufferings was Chastisements therefore they cannot be called the Essential Torments of Hell from Gods vindicative wrath all the afflictions which God inflicteth upon the Elect from the same Curse are but Chastisements and not Vindicative punishments and so that affliction of their flight into Aegypt was but a Chastisement to Joseph and Mary but
it was a Vindicative punishment to Christ But I would fain know a little more of Mr. Nortons skill how he can call the Afflictions and Punishments which Christ suffered Hell Torments from Gods Vindicative wrath seeing the Holy Ghost doth comprehend them all under the word Chastisement in this very fifth Verse for the Prophet speaks here of all the greatest Sufferings of Christ which he indured in that long action of his Passion from his Apprehension to his Death I say all these sufferings hee comprehends under the word Chastisements but it seems that Mr. Norton hath an Art beyond the Holy Ghost to distinguish them from Chastisements and to rank them under Gods Vindicative Justice let the Reader judge if he do not undertake to be learned above the Holy Ghost in the sense of the word Chastisement The Learned observe that the Hebrew word Musar derived from Jasar doth properly signifie the correction of a Father towards his Son as all these places do testifie Prov. 3. 11 12. Prov. 19. 18. Deut. 8. 5. Psal 94. 12. Jer. 31. 18. and in Heb. 5. 6. Heb. 5. 6 the Apostle doth concur with the Prophet Isaiah That the true nature of all Christs Sufferings were but Chastisements for he saith thus Though he were the Son yet learned he obedience by the things he suffered his learning of obedience is the subjection of a Son to his Fathers chastisement and therefore it follows necessarily That seeing all his Sufferings were but Chastisements they were not inflâ—cted on him from Gods Vindicative wrath and I beleeve that this is a sound truth that will hold water if the Scripture hold Secondly It is further evident that the Sufferings of Christ are farre from being inflicted on him from Gods Vindicative wrath because all his sufferings and all the sufferings of the Saints are founded alike in Gods fatherly love and in that respect there is a reciprocal communion between Christ the Head and all his members in all their sufferings 1 The Elect do partake with Christ in all his sufferings I mean in respect of the kinde of them as these Scriptures do testifie Phil. 3. 10 11. 2 Tim. 2. 11. Col. 1. 24. 1 Pet. 4. 13. 1 Pet. 2. 21. Rom. 6. 2 Cor. 1. 5. Mar. 10. 39. Luk. 22. 28. and therefore hence it follows necessarily that if the sufferings of Christ were from Gods Vindicative wrath that then all the sufferings of the Elect must likewise be from Gods Vindicative wrath seeing they do communicate with Christ in the kinde of his sufferings Secondly These Scriptures do testifie that Christ the Head doth communicate with all his Members in all their sufferings Heb. 2. 18. Heb. 4. 15. Es 63. 1 2. And hence it doth necessarily follow that if all the Sufferings of the Members of Christ bee but Chastisements then the Sufferings of Christ must not be ranked in any other form of Justice but where Gods Chastisements are Thirdly It is evident that all the Sufferings of Christ are called but temptations of Trial Heb. 2. 18. Heb. 4. 15. and Christ himself at the upshot of his life doth call all his former Afflictions but such temptations of Trial wherein his Apostles had been sharers with him Luk. 22. 28. and therefore it doth hence follow that they were not inflicted on him from Gods Vindicative wrath unlesse M. Norton wil prove that the Apostles also did suffer Gods Vindicative wrath which in another place he seems to deny SECT III. But it may be some will here object That though Christs Sufferings were but Chastisements yet they were inflicted on him from Gods Wrath for even Gods Fatherly Chastisements are inflicted from his wrath 2 Sam. 24. 1. therefore if Christ did partake with his people but in their kinde of punishments his suffering must also be from Gods wrath Reply 5. IT doth not follow for Christ might truly partake Christs Sufferings may justly be called punishments such as the godly suffer and yet not from Godâ— wrath as theirs iâ— with them in their punishments in respect of sense and feeling and yet from a differing cause and for a differing end as for example The godly may suffer wounds in their body for sin inherent in a judicial way both from God and Superiours and Christ also may suffer such like wounds and yet not in a judicial way from sin imputed but as a voluntary Combater with Sathan and his Instruments for the winning of the Prize even for the Redemption of the Elect and all this without any wrath from the voluntary Covenanters and Masters of the Prize and in this sense only Christ did suffer wounds and bruises namely as a voluntary Combater for in Gen. 3. 15. God declared his Decree that he would put an utter enmity between Sathan and the Seed of the deceived Woman and that the Devil should have full liberty to wound Christ and to bruise him and to peirce him as a Malefactor in the foot-soals and to do what he could to disturbe his patience and so to hinder his death from being a Sacrifice but because Christ continued obedient to the death even to the ignominious and painful death of the Crosse and at last made his Soul a Sacrifice he overcame Principalities and Powers in it namely in the manner of his death on the Crosse so that the cause of Christs Wounds was not from Gods judicial imputation of our sin and guilt nor from Gods judicial wrath but from his undertaking to be a voluntary Combater with Sathan for the breaking of his Head-plot by his constant obedience even to the death of the Crosse for mans Râ—demption so that the sufferings of Christ do arise from a differing causâ— and are for a differing end from â—he sufferings of the Saâ—â—â—â— and so consequently not from Gods wrath as theirs is But I shall inlarge this point in the end of this Chapter and often elsewhere because it hath an undeniable foundation of truth in Gen. 3. 15. and all the Prophets do but comment upon that declared Decree of God SECT IV. But saith Mr. Norton pag. 38. The sufferings of Christ included in this text are not only such wherein Sathan and men were instruments But some of them saith he were immediately inflicted of God without any second means as instruments thereof Hence we read of a wounded spirit Prov. 18. 4. A wounded conscience 1 Cor. 8. 12. A broken and a bruised heart Luke 4. 18. The plague of the heart 1 King 8. 38. Reply 6. A judicious Reader may well smile at the unsuitableness of these proofs to his Proposition In his Proposition hee saith That some of Christs sufferings were inflicted None of Christs sufferings were inflicted on him from Gods immediate wrath immediately of God without any second means as instruments thereof But any judicious Reader may soon see that a wounded spirit a wounded conscience c. do come to bee so wounded by second means namely by the sight of sin and the
be fulfilled that say Thus it must be Matth. 26. 53 54. for the Scriptures say That I must be pierced as a Malefactor in the Foot-soals Gen. 3. 15. and so likewise in the hands Psal 22. 16. And that I must bee oppressed by a band of armed Souldiers Joh. 18. 3. 12. and brought as a Lamb to the slaughter Isa 53. 7. Isa 33 7. And when hee came to his Answer hee doth not so much as plead for himself either before the High Priest Mat. 26. 63. or afterwards before Pilate Mat. 27. 12 14. But as a sheep before her shearer is dumb so be opened not his mouth And because it was the appointed hour of the power of the Prince of darknesse to exercise his utmost force against him therefore hee did not like a faint-hearted Souldier withdraw himself from them into some unknown place but he purposely went into a known Garden where hee knew hee must bee apprehended by Sathans Arch-Instruments and be lead by them as a sheep to the slaughter Joh. 18. 1. And then because he knew all things and what should befal him he went forth Joh. 18. 4. namely to meet the Devils Instruments that came to apprehend him Joh. 18. 6. And as soon as hee had but said unto them I am Hee that must break the Devils Head-plot by my constant patience and obedience they all fell to the ground at his word speaking and here hee kept them for his Disciples sake untill they might have liberty to depart and if hee would hee might have departed as well as they but instead of departing he put forth another act of his divine power to raise them up again that so hee might bee active in delivering himself unto their power to bee apprehended and to bee bound as a Malefactor and so to be carried before the Elders of the people And thus hee was active to drink of the bitter Cup that his Father had given him for hee had said but a little before unto Peter Put up thy sword and protect me not against these furies of Sathan shall I not drink of the Cup that my Father hath given me namely by his appointment and by mine own agreement from eternity By these and such like passages it is evident that Christ was eminently voluntary and active in all his sufferings and combatings with Sathan as a good Shepherd that doth readily venture his life against the Lion and the Bear for the safety of his sheep he suffered nothing by constraint from his Fathers wrath through his judicial imputation of our sins being pressed under the sense of the wrath of God as Mr. Nortons terms are but God was pleased to let Sathan loose to oppresse him to wound and to bruise him and to put him to as much grief as hee could to disturb his patience and to pervert him in the course of his obedience when his soul should make it self an offering that so hee might prevent his sacrifice by which means only it was decreed that the Devils Head-plot must be broken Conclusion Hence it follows that seeing the Devil could not neither by his fraudulent temptations in the Wilderness nor yet by his temptations of force in the Garden and on the Crosse provoke him to any impatience or to any disobedience by his ignominious tortures when his soul should make an offering but that still hee continued constant in his obedience and at last did make his soul a sacrifice by his own Priestly power according to the Laws of the voluntary Covenant his death and sufferings must needs bee meritorious for the obtaining of Gods Reconciliation and mans Redemption from Sathans Head-plot CHAP. XIII The Examination of Isa 53. 6. The Lord hath laid upon him the Iniquities of us all THe Exposition given by the Dialogue of this translated term The Lord hath laid upon is sound and good Divinity and not confuted by Mr. Nortons Answer hee cannot hence mantain the point of imputing our sins to Christ which is the main thing controverted and which I have already replied unto in Ch. 7. But because I received some Animadversions from a Reverend Divine that gave another Translation than formerly I followed and from thence he also gave another differing Exposition from mine by means whereof I was put to a stand for a time though after serious seeking unto God by prayer conference reading and meditation upon the Context I came at last to a more cleer apprehension of the meaning of the words to my satisfaction for upon the said search I could not find that the Prophet in this Text did speak of Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ or that it spake any thing directly of Gods judicial inflicting our deserved penalties namely Hell torments upon Christ because no verse either before or after this verse did conclude any such thing and therefore upon serious consideration I durst not take this verse in that sense I confesse I am no Linguist yet I love sometimes to search into Kirkeroes Hebrew-Greek Lexicon to see in how many various senses the Seventy do render the Hebrew words and sometimes in more difficult cases I love to confer with such as are learned in the Tongues And by this means I find that the Hebrew word Pagah in this verse doth signifie to Meet and because it is in the conjugation Hiphil it doth signifie to Cause to meet so then the words must run thus The Lord caused him to meet namely the Father caused the Mediator to meet to consult the way of fallen mans Redemption from Sathans Head-plot and in that meeting all the Trinity were equal Counsellors and Covenanters but the Father is said to make or cause the meeting because he is first in order yet because there is but one will in the Trinity therefore in Jer. Jer. 30. 21. 30 21. the Father saith thus in commendation of Christ Who is this that hath ingaged his heart to approach unto me saith the Lord Now hence it may fitly bee demanded how Christ did ingage his heart the answer is that he did it by way of Contract or Covenant and therefore the Hebrew word Gnarab which wee translate ingaged doth properly signifie no more but a conjunction or joyning together but in this place it relates to the conjunction of the Father and the Son in a Covenant for mans Redemption and accordingly it is sometimes put for a conjunction of persons in a league or confederation as I have shewed at large in my Treatise of Holy Time But thus the whole verse in Jeremy may bee read and paraphrased His excellent one shall bee of himself and his Ruler shall go forth from the midst of him and I will cause him to draw neer namely as a Priest with an acceptable sacrifice for this Hebrew word is used in Lev. 1. 2. for offering an oblation or bringing neer a gift so then to bring neer or approach neer unto God is to offer unto him and to offer a sacrifice for sin is
to make Attonement See Ains in Lev. 6. 26. and therefore one of these is used for another as in 1 Chron. 16. 1. they brought neer burnt offerings for which in 2 Sam. 6. 17. is written David offered burnt offerings so in Numb 6. 14 16 17. The Nazarite shall bring neer his oblation and the Priest shall bring them neer that is both the Nazarite and his sacrifice And saith God of Christ I will cause him to draw neer and approach unto me for who is this that hath ingaged his heart or conjoyned himself with me in a Covenant to do my will for mans Redemption And in answer to this Covenant Christ saith In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure then said I Lo I come to do thy will O God thy Law is in my heart Psal 40. 8. Heb. 10. and saith Ainsworth in Psal 148. 14. Psal 40. 8. Christ draweth neer unto God for his people and there hee citeth this Text of Jer. 30. 21. and so also through Christs sacrifice wee have boldnesse to draw nigh to God Heb. 7 19. Heb. 10. 22. 2 As these words He caused him to meet may bee applied to the meeting of the Trinity for the constituting of the eternal Covenant so they may bee applied also in speech of the execution of the said eternal Covenant when Christ met his Father with his sacrifice of Attonement and then the words must go thus The Father made or constituted Him namely his Son to meet him as a Priestly Mediator with his appointed sacrifice of his vital soul to attone his wrath for the iniquities of us all that by nature had gone astray like lost sheep as it is expressed in the beginning of the verse And thus this meeting may bee understood both of the eternal Council and Covenant of the Trinity and also of the execution of it 3 The Learned say that the Hebrew word Pagah in the conjugation Hiphil comes no more but six times in the Old Testament namely in Isa 53. 6. Isa 53. 12. Isa 59. 16. Jer. 15. 11. Jer. 36. 25. Job 36. 32. Now the last five places are rendred both by Tremelius and by our English Translations for such a meeting as is by way of mediation intreaty or intercession Though properly the Hebrew word signifies no more but to make to meet or to appoint some persons to meet for several ends but yet in the said five places it is applied to a meeting by way of intercession As for example in Isa 53. 12. Hee made him to meet for Transgressors namely by way of intercession for Transgressors as our Translations do phrase it 2 In Isa 59. 16. Hee wondred that none was made to meet namely as an Intercessor the Geneva saith Hee wondred that none would offer himself the Seventy say Hee wondred that there was none to deliver But the first sense is most full with the Hebrew 3 In Jer. 15. 11. I will make or cause the enemy to meet thee in the time of thy affliction or I will cause him to intreat thee well The Seventy say to assist thee 4 In Jeremy 36. 25. The three men there named had made to meet namely they had made an agreement as Jobs three friends did Job 2. 11. to meet the King as Intercessors that hee would not burn the rowl The Geneva say They besought him But the Seventy say They opposed or resisted him namely by their intercession and intreaties 5 In Job 36. 32. With clouds he covereth the light and commandeth it by that which commeth betwixt Mr. Broughton reads it thus Hee chargeth it as men do pray namely hee chargeth the clouds as men do intercede by prayer and Tremelius doth concur to that sense and that sense may cause us to remember Gods promise in 1 King 8. 35. 36. When they pray I will give rain upon the Land and it may also cause us to remember Deut. 11. 14. and Zach. 10. 1. c. Now seeing these five places in the conjugation Hiphil do signifie to cause or make a meeting and all of them by way of mediation or intercession Doubtlesse the first place in Isa 53. 6. must in reason have the like signification Mr. Norton saith in page 48. That the Hebrew word in the conjugation Hiphil doth signifie to meet together as upon a heap Reply 1. I apprehend that the word heap doth but mislead the Reader except hee can handsomely shew that every meeting caused by any is a heap I grant that two or three meeting together may bee called Kakal a Church Synagogue or Assembly as I have shewed in the Jews Synagogue Discipline but usually no meeting but a great multitude is called a heap But it appears by what I have said that this meeting of the Mediatorcaused by the Father to mediate for the Elect cannot fitly bee called a heap though it may fitly bee called a meeting 2. Saith Mr. Norton in page 153. The iniquities of us all gathered together as in a heap were laid upon him And thirdly in page 93. hee saith That all the curses of the Law were heaped together and laid upon him Reply 2. By this you see the reason why Mr. Norton doth make Pagah to signifie to meet together as upon a heap namely that he may make Christ to bee both a heap of sin and a heap of curses in a legal and formal sense 3 Mr. Norton doth also confound his Reader by telling him That one Hebrew root hath contrary significations Piaculum saith he doth signifie both a sacrifice and a sinful deed Reply 3. If the Hebrew word for fin bee taken in a metaphorical Sin is often taken in a metaphorical sense for a Sin-sacrifice that procures Gods Attonement for sin signification as well as in a proper then there is no contrary sense though 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 Azab 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 meet 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 best 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. Clendou 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 confesseth thus much in general That the guilt of our sins could not bee imputed to Christ 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 confession 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 notwithstanding freely grant that he undertook our cause as our voluntary Surety according to the voluntary Covenant and that he took our sins on him thus far namely to make expiation for them and to enter the Lists with Sathan and to suffer the punishments of our sins before hee made his Sacrifice as I have instanced in the punishments that men do voluntarily undergo when they strive for the Mastery with their opposite Champion 2 Hence it follows by the right Translation and Exposition of Isa 53. 6. and Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant made between the Trinity for mans Redemption by the sufferings It is evident by Isa 53. 6. by Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity for mans Redemption and by the death and sacrifice of Christ Mr. Rutherford of the Covenant proves by eleven Arguments in page 290. and by a twelfth Argument in page 307. and by a thirteenth Argument in page 316. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity The Dialogue saith thus in page 28. The true manner how the Lord laid all our sins upon Christ in Isa
by degrees and therefore wee must still wait for the full redemption of our bodies till the time appointed as I have shewed in Chap. 4. 3 Hence it follows that this legal Court-way in making Christ a legal Surety so liable to suffer the eternal curse from Gods legal imputation c. is none of Gods way in point of satisfaction as I have often noted to have it the better marked and searched into but it was the Devils way to make Christ a legal sinner and to that purpose hee stirred up false witnesse to make a legal proof of his sinful imputations and then hee stirred up Pilate to proceed to a legal condemnation of him to the odious death of the Crosse and hence some infer to admiration that when Pilate sate on his Tribunal God sate on his Tribunal to sentence Christ with the eternal curse as if Pilates Court-proceedings were a type of God the Fathers Court-proceedings but I have oft noted that Gods way was to commissionate Sathan to bee Christs Combater and to affâ—ct him to his utmost skill and that Christ was to win the victory by his constant practice and obedience Conclusion Hence it follows that neither the phrase The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all in Isa 53. 6. nor the phrase of imposing hands on the head of the Sin-offering with confession of sin in Lev. 1. 4. Ex. 29. 10. Lev. 4. 4. and 5. 5 6. and Lev. 16. 21. do prove that God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of any of his sufferings much lesse of suffering Hell-torments as Mr. Norton doth most boldly and groundlesly affirm for all his Scripture proofs are but Scriptures perverted CHAP. XIV 2 Cor. 5. 21. Examined Mr. Norton saith in page 53. That Christ was made sin for us as we were made Rightousnesse that is saith he by judicial imputation without the violation yea with the establishing of justice 2 That Christ was made sin as he was made a curse Gal. 3. 13. the Greek here used and there are the same But saith he he was made a curse by judicial imputation because he was the Sin-offering in truth therefore he was made sin by real imputation as the legal Sin-offering was made sin by typical imputation Reply 1. MR. Nortons first comparative Argument cannot hold firm for these Reasons 1 Because it is not framed to the words of the Text. 2 Because it is not framed to the sense of the Text. 1 It is not framed to the words of the Text because hee makes Christ to bee made sin for us by Gods imputation in the same manner as wee are made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ for hee means it of the righteousnesse of Christ and so hee opens his meaning in page 230. and in other places that we are made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed but any one that hath eyes in his head may see that the righteousnesse expressed in the Text is called the righteousnesse of God and not the righteousnesse of Christ therefore his Argument is not framed to the words of the Text. And secondly the righteousnesse expressed is not the righteousnesse of God essentially as Mr. Norton makes it to bee in page 230. but the righteousnesse of God the Father personally and yet this nothing hinders but that the justification of beleeving sinners is the work of the Trinity because they have an order of working in the several causes and this is most cleer and evident because the Apostle doth plainly distinguish between God and Christ from verse 19 to the end of verse 21. For saith the Apostle in verse 19. God was in Christ thereby plainly noting two distinct persons I grant that others have The mistaking of the righteousnesse of God for the righteousnesse of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is the cause of an erronious interpretation mistaken the word God for the word Christ before him but had he been well advised hee might have followed some eminent Divines that have more narrowly searched not only into the words but also into the sense of this Text and that have given their grounds for the differencing of the righteousnesse of God from the righteousnesse of Christ and then he might have been better advised then to confound the righteousnesse of God with the righteousnesse of Christ as hee doth without distinction in page 230. and elsewhere But thirdly in case the righteousnesse of God in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in other places had been meant of the righteousnesse of Christ as Mr. Norton doth make it then the Text should have run thus God made him to be sin for us which knew no sin that we might be made the righteousnesse of Christ in him that is to say That we might be made the righteousnesse of Christ in Christ and then according to this interpretation the word God must bee blotted out of the Text and the word Christ put into the place of it But I beleeve that Mr. Norton will abhor to say that the word God must be blotted out to put the word Christ into the place of it and therefore by the same reason hee should abhor to expound the righteousnesse of God to bee no other but the righteousnesse of Christ especially seeing there is as much difference between them in the point of a sinners righteousnesse or justification or reconciliation as there is between the meritorious and formal causes of a sinners justification or reconciliation I grant that Christ is our righteousnesse in the meritorious cause Rom. 5. 18. but I say also that it is God the Fathers righteousnesse that is the formal cause of our righteousnesse 4 Mr. Anthony Wotton doth judiciously demonstrate that the Apostle did not intend any comparison here and he doth also give two reasons why the righteousnesse of God cannot bee meant of the righteousnesse of Christ in this Text to which I refer the Reader for further satisfaction de Reconc Peccatoris part 2. lib. 1. cap. 18. Sect. 16. cap. 20. Sect. 5 6. SECT II. 2 I Will now labour to shew the true sense of this Text by which it will appear that Mr. Nortons comparative Argument is not framed to the sense of this Text each clause in the Text lies thus 1 For This word For is a causal particle and implies for this cause 2 He namely God the Father 3 Made that is to say Ordained Constituted Appointed but this could not bee without a mutual consent and Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity and so he was ordained or constituted to bee made a curse by his combating with Sathan as it is declared in Gen. 3. 15. 4 Made Him that is to say Christ These two words He and Him in the former part of this verse and God and Him in the latter part of this verse must carefully bee marked as a cleer distinction between the persons as I have also noted above 5 To bee sin for us that is to
say To bee a Sin sacrifice for us as it is rightly and fully opened in the Dialogue this phrase He was to be made sin for us saith the Dialogue must not bee taken in a proper literal sense but in a metaphorical sense being borrowed from the Levitical Law where the sacrifices for sin are often called Sin in the Hebrew Text though our English Translations have added the word Sacrifice by way of exposition as for example in Exod. 29. 14 36. the Hebrew saith thus It is a sin but wee translate it thus It is a Sin-offering we adde the word Offering to the word Sin as the Hebrew text also sometimes doth though very rarely as in Lev. 6. 26. and Lev. 9. 15. the Priest that offereth it for sin this is very neer the word Sin-offering but almost every where the Hebrew doth call it a sin without any addition as in Ex. 29. 14 36. Ex. 30. 10. Lev. 4. 3. 8 14 20 21 24 25 26 29 32 33. Lev. 5. 6 7 8 9 11 12 Lev. 6. 17 25 30. Lev. 7. 7 27. Le. 8. 2 14. Lev. 9. 2 3 7 8 10 15 22 Lev. 10. 16 17 19. Lev. 12. 6 8. Lev. 14. 13 19 22 31. Lev. 15. 15 30. Lev. 16 3 5 6 9 11 15 25 27. Lev. 23. 19. Num. 6. 11 14 16. Num. 7. 16 22 28 34 40 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 87. Num. 8. 8 12. Num. 18. 9. Num. 28. 15 22. Num. 29. 11 16 19 22 25 34 38. 2 Chron. 29. 21 23 24. Ezra 8. 35 Ezra 10. 33. Ezek 40. 39. Ezek. 42. 13. Ezek. 43. 21 22 25. Ezek. 44. 29. Ezek. 46. 20. Hos 4. 8. Hos 8. 11. In all these places the Sin-offering is called Sin in the Hebrew text and this Hebraism the Septuagint do follow and the Chaldy Paraphrase and the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in Rom. 8. 3. and Heb. 10. 26. and the use was to expiate moral sins done in ignorance but chiefly it was to expiate their ceremonial sins as the places cited do witnesse These Scriptures do stare in the face of such as make Christ to bee sin for us by a judicial imputation as Judges do when they impute sin to Malefactors as the meritorious cause of inflicting legal punishments upon them 6 It is added which knew no sin namely no sin formally neither by inherent corruption nor by Gods legal imputation and yet notwithstanding though he was every way free God did let Sathan loose upon him as upon a Malefactor to combate with his humane nature to insnare him in some sin or other and to impute sin to him and so to peirce him in the Foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor on the Tree and in this sense it is said by Peter that God made him to bear our sins in his body on the Tree these punishments of sin Christ suffered not necessarily as we guilty sinners do from Gods formal imputation of sin but voluntarily as a Combater with Sathan without any formal guilt or desert on his part And secondly He bare our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice by procuring Reconciliation and therefore he is said in Isa 53. 10. to make himself Asham a Trespasse or Sin as the Septuagint translate it And thus you see that Christ made himself to bee sin as much as God made him to be sin namely to be a sacrifice for sin and no otherwise as I have shewed in the Dialogue in page 42. 7 The reason or the end why God made him to be sin is It is the righteousnesse of each person iâ— Trinity to perform their Covenants to each other for the orderly reconciling and justifying of the Elect. Rom. 5. 18. added in the next clause That we might be made the righteousnesse of God and this doth call to our consideration the Covenant between the Trinity for mans Redemption for the Text saith That God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself vers 19. 1 Consider that Christ covenanted with his Father to combate with Sathan and at last to be made a sacrifice for sin as the meritorious cause for our reconciliation and justification And hence it follows that as soon as hee had performed the said Sin-sacrifice it is truly called His righteousnesse in Rom. 5. 18. and this is the true and full interpretation of the word Righteousnesse in that Text. 2 On the other hand the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father was that upon the performance of Christs sacrifice he would bee reconciled to beleeving sinners and the performance of this reconciliation on God the Fathers part is called the Righteousnesse of God in this Text and in this sense the Argument of the Apostle doth run from verse 19. to the end of this 21. vers 8 In Him that is to say in Christ for as soon as sinners are in Christ by the work of the Holy Ghost they are made partakers of Gods righteousnesse for according to his Covenant with Christ it is his righteousnesse to bee fully reconciled to sinners as soon as they are in Christ by faith by which means their sins are pardoned and so they are justified from sin or made formally righteous by this righteousnesse of God the Father And thus have I opened the true sense of this verse by which it doth appear that Mr. Nortons first comparative Argument is not framed neither to the words nor to the true sense of this verse SECT III. IN Chapter 6. I have made an examination of Mr. Nortons several expressions about Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ and I little question but what I have said in that No Scripture rightly interpreted makes our sins to be formally imputed to Christ by Gods legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds Chapter and in Chap. 13. and what I say in this 14. Chapter will satisfie the judicious and unpartial Reader 2 Consider the frame of Mr. Nortons Argument and me thinks the very naming of it should sufficiently shew the dangerousnesse of it Christ saith He was made sin for us as wee were made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ that is saith he hee was made sin by Gods judicial imputation namely a true sinner formally And so in like sort hee holds that Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto us to make a real change in our condition by making us formally righteous and thus by his comparative Argument our sins were really imputed to Christ to make a real change in his condition namely to make him a sinner formally by Gods judicial imputation that so God might in justice inflict upon him the essential punishment of Hell-torments Doth not the very repetition of this Argument plainly enough shew the dangerousnesse of it 3 Mr. Anthony Wotton shews that it is a palpable mistake to assert the imputation of our sins to Christ in the sense of Mr. Norton in Reconcil Peccatoris part 2. lib. 1. cap. 18. Sect. 4. and to the end of the Chapter of which I shall speak more by
and by 4 Mr. John Goodwin in his Elaborate Treatise of Justification doth shew from the judgement of the orthodox that nothing in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is there spoken touching the imputation In Vindiciae fidei part 2. pag. 165. of our sins to Christ and saith he of all the Scriptures that men take up for the plea of the imputation opposed Mr. Gataker hath well observed that this Text is most cleer and pregnant against themselves But saith Mr. Norton in page 54. The Sin offering is so called because sin was typically imputed to it and it is said saith he to be for sin because it was offered for the expiation of sin Reply 2. Mr. Norton affirms it was called sin because sin was typically imputed to it but he brings no Scripture to prove it and therefore it must passe for no better than a fiction 2 The Dialogue shews in page 41. that Psal 40. 6. doth call the Sin-offering by no other addition but Sin but the Dialogue saith that the Apostle in Greek doth expound it for sin in Heb. 10. 6. the Apostle doth joyn the particle For to the word Sin by which means hee doth teach us that the Sin-offering was not typically made sin by confession of sin and by imposition of hands upon the head of it the particle For is not suitable to that sense and so the Hebrew Text doth sometimes explain it self by joying the word For to the word Sin The Sin shall be killed before the Lord it is most holy Lev. 6. 25. and then it is explained in verse 26. The Priest shall offer it for Sin hence I reason thus if it had been made sin typically by Gods imputation it Lev. 6. 26. could not have been called Most holy neither had it been accepted as a sacrifice for Sin Lev. 6. 26. and so also the word For is annexed in Lev. 9. 15. Lev. 4. 14. But saith Mr. Norton in page 54. If Christ be made sin for us in the same sense that the water of Purification and the Trespass mony is called Sin then Christ was made sin only figuratively consequently suffered for sin figuratively not properly Reply 3. A byassed spirit is apt to pick an exception against the cleerest expressions the Dialogue speaks plainly that the water of Purification was called Sin Numb 19. 9. not in respect of any sin that was typically imputed to it nor was it called Sin because it was imployed to any sinful use but because it was ordained in the prescript use of it to cleanse the sinner ex opere operato from all such ceremonial sins as he was defiled with See Ains in Num. 19. 9 12. c. it was called Sin-water as the Sin-offering was called Sin because it was the water of Purification from sin and because it sanctified the unclean to the purifying of the flesh Num. 8. 7 21. and because it figured the blood of Christ which only purgeth the conscience from dead works that is to say from moral sins Heb. 9. 13 14. Now the Heb. 9 13 14. Argument of the Dialogue is plain namely that as the water of purification was called Sin because it did truly cleanse the sinner from the outward contagion of his sins whether moral sins that were done unadvisedly or ceremonial sins for which chiefly the Sin-water was ordained that being cleansed therby they might then approach to Gods presence in his Sanctuary or else not upon pain of cutting off Num. 19. 20. The like Reply I might also make for the Levitical phrase taken from the Redemption-mony that was imployed or part of it at least to buy the publick Sin-offerings and Trespasse-offerings it was called Sin-mony and Trespasse-mony 2 King 12. 16. Neh. 10. 32 33. not because any sin or trespasse was imputed to the mony as if it had been sinfully gotten or sinfully imployed but because it was imployed to buy the said Sin-offerings and Trespasse-offerings and in this sense God made Christ to be sin and to be a trespasse not by imputing the sins of the Elect to him in a judicial way but by ordaining and constituting him to be the true Sin-offering and to end all Sin-offerings and to finish Trespasse offerings and to make Reconciliation for iniquity by the Sacrifice of himself and so by this means to bring in an eternal Righteousnesse or Reconciliation Dan. 9. 24. instead of the Ceremonial Secondly saith Mr. Norton Then Christ was only made sin figuratively and suffered for sin figuratively not properly Reply 4. Christ suffered for sin properly according to Gods declared Counsel Covenant and Decree in Gen. 3. 15. in entring the Lists with Sathan but at last hee was the only Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice and in this Sin-offering he bare our sins not really by Gods judicial imputation but figuratively only he bare them from us by procuring Gods Reconciliation No Scripture faith Reverend Mr. Wotton doth make Christ to be a sinner properly But saith Mr. Norton in page 131. Wee distinguish between an inherent judicial guilt and an extrinsecal judicial guilt If Thomas saith he be judicially guilty of a capital crime inherently though Peter be guiltlesse thereof inherently yet if he be guilty thereof extrinsecally it seemeth to be no injustice for the Magistrate in case of Suretiship to put Peter to death for Thomas his crime And after these words Mr. Norton doth cite sundry instances to this purpose and at last he concludes thus in page 133. I dare almost say saith Grotius a man excelling in this kind of learning That where there is consent there is not any of those whom we call Pagans who would esteem it unjust that one should bee punished with the delinquencie of another Reply 5. By this last testimony of Grotius Mr. Norton thinks that he hath knocked the nayl home on the head and therefore he saith that Grotius was a man excelling in this kind of learning and truly so hee was though I find him to be very much out of the way in some things But in vain doth Mr. Norton labour to make Grotius his abettor for surely there is no greater opposite to Mr. Nortons imputation than he is For Grotius saith thus Some evil is sometimes imposed upon one or In his War Peace l. 2. c. 112 p. 398. some good is taken away By occasion indeed of some fault yet not so that the fault is the immediate cause of that action as to the right of doing He saith he who by occasion of anothers debt hath ingaged himself suffers evil Sponde Nâ—xâ— praesto est But the immediate cause of his obligation is his promise as hee who is become surety for a buyer is not properly bound by the bargain but by his promise So also hee who is bound for a Delinquent is not held by the delinquency but by his ingagement And hence it is that the evil to bee born by him receives its measure not from the fault of the
making his soul a sacrifice 5 Hence it also follows that the obedience of Christ to the moral Law is not here spoken of namely not in Rom. 5. 18 19. and accordingly Mr. Wotton Mr. Forbs and divers other eminent Divines do expound ver 18 and 19. to relate onely to his positive righteousness in his death and sacrifice and not to his moral obedience no otherwise but as it made him to be a Lamb without spot or blemish fit for sacrifice And therefore Mr. Nortons proof of Heresie from Rom. 5. 19. in p 268. doth fail him as well as all his other proofs 6 My former Exposition of Gods righteousness to be his reconciliation in not imputing sin is further evident by the Rom. 3. 25. words of the Apostles in terminis in Rom. 3. 25. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past For the better understanding of the sense of these words I will propound these three Questions and Answers First Whose righteousness doth the Apostle say is here declared but God the Fathers Secondly Wherein is God the Fathers righteousness declared but by the remission of sins that are past Thirdly How else doth God declare this righteousness of his by remission but by setting forth Christ to be his propitiatory or his Mercy-Seat through faith in his blood And thus you see that this Text doth in terminis make Gods righteteousness consist in remission of sins as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5. 21. 7 Daniel doth make Gods righteousness whereby he makes sinners righteous to consist in his reconciliation by not imputing sin in Dan. 9. 24. he saith that Christ by his death was to Dan 9 24. finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in an everlasting righteousness Mark this his death and sacrifice was to procure Gods reconciliation for iniquity and this reconciliation he calls an everlasting righteousness to sinners And thus you see that Daniel doth make Gods reconciliation to be an everlasting righteousness to beleeving sinners as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5 21. 8 David doth also confirm this exposition of Gods righteousness in Psal 51. 14. Deliver me from blood guiltiness O God Psal 51. 14. then my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness First How else doth he mean that God should deliver him from his bloodguiltiness but by his reconciliation in not imputing that sin to his condemnation according to that desire and prayer in Deut. 21. 8. Secondly What righteousness of God doth he else mean that his tongue should sing aloud of but Gods Attonement in not imputing his blood-guiltiness to him for the sake of Christs Sin-Sacrifice Thus you see that the Exposition given of Gods righteousness in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and so consequently of the same term in Rom. 3. 21 22 25 26. and in Rom. 10. 3. and in Phil. 3. 9. is confirmed and strengthened by an eight-fold cord which I beleeve Mr. Norton will not be able to break But Mr. Norton in p. 260. stumbles at the Dialogue because it follows Mr. Wotton in making Justification and Adoption to be the two parts of Gods Attonement or Reconciliation And at last in p. 162. he opens himself thus But whether Justification precisely considered be a part of or a necessary antecedent or means of reconciliation it is freely left to the judgement of the Reader But saith he the Leiden Divines say it is rather a consequent and effect of Justification And then he concludes that the Analogy of Faith may as well bear an interpretation agreeable hereunto as any other thus God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself How By not imputing their trespasses to them so as the not imputation of sin saith he may seem to be an antecedent and means rather than a part of Attonement or Reconciliation Reply 1. It is now apparent why Mr. Norton did stumble at the Dialogue for giving two parts to Reconciliation according to Mr. Wotton It was to introduce his conjectures quite contrary to Mr. Wotton namely that Gods non-imputation of sin is an antecedent and means rather than a part of attonement or reconciliation But because he expresseth himself to be somewhat uncertain in his notions in this point therefore he cannot be thought to be a fit Judge to censure the Dialogue nor to determine this controversie But the Scriptures are most plain in this point if they be not intricated by such uncertain conjectures 1 The Scripture speaks plainly that when the Bullock for sin was offered by the Priest to make attonement for sins of ignorance then the promise annexed saith It shall be forgiven him Levit 4. 20. Any man from hence may see plainly that Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent but a true part of his attonement if it be not the whole The like is said of the Rulers sin in v. 26. and the like is said of the sins of any of the people in ver 31 35. namely that when Gods attonement is procured by their said Sin-Sacrifice then thereupon their sin is said to be forgiven them 2 The Burnt-offerings And Thirdly The Trespass-offerings were ordained to procure Gods gracious forgiveness as a part of his attonement as in Levit. 5. 10 13 16 18. and in Lev. 6. 7. and in Lev. 19. 22. and in Numb 15. 25 26 28. In all these places Gods promise of his forgiveness by his attonement did openly proclaim in the ears of all Israel and in the ears of all others that have ears to hear that when Gods attonement is obtained by sacrifice then and not till then sin is forgiven and then and not till then that person is actually justified either he is ceremonially justified as a person fit to stand before Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary or else in case they have Faith to look from the typicall attonement to the mystical they shall thereby have an eternal pardon from their moral sins and so an eternal justification in Gods sight Or thus Gods Reconciliation procured by an acceptable sacrifice is not like the Reconciliation of a Judge that doth but barely acquit a Malefactor and so leaves him but it is like the Reconciliation of a merciful Father that doth not only forgive his child but together with that forgiveness doth also receive him into favour and in this sense these two terms Gods Attonement and his gracious forgiveness for Christs sacrifice sake is the same thing And thus Gods forgiveness is the whole of his Reconciliation 3 This sense of Gods forgiveness as it is the whole of Reconciliation is evident by Gods promise in the New Covenant for in Jer. 31. 34. the promise runs thus I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more This promise is thus expounded in Heb. 8. 12. I will be merciful to their unrighteousnesse Heb. 8. 12. and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more the first expression I will be
in ver 10. as Mr. Dickson Mr. Trap and others have well observed from the Greek word Dicaiomata for it pleased God by his positive Laws Heb. 9. 1 10. to ordain that the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean should be of force to sanctifie them to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9. 13. namely to justifie them from their ceremonial sins and so to make them fit Heb 9. 13. for communion with God in his Sanctuary and in feasting with him on the holy flesh of Passeovers and Peace-offerings and it is yet the more manifest that this carnal cleansing did justifie them because the Temple as soon as it was ceremonially cleansed from the pollutions of Antiochus is said in the Septuagint to be cleansed but in the Hebrew text it is said to be justified Dan. 8. 14. now it was justified no otherwise but as it Dan. 8. 14. was ceremonially cleansed by carrying out the filthiness of dirt and of idols as in 2 Chron. 29. 5 15 16 17. and by the blood of the Sin-offering Ezek. 45. 18 19. Levit. 16. 16. and thus we see that when persons and things are legally cleansed from ceremonial defilements they are said to be justified and therefore the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean under the first Covenant to procure Gods attonement for their ceremonial justification did but typifie our moral justification by Gods attonement and forgiveness for the sake of the blood of Christs Sin-offering under the new Covenant for nothing but Gods attonement alone doth cleanse and justifie a sinner and so the Apostle doth argue the case in Heb. 9. 13 14. If saith he the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh for by this means onely they procured Gods attonement and forgiveness for their ceremonial defilements according to Gods appointment in the first Covenant of works for without Gods attonement procured by the use of the said legal Rites their flesh could not be sanctified in a fit manner for his holy presence in his Sanctuary and in this respect the Seventy do render the word Attonement by the word Sanctified as you see it observed by Ainsworth in Exod 29. 33 36. And secondly It is also further evident by the cleansing of the woman from her unclean issue for she was not fully cleansed untill she had obtained Gods Attonement by her Sin-Sacrifice Levit. 15. 30. but as soon as that was performed then she had Gods Attonement and then she is said in ver 31. to be sanctified or separated for her appearing before God in his Tabernacle and then she might come as a justified person without danger of Gods anger before his presence in his holy Sanctuary And thirdly The Hâ—brew Doctors do usually say as I find them cited in Ainsworth that such persons as were ceremonially cleansed by washing or by the sprinkling of their sin-water were sanctified that is to say they were legally justified as fit persons for Gods presence in his holy Sanctuary Fourthly The blood of Bulls and Goats did sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh no otherwise but as they procured Gods attonement for blood materially considered doth not cleanse but defile the flesh but as it was ordained by the first Covenant to procure Gods attonement so it doth formally cleanse and justifie Fifthly It is further evident that these legal cleansings did justifie them by procuring Gods attonement for their ceremonial sins because Gods eternal attonement and forgiveness in relation to their legal justifications is called washing in Jer. 33. 8. and it is called sprinkling and cleansing in Ezek. 36. 25 29. And Sixthly Such as are truly converted to Christ in the New Testament and by that means have their sins forgiven them are said to be Washed Sanctified and Justified 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 6. 11. 6. 11. And it is worth the marking that these three figurative expressions are Synonimous and do all note the true nature of our justification And from these cleansings according to the first Covenant the Apostle in Hebr. 9. 14. doth inforce his Argument thus How much more shall the blood of Christ purge or sanctifie your consciences from dead works that is to say from moral sins for moral sins did as much defile the conscience as the touch of a dead person did defile the flesh ceremonially And saith he though the blood of Buls and Goats and the ashes of an Heiser had power by Gods positive Covenant to cleanse to the sanctifying of the flesh yet they had not power to cleanse or justifie the conscience from moral sins Heb. 9. 9. and 10. 4. But that power was given to the blood of Christ alone and therefore he said Lo I come to do thy will O God by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all Heb. 10 10 14. In these words mark the conditions of the eternal Covenant for mans justification as it is expressed by Heb. 10. 10. the Apostle namely that it was the will of God to be attoned to sinners for the sake of Christs sacrifice and that attonement onely doth cleanse the conscience from all moral sins or it justifies the conscience And secondly much after this manner doth the Apostle reason touching our justification in Rom. 8. 3 4. What the Law could Rom 8. 3 4. not do in that it was weak through the flesh for the corruption and infirmity of the flesh was such that it could not keep it self pure neither from moral sins nor from ceremonial sins as it is disputed in Col 2. 14. and in Heb. 7 11 16 18 19. neither could the ceremonial justifications justifie the conscience from moral sins Heb. 9. 9. Heb. 10. 4. But God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh because he sent him to be our Combater with Satan and gave Satan power to use this seed of the woman as a sinful malefactor in Gen. 3. 15. in this sense he was in the likeness of sinful flesh because he suffered all kind of injuries from Satan as a sinner and for sin condemned sin in the flesh in these words is set down the ultimate end why God sent Christ in the similitude of sinful flesh to suffer as a Combater with Satan and that was to break Satans head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and in that obedience to be for sin that is to say to make himself a sacrifice for sin By which means he did first codemn sin that is to say the use of all the legal Sin-offerings because they could not justifie the conscience from moral sins because his was the perfection of them all and therefore it was perfectly able to procure his Fathers attonement and absolution to cleanse the conscience from all the dead works of moral sins Thus far of the Exposition of ver
that so they might be fit subjects for the said righteousneâ—s 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 Ezod 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 righteousness according to Gods Law and then God accepted them and granted his Attonement according to his Covenant and that was his righteousness and then when he was attoned to sinners it was their righteousness this is suitable to legal righteousness by which God did exemplifie our moral righteousness Conclusion Gods Attonement or Reconciliation hath these two parts 1 His not imputing sin 2 His receiving into favour or both these may bee joyned into one namely Gods gracious pardon and all this is the effect of Christs sacrifice for it is for his sacrifice sake that God the Father doth absolve or acquit a beleeving sinner that is in Christ from the guilt of all his sins and so receives him into favour by adoption or thus Gods Attonement for the sake of Christs Sacrifice is not a bare legal forgiveness as when a Judge acquits a Malefactor and so leaves him but it is a gracious acquital as when a Father forgives his Son and receives him into favour And this truth the Dialogue doth fully express and therefore Mr. Norton doth argue sophistically and absurdly against the rules of Logick and his own conscience for hee knows that in his antecedent
this phrase By Christs Sacrifice of Attonement is meant both of the cause and effect Christs sacrifice being the cause and Gods attonement the effect and therefore seeing the sacrifice of Christ is all along so plainly intended by the Dialogue to be the only meriting cause of the formal namely of Gods attonement for a sinners righteousness or justification It follows that the consequence which Mr. Norton draws from it viz. neither then can attonement bee a sinners righteousness is a senseless non sequitur And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whether Mr. Norton had any just cause to thunder out such reproachful censures against this kind of attonement in the Dialogue as he hath done in page 210 223 224 237. and saith hee in page 228. the attonement of the Dialogue is not Gods attonement but a pestilent fiction and abomination My heart trembles at this high blasphemy the Lord in mercy open his eyes to see better And saith Mr. Norton in page 210. The Reader is desired to take full notice of the Dialogues corrupt sense being the Helena c. Reply 8. The Reader is also desired to examine throughly who hath the truth on his side and also to take full notice whether he can find such an active moral righteousness imputed as Mr. Norton doth substitute in page 210. for the formal cause of a sinners righteousness I have made search into the method of righteous-making by the typical sacrifices and cannot find any such righteous-making as Mr. Norton holds examine therefore whether I have not both in the Dialogue and in this Chapter rightly opened the types thereof both in the meritorious and formal causes But saith Mr. Norton page 209. The Hebrew translated Attonement properly signifieth to cover some thing yet not with a garment or the like which may bee taken off again but with some cleaving and tenacious matter as Pitch Lime Morter c. Reply 9. This exposition of the word Attonement may I conceive mis-lead the Reader as well as himself because hee restrains it to Pitch or such like tenacious matter that cannot be taken off again and therefore I will open the use of the word for the advantage of the Readers 1 I find by Kirkeroes Hebrew-Greek-Lexicon That the Hebrew Caphar doth signifie to cover This is the general sense of the word But what kind of covering is to bee understood by the word must bee fetched from the circumstances of each particular text where it is used As for example in Gen. 6. 14. it is used for such a covering as is made with Bitumen Pitch Tar Rosin and such like cleaving things because that kind of covering was onely fit to stop and cover the chinks and cracks that were in the Ark to preserve it from perishing in the waters a figure of Gods Attonement in our Baptism that covereth our sins and so saveth us but saith Ainsworth in Gen. 6. 14. there are two other Hebrew words in Exod. 2. 3. which are the proper words for Pitch and Plaister and therefore Caphar is used for Pitch in Gen. 6. 14. but in a metaphorical sense and in that respect Tindal in 1 Joh. 2. 2. doth apply it and that most fitly to mollifying Plaisters that are laid on angry sores to molifie and asswage their angry pain 2 This Hebrew word is also used for the Hoar-frost in Exo. 16. 14. because the Manna did lye upon or cover the ground after the dew was exhaled just like as the Hoar-frost doth cover the ground It is also put for the Hoar-frost in Job 38. 29. and in Psal 147. 16. but there the Septuagint do translate it Clouds and indeed it is not unfit because Clouds do cover the face of the Skie and do also scatter the Hoar-frost Hail and Snow which do often cover the face of the earth but these kind of coverings are soon taken off again therefore it doth not alwayes signifie such a covering as may not be taken off again and it is applied to Cypress trees because it is a pleasant shady cover against the scorching Sun Cant. 1. 13. 3 Caphar is applied to the covering of an angry countenance by some acceptable present And thus Jacob did cover Esau's angry face I will said Jacob cover or appease his face with the present that gâ—eth before me and afterward I will see his face Gen. 32. 20. And in this sense a wise man will cover the Kings angry face Prev 16. 14. 4 Caphar is put for a Bribe because a Bribe doth cover the Exod. 30. 12. A further description of Gods Attonement in respect both of the meritorious formal causes eyes of the Judge and causeth him to pervert Justice Amos 5. 12. but said just Samuel to the people Of whose hand have I received any present namely by way of a Bribe to cover mine eyes therewiâ—h in the case of Justice 1 Sam. 12. 3. 5 Caphar is put for a price of Redemption because it doth cover the offended face of the Supreme and reconcile him Esa 43. 3. But jealousie saith Prov. 6. 35. is outragious it will not regard the presence of any cover or ransom See also in Numb 35. 31. and Psal 41. 81. and in Exod. 21. 30. and in Exod. 30. 12. They shall give every man the ransom of his soul or the cover of his soul namely half a shekel for every man to cover Gods angry face that there be no plague among them to take away their lives as he had done from the former Six hundred thousand But mark this price which God appointed them to give for the That onely is the full and formal price of our redemption that was constituted so to be by Gods volunrary positive Law and Covenant ransom or cover of their souls from death which else would certainly have fallen upon them was but half a Shekel which in humane reason materially considered cannot be esteemed a sufficient price for the ransom of their souls from death as David sheweth in Psal 49. 7 8. yea though it were paid yearly during life But formally considered namely as it was ordained by Gods positive Law and Covenant to be paid and accepted as the price of redeeming their lives from death so it was the full price of their lives because Gods positive Law and Covenant had made it to be a full price if they had offered many thousands of silver for the redemption of their lives yet it had not been a sufficient price without Gods positive Law and Covenant As I have shewed in Chap. 8. in Ahabs offer to Naboth in 1 King 21. 3. Even so it was Gods positive Law and Covenant that made the death and sacrifice of Christ to be the 2 King 21. 3. full price to cover Gods angry face or to attone him for the ransom of the many Mat. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 2. 6. 1 Tim. 2. 6. The said price of redemption is called the silver of Attonements Exod. 30. 16. and with
well marked 1 That Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law 2 That he was made a curse for us These two clauses the Dialogue hath expressed thus 1 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law 2 When he was made a curse for us Now saith the Dialogue the Apostle cites Deut. 21. 23. only to prove the last clause namely That Christ was made a curse for us in the outward manner of his death like unto other notorious Malefactors even at the same time when he redeemed us from the curse of the Law by making the formality of his death to bee a sacrifice by his own Priestly power 2 It is further evident that this sense is the truth by the prediction of it from the time of Adams fall in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Sathan shalt pierce him as a sinful Malefactor on the Tree and yet hee shall break thy Head-plot at the very same time by his The outward manner of Christs death on the Tree was first declared in Gen. 3. 15. obedience to the death for in all his conflict with thy ignominious torturing pains on the Cross he shall not suffer his patience to bee disturbed nor his obedience to bee perverted but hee shall continue obedient to the death even the death of the Cross and in that obedience as soon as thou hast done thy worst to disturb it and as soon as hee hath finished all his sufferings hee shall make his death a sacrifice by his own Priestly power And it is reconded of him that as soon as he had but said It is finished he bowed his head and gave up the Ghost and that was the formality both of his death and sufferings And thus hee brake the Devils Head-plot had the victory and won the prize which was the redemption of all the Elect even at the same time when hee was put to death as a cursed Malefactor by the Devil in hanging on a Tree This was the declared platform of the Trinity according to their eternal Covenant for mans Redemption as I have expressed it in the Dialogue but have often in this book amplified and inlarged it 3 It is worth the marking that the Apostle doth not put the Article The to the word Curse cited from Deut. 21. 23. but only to the first word Curse as it is cited in verse 10. from Deut. 27. But in case the latter word Curse had included the moral Curse as well as the former word Curse then in reason it should have had the Article The put to it as wel as it is to the former but because it is not put to the latter therefore this may serve as another Argument to prove the Apostle meant that Christ suffered no other Curse but such a Curse as his proof meant namely a cursed death in the outward manner of it just like unto those Malefactors that were hanged on a Tree according to Deut. 21. 23. and Gen. 3. 15. And to this sense doth Chrysostom and Theophilact expound the Curse that Christ suffered cited in the former Chapter namely that he suffered on a Tree as if he had been a sinner for he was put to death as a sinner by the Devils imputation but not by Gods imputation if hee had suffered as a sinner from Gods immediate wrath and by Gods imputation then hee must some way or other have had communion with our guilt For saith Grotius afore cited merit is personal and therefore when the Ancient Divines say Hee suffered on a Tree as if he had been a sinner they mean it only in respect of the likeness of his punishments unto other cursed Malefactors which punishment an innocent person may suffer as well as a Malefactor And so Austin saith well that Christ received our punishment without sin that thereby hee might dissolve our sin and end our punishment And in relation to this sense the Dialogue doth open the Apostles words thus Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law even at the same time When hee was made not that Curse in verse 10. But a curse for us according to Deut. 21. 23. But saith Mr. Norton the word When is not in the Text but it is of your own putting in Reply 2. It is a usual thing with Mr. Norton to censure the Dialogue with some odious thing or other without any just cause But by his leave the Dialogue is able to justifie it self by the concurrence of good Authors for this word When. 1 Mr. Perkins doth use the word When twice over First In his translation of this Text. And secondly In his Analysis 2 Mr. Ainsworth doth render this Text thus Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law When hee was made a curse for us in Exod 32. 32. 3 Mr. Calvin in his citation of this Text doth put in the word When just as Mr. Ainsworth hath done in his Inst lib. 2. Chap. 16. Sect 6. 4 The Prophet Isaiah useth the word When just in this very case saying in Isa 53. 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise him and to Isa 53. 10. put him to grief on the Tree When hee shall make his soul a Trespass namely a Trespass or a Sin-sacrifice as the Septuagint render Asham 5 The Syriak doth translate it And or When hee was made a Curse for us Vau in Syriak and Hebrew is usually put for And and yet it is sometimes also put for When and therefore Tremelius doth render it in to Latine Dum pro nobis factus est execratio and Erasmus doth translate the Greek thus Dum pro nobis which doth answer to our English word When or While 6 Tindal doth translate Gal. 3. 13. by And and not by Being 7 The Greek word in Gal. 3. 13. is often put for When by our Translators as in Mar. 14. 3. and in Luke 22. 44. in these places it is translated into Syriak Vau into Latine Dum and into English When he was in Bethany and When he was in an Agony and therefore by the like reason it may as well bee translated When hee was made a Curse for us 8 It seems to mee therefore that Mr. Norton doth find fault with the Dialogue from no other cause but because the word When doth utterly spoyl the visage of the Argument for it is no way suitable to his typical sense on which the foundation of his Argument doth depend and therefore it is no marvel that he doth censure the Dialogue for putting it into the Text. 9 All Christs greatest sufferings are comprised under the word Chastisement in Isa 53. 5. The Chastisement of our peace was upon him namely When he was wounded for our transgressions and when hee was bruised for our iniquities But if the moral Curse had been upon him when he was thus wounded and bruised on the Cross then the word Chastisement had not been fit to express it for we cannot find in all the Scriptures where the vindicative wrath of God and
limits of the same natural day for the words of the Text are thus He shall not hang all night but thou shalt bury him the same day And I have at large shewed in my Treatise of Holy Time that the same natural day was not ended till midnight and see more in Sect. 8. In like sort the Peace-offerings were commanded to be eaten the same day in which they were offered Lev. 7. 15. and yet they might be eaten after sun-set as the speech of the Harlot doth shew in Prov. 7. 9. and for this see Prov. 7. 9. Ains in Lev. 7. 15 18. and in Lev. 22. 30. Secondly in this particular case of hanging we see that Joshua did permit the King of Ai to continue hanging on the tree until the Sun was down Josh 8. 29. and therefore seeing he did Josh 8. 29. not command his carkass to be taken down from the tree untill the sun was set it follows that his carkass could not be buried before sun-set And thus his crutch is fallen and therefore all his conclusions that are built thereon are fallen with it â—a his language is to me Thirdly Though Mr. Norton do cite Junius to his typical sense yet I find by conference that Junius not many lines before those words cited by Mr. Norton doth plainly deny that the carkass See Junius paralel l. 2. paral 51. thus hanged did defile the land although it remained unburied after sun-set he doth rather place the defiling of the land in the act of the Judges in case they suffered the carkass to continue unburied that day after the justice of the Law was satisfied which was ordinarily satisfied with that days infamy and to this purpose also doth the Geneva note speak But I will presently produce another reason why the Judges were exhorted not to defile the land Fourthly It is very probable by his words in pag. 102. that Mr. Norton doth steer his judgement in this point of defiling the Land by following the sense of a corrupt Translation I mean by following the latter Editions of King Jameses Translation The latter Editions of King Jameses Translation of Deut. 21. 23. is corrupted from the integrity of the first Editions for the latter Editions are corrupted from the integrity of the first Editions It is most likely that some left-handed person that happily was of Mr. Nortons judgement did venture too boldly to alter the Translation from the integrity of the first Editions for the first Editions both the Church Bible and some others do run thus His body shall not remain all night upon the tree But thou shalt in any wise bury him that day for he that is hanged is accursed of God At the end of this sentence He that is hanged is accursed of God they set a colon or two pricks And then follows another distinct sentence thus That thy Land be not defiled But in the latter Editions there is a great corruption made for first The colon is omitted And secondly There is a parenthesis added to inclose the former sentence thus For he that is hanged is accursed of God This sentence thus inclosed doth quite alter the sense and makes the exhortation to the Judges to concur with Mr. Nortons sense thus Thou shalt in any wise bury him that day that thy land be not defiled Now according to this corrupt Translation and the onely reason given why the person hanged must be buried the same day is because else the land would be defiled But put out the parenthesis and put in the colon as it was in the first Editions and then the words will have a quite differing sense I grant that the leaving out of the colon might happen through the Printers over-sight but the inclosing of that sentence in a parenthesis could not be done by the Printers overfight but doubtless that was done on purpose by some left handed person as I observed before I doe therefore earnestly intreat the judicious Presbytery to make search into this matter and to cause a Reformation in the next Editions according to the integrity of the first Fifthly Let the Text in Deut. 21. 23. be read according to the first Editions and then it will follow that the onely true reason why he that hanged on a tree must be buried the same day is not because else the land would be defiled but because he that is hanged the curse of God so the Hebrew is translated in the margin But there is in this sentence a defect or a want of some word which our Translaters have supplied in the Text by the word is and so they make the Text to run thus He that is hanged is the curse of God But the Seventy See Torshel on Justif p. 131. with Aquila and Theodotian read it thus He is the curse of God that is hanged and Symachus reads it thus because for the blasphemy of God he is hanged And the Chalde paraphrase doth render it thus for because he sinned before the Lord hee is hanged These several Translations and Expositions are considerable But yet still for all this it is a question of some moment in what sense hee that is hanged is called the curse of God I he still the object of Gods curse upon the land as he was whilst he lived in the practise of his sin before his hanging surely that cannot be seeing justice was executed and therefore it follows that he is now called the curse of God because his hanging so long upon a tree to be gazed on as a visible curse was to shew their greater detestation of his sin and so to satisfie the curse of Gods Justice and so to pacifie his wrath and so to avert the curse which else would certainly have been poured out upon the land in case the Magistrates had neglected this point of justice but because the visible curse of his sin was thus eminently put upon him by the Magistrates by hanging up his dead body on a tree that he might be the Spectacle thereof as long as the Sun gave any light The Judges were admonished not to turn Justice into cruelty by letting his dead body to continue hanging upon the tree all night but in any wise to bury him that day namely before that natural day was ended which ended at midnight as I have shewed in my Treatise of Holy Time and the reason is added Because he that is hanged the curse of God namely because he that is hanged hath born the visible curse and thereby hath averted the curse of God which else would certainly have been poured out upon the land in case this malefactor had been suffered to live still in his sin and so justice being satisfied he must be buried out of sight that day And hence it follows that he was called the curse of God The true reason why he that was hanged must be buried the same day was because his stoning to death and his hanging on a tree afterwards had appeased
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 before hand 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 Pas 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 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
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 A true description of the natural fear of death my mind vexed my affections moved my heart is wounded my members shake my breast panteth my legs saint 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. Job 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 Psal 18. 5. this expression it appears that hee was in every part of his sensitive 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 feat 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 exceeding sorrowful Mat 26. 21 22. namely they were in every part of their body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 surrounded about with sorrows and Christ doth compare their sorrows for his death to the pangs of a woman in travel Joh. 16. 20 21 22. The Greek word in verse 22. and in verse 38. iâ— 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 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 Hebrew 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. 1â— 3 The Septuagint put Thamboumenos to express the sense of Pâ—ohaz for light headed or inconstant persons in Judges 9. 4. This Hebrew word saith Ainsworth in Gen. 49. 4. doth 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
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 Mat. 26. 38. very heavy or afraid as the Seventy by that word do render the Hebrew word in 2 Sam. 22. 5. 5 The Seventy use the same Greek word for fear or terror 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 By consequence Mr. Norton doth impute the sin of unmindfulness to Christ in the time of executing his Office yet that is but to refresh nature for the better performance 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 mak◠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 heavy in Mark 14. 33 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. Joh. 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 that from the pitching of the field of old Gen. 3. 15. thou shalt pierce him in the heel so that it was not so much for any pangs of hell that Christ felt within him as for the assaults of hell that he saw inlarged against him that he was so full of sorrow and anguish This testimony to the truth of Gods Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. doth fully accord with the Dialogue 2 Mr. Robert Wilmot in his manuscript on Haides saith thus on the word Alwaies in Act. 2. 25. Always saith he even in his forest agonies 1 Before the sweaty Agony his soul was troubled yet then he called God Father Joh. 12. 27. 2 When he was in the Agony he could still call God Father Luk. 22. 44. and in Joh. 11. 42. he saith he knew God heard him alwaies and therefore even then he must needs have comfort 3 When he began to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most grievously tormented and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abundantly sorrowful or rounded about with sorrow yet then he could still call God Father Matth. 26. 37 38 39 42. 4 When the betrayer was come
and the Band had seized on him yet then also he uttered words of sure comfort and confidence Mat. 26. 53. Thinkest thou said he to Peter that I cannot pray to my Father and he shall set before mee more than twelve legions of Angels 5 When he was upon the cross and cryed My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Doth not the very fore-front of that speech ascertain us that he had even then comfort in his God Mat. â—7 46. 6 Had he not strong comfort in God his Father at the giving up of the Ghost when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. If then through all his sufferings he could pray to his Father as we see and knew his father heard him ever then surely he had comfort in his Father ever yea if through all his sufferings he called him by the fiducial and cordial name Father we cannot imagine but that he conceived and applied the comfort contained in the name when ever he did mention the name else how conceive we that his heart and mouth did go together These observations of Mr. Wilmots do evidence that Christs mind was not wholly taken up with the dreadfull sense of the righteous wrath of God when he began to be amazed and to be very heavy as Mr. Norton doth affirm SECT 5. Christs Agony and Luk. 22. 44. Examined MR. Norton in pag. 63. doth thus abbreviate the Dialogues words If the circumstances of this Agony be well weighed saith the Dialogue it will appear that it did not proceed from his Fathers wrath but from his natural fear of death onely because he must be stricken with the fear of death as much as his true humane nature could bear he must be touched with the fear of death in a very great measure as the Prophets did foretel Add to these pains of his mind his earnest prayers to be delivered from his natural fear of death the fear of death doth often cause men to sweat and earnest prayer doth often cause men to sweat As he was man he must be touched with the fear of death for a time and as he was Mediator he must fully and wholly overcome his natural fear of death by his prayers therefore there was a necessity for him to strive in prayer until he had overcome it Mr. Norton doth thus answer in p. 64. There can no reason be given why the fear of death should be as much as the humane nature of Christ could bear without sin because the object of that fear may be and is exceeded penal spiritual death is a greater object of fear incomparably Reply 19. I have already replyed to this very answer in substance in the first Section of this Chapter But yet I reply further with the Dialogue That the law of Mediatorship did require that he should take our nature together with our true natural but yet sinless infirmities Gen. 3. 15. Heb. 4. 15. and seeing he was conceived of the seed of the woman by the power of the Holy Ghost our nature and natural affections were transcendent in him and therefore according to those transscendent natural passions he could not chuse but abhor death more than any sinful man and therefore he did often trouble himself with the thought of it as he made it evident by his speeches often itterated to his Disciples about his ignominious death and sufferings at Jerusalem but at his last Supper and in the Garden when his death was nigh at hand he did more pathetically express his natural dread and abhorrence of it first to his Disciples and then to God in his prayers Matth. 26. 37 38. for he knew by Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. that God had armed the Devil with power to apprehend him to condemn him and to put him to that ignominious torturing death of the cross as a sinful malefactor I say the consideration of this usage could not chuse but work a greater dread and abhorring in the humane nature of Christ than the like can do to us because of the pure constitution of his nature as I have noted it in Sect. 1. Our nature by reason of original sin is become the slave of death Heb. 2. 14. and therefore we cannot abhor it with so much true natural detestation as the pure nature of Christ might do and did and therefore his natural fear of death was transcendent to ours But saith he Penal spiritual death is a greater object incomparably he takes it for granted that Christ suffered a penal spiritual death which is denied But in case such a Tenent were indeed held forth in the book of God then methinks the blessed Scriptures should insist most upon iâ— seeing it is held to be the main matter of full and just satisfaction but the contrary is evident to me namely that the Scriptures do insist most upon his ignominious torturing bodily death from Satan and upon his sacrifice as soon as ever he had finished all his sufferings and had evidenced his obedience to be perfect through sufferings The Dialogue saith thus in p. 49. It is no marvel then that our Savior fell into such an Agony the night before his death seeing it was not an easie thing to alter the property of nature from a desire to live to a desire to die and that not for his own end and benefit but for the sake of the Elect onely and all this must he perform in exact obedience to his Fathers will he must observe the due time of every action and so on as it follows in Mr. Nortons citation in page 64. 65. Mr. Norton doth answer thus in page 63. Your mentioning other causes though false of Christs fear besides his natural death only is a secret acknowledgement that his fear of a natural death only was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows before his death Reply 20. The Dialogue shews plainly that the approach of his ignominious and painful death by his Combater Satan was the main cause of his exceeding natural fear and so consequently of his Agony But Secondly in order to overcome that fear the Dialogue doth make his godly fear in his rational soul by putting up strong prayers with cryes and tears for the overcoming of his natural fear to be another ground that did increase his violent sweat in his Agony And thirdly It makes his pious care to perform all the sufferings that were written of him in exact obedience in all circumstances to the Laws of the Combate without any diversion by Satans provocations to bee another circumstance that did aggravate his zeal in his prayers and so it was a helping cause to increase his sweat in his Agony But mark this the Dialogue doth still make his natural fear of death to be the foundation of all this and therefore I know no just cause given why Mr. Norton should say That my words are a secret acknowledgement that his fear of a natural death was not a sufficient cause
ignominious death than by his earnest sweating prayers in which he was heard because of his godly fear But saith Mr. Norton in page 87. The word Agony in Luke 22. 44. signifies the sorrows of Combaters A true description of Christs Agony Luk. 22. 44. entring the Lists with the sense of the utmost danger of life A metaphor taken from the Passion of conflicting affections in the greatest eminentest and most sensible perils and so holding forth the sharpest of the fears of men Reply 21. This description of the word Agony I do acknowledge to bee very true and good But in his explication of it to Christ he doth again spoyl it because hee makes the Agony of Christ to be his conflicting with his Fathers vindicative wrath and with eternal death whereas according to the true sense of Scripture It was his natural fear conflicting with his ignominious torturing death which by his own Covenant with his Father he was to suffer from his combater Satan and in that respect he also covenanted that his true humane nature which he would assume from the seed of the deceived sinful woman should be eminently touched with the dread of his cruel and ignominious usage according to the true purport of Gods first declaration in Gen. 3. 15. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 87. Luke expresseth the nature of his passion in general by an Agony in Luk. 22. 44. Reply 22. I grant it was an Agony in general but not from his sufferings from Gods immediate wrath as Mr. Norton holds but from his sufferings from the malice of his Combater Satan and for the better understanding of the true nature of his agony I will ranck it into two sorts First Into his active agony in the Garden Secondly Into his passive agony or rather into his active-passive agony from the time of his apprehension to his death on the cross 1 I will speak of his active agony and that was begun in some degree before his last Supper as it is evident by Joh. 12. 27. Joh. 12. 27. with Joh. 13. 1. Now is my soul troubled and what shall I say Father save me from this hour namely from the dread of this hour but not absolutely from the hour of his sufferings as the next words do evidence but saith he for this cause came I to this hour And though it is said by a * Sometimes the passive verb is put for the active See Ainsw in Deut. 31. 17. and in Pareus reconciling the Greek in Rom. 4 3. with the Hebrew in Gen. 15. 6. he saith these two are all one God imputed Faith and Faith by God was imputed so also he poured out his soul to death Isa 53. 12. is in the Seventy and in Rom. 4. 25. he was delivered to death And saith â—all on the Covenant p. 60. Active verbs are expounded passively among the Hebrews See also Ains in Psa 36 3. 109. 13. 40 15. 122. 5. Gen. 20. 6. Lev. 26. 1 11. passive verb my soul is troubled yet in Joh. 11. 33. he is said to trouble himself And hence it follows by these two Scriptures compared that his conflicting affections were active for his sensitive will was in an absolute subjection to his rational will in which he was the absolute Lord Commander of all his affections they did his will at his beck and this excellent property belongs onely to the humane nature of Christ it is his personal priviledge for our natural passions in him were above our natural power because nature in him did never go before his will as Damasen speaks in Reply 26. 2 The thought of his sufferings was much in his mind when he was at his last Supper and therefore while he was at Supper he bad Judas to do what he had to do quickly Joh. 13. 27. and when Judas was gone about his treachery he did manifest that he had very sad apprehensions of what evils he was to suffer for Supper being ended and Jesus knowing that the father had given all things into his hands Joh. 13. 3. namely knowing that the Father had given the management of the whole combate into the hands of his true humane nature as it was accompanied with true humane passions He knew it was his duty to stir up his true humane conflicting affections in a more eminent manner than other men at the approach of his ignominious and painful sufferings according to the most eminent and tender constitution of his nature above the nature of other men 3 It is also evident that the expressions of the two Evangelists Matthew and Mark do relate to the same agony that Luke doth and therefore Tindal doth translate Ademonein Mat. 26. 37. and in Mark 14. 33. which we translate very heavy by the word Agony in both places just as he doth Agon in Luk. 22. 44. But as soon as Christ had obtained a confirmation against his said natural fear by his earnest prayers in the Garden then his inward agony by his conflicting affections had an end I say after he had by his earnest prayers obtained a confirmation he never had any more conflicting affections in the consideration of those evils he was to suffer as he had before he had prayed as I have formerly noted it But as soon as he had obtained his request by his earnest prayers then he came to his Disciples and said to them as a resolved Champion Come the hour is come Behold the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners Rise up let us go Mark 14. 41 42. namely let us not Mar. 14. 41 42. rise up to run away through fear but let us go and meet those arch-Instruments of Satan the sons of Belial aâ— Ainsw calls them in Gen. 13. 13. or as Trap saith in Matth. 26. 46. Rise let us be going to meet that death which till he had prayed saith he he greatly feared Or let us go meet my Combater Satan He speaks these words after the manner of a couragious Champion that is going to strive with his Antagonist for the mastery and the sequel shows that from this time forwards he resisted his Combater Satan unto blood for it was counted a shame for such as undertook to be Combaters to yeeld before any blood was drawn and indeed such combate as were undertaken for the tryal of the mastery were seldom determined without blood And accordingly he that did overcome his Antagonist without transgressing the voluntary Laws of the Combat was reputed by the Masters of the game to be a lawful victor and he did thereby merit the prize and unto this custom the Apostle doth allude in Heb. 12. 1 2 3. Ye Heb. 12. 1 2 3. have not yet resisted unto blood striving against sin Look therefore unto the example of that Combater Jesus Christ who is the Captain and conservator as Ains renders the word in Lev. 8. 22. of our Faith Who for the joy that was set before him indured the cross and
despised the shame and is now seated with honor as a conqueror at the right hand of the Throne of God for he indured as the godly many times do a great combate or fight of afflictions Heb. 10. 32. Such voluntary Laws and Covenants as were usually made by the Masters of the Olympick and Roman Combates and such voluntary Combaters as did consent to obey the said Laws and Covenants do somewhat exemplifie my meaning when I do so often speak of the voluntary Covenant between the Trinity and of the voluntary undertaking of the seed of the woman to enter the Lists and to combate with the arch-enemy of mankind in obedience to those positive Laws and Covenants that were made between the Trinity for winning the prize of mans redemption 4 An agony may be either inward by conflicting affections against the fear of evil and such was Christs agony in the Garden from the fore-sight or fore-apprehension of his ignominious usage by his cruel Combater Satan Or secondly An agony may be outward in conflicting with the smarting sense of the blows of the opposite Champion Dr. Hammon in 2 Tim. 4. 7. 8. saith That these two verses are 2 â—im 4. 7 8. wholly Agonistical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he is any of the four famous Games Olympick c. And of that as it signifies the suffering afflictions See 1 Thes 2. 6. and there saith he the 1 Thes 2. 2. word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strife or contention may be taken in an active or in a passive sense i. e. either for labor or sufferance both in a high degree In the first sense saith he Christ doth command us to enter in at the strait gate And in the latter sense saith he see Phil. 1. 30. Col 1. 29. 1 Tim. 4. 10. Heb. 12. 1 2. Phil. 1. 30. Col. 1. 29. where striving is bearing or suffering afflictions and so in 1 Tim. 4. 10. there the K. M. reads we combate i. e. suffer persecutions and there is the combate of sufferings in Heb. 10 32. and Phil. 4. 3. the women that Heb. 10. 32. Phil. 4. 3. combated or contended i. e. that suffered persecutions with me See more of the Agonistical Games in his Annotations on 1 Cor. 9. 24 25 26 27. And see Goodwin in his Roman Antiquities l. 2. 1 Cor. 9. 24 25 26 27. p. 100 101 103 104. of the several sorts of combating and he concludes with a reference to Lipsius who treateth largely of the combate of Fencing And into this double kind of agony did Darius cast himself in Dan. 6. 14. He labored till the going down of the Sun to deliver Daniel Dan. 6. 14. The Seventy translate this word labored by Agonizomenos that is to say he labored as those that strive or contend for the mastery with Daniels opposite Combaters to deliver Daniel from the Lions Den He so contended with Daniels adversaries as he did agonize himself to deliver him till the going down of the Sun and this agony of his was not onely extended to his outward laboring with Daniels adversaries to get a Release of the Decree but it was also an inward agony with his own conflicting affections of sorrow and fear for the cruel death of his dearly beloved Daniel And yet in vers 16. he had some hope that God would miraculously deliver Daniel and when the King sealed the stone with his signet that the Decree should not be changed he had some hope of his escape for he knew that the Lions did not presently seize upon his body and therefore after hee was returned to his Palace hee remained fasting and suffered no instruments of musick to bee brought before him and his sleep went from him vers 18. all this doth evidence the greatness of his inward agony with his own conflicting thoughts and affections of fear and sorrow for the great danger of Daniels life These and such like instances do somewhat direct us how to understand the true ground and cause of Christs agony both of his internal agony in his sensitive soul in the Garden and of his external agony by his combate of sufferings from Satan and his instruments from his apprehension to his death on the Cross and how he was to conquer them by his constant patience and by his perseverance in all obedience to the positive Laws of the combate before he could make his soul an acceptable sacrifice 5 I will yet more largely open Christs agony by opening the plot of the Trinity for mans redemption as it is declared in Gen. 3. 15. First In proclaiming enmity between the seed Gen. 3. 25. of the Serpent and the seed of the Woman And secondly In declaring the victory to go on Christs side by his obedience to the Laws of the Combate even when the Devil by his malicious stratagems should peirce him in the foot-soals 1 God told the Devil in the Serpent in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put an utter enmity between him and the seed of the deceived woman and that he should have his full liberty to use him as a sinful Malefactor and at last to peirce him in the foot-soals and that hee should have his full liberty to enter the Lists and try masteries with his humane nature as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities to the end that he might try the best of skill if by any means he could bring this seed of the woman into any disobedience to the Laws of the Combate as he had done with Adam in his Innocency But Mr. Norton in page 19. and in page 218. doth spoyl the true sense of this word Seed of the woman called Hee and Him in Gen. 3. 15. by interpreting it in a collective sense of Christ and his members whereas it should bee interpreted only of the individual person of Christ as he is the second Adam and publick head of his Elect Church as Mr. Rutherfurd on the Covenant page 312. hath rightly expounded the word Seed in Gal. 3. 16. and his reasons there alleged may serve to prove the like sense of the word Seed in Gen. 3. 15. Moreover God told the Devil that hee might look to himself as well as hee could that this seed of the deceived woman should by his perfect obedience to the Laws of the Combate conquer him in all his designs and at last make his soul a most perfect obedient sacrifice by which perfection of his obedience both in his Combate and Sacrifice he should break in peeces his first grand Head-plot for his first grand Head-plot was to intice Adam to eat the forbidden fruit contrary to Gods voluntary positive prohibition and thereby to inwrap him and all his natural posterity into the same spiritual death of original sin But yet for all this God told the Devil that hee would raise up a seed from this deceived sinful woman that should conquer him by his most perfect and exact obedience to another voluntary positive Law that
you answer me That it was for the fear of the pains of Purgatory Forsooth he that should so answer would bee laughed to scorn of all the world as hee were well worthy Wherefore was it then Verily even for the fear of death as it plainly appeareth after for he prayed unto his Father saying My Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me Mat. 26. 38 39. So fearful a thing is death even to the purest flesh And saith he the same cause will I assign in Hezekiah that hee wept for fear of Death and not of Purgatory In these words you see that Friths judgement was That Christs Agony was for fear not of a spiritual but of a corporal death 11 Tindal translates Luke 22. 44. thus His sweat was like drops of blood trickling down to the ground and speaking of Christs last Supper hee saith thus The fear of death was the same hour upon him neither slept hee any more after but went immediately after he had comforted his Disciples into the place where he was taken to abide his Persecutors where also he sweat water and blood of very agony conceived of his Passion so nigh at hand 12 In Reply 18. I have cited Dr. Lightfoot saying In his Agony he sweat drops like blood These five last Authors you see are not for sweating of perfect blood though Tindal say hee sweat water and blood yet that is far from pure blood and farther from clods of blood 2 This is farther remarkable that Tindal and Frith do make the fear of his bodily death in the words cited to bee the cause of his Agony 3 This is still farther remarkable that neither of these two have a word in all their writings that hee suffered any other death but a bodily death though Mr. Norton is so bold as to condemn their judgement therein to be heresie 4 Saith Mr. Norton in page 67. These Authors I not having by mee cannot examine the Quotations their words therefore rather better bearing the sense of the Orthodox than the sense of the Dialogue Reply 25. The Reader may please to take notice of Mr. Nortons unjust prejudice of the Dialogue for the Author of the Dialogue cites their sense to his sense which is so clear and manifest that it stares him in the face and yet their words cited in the sense of the Dialogue he saith is orthodox and that the sense of the Dialogue is heresie Is not this plain partiality to favour the same doctrine in one as orthodox and to condemn it in another for heresie And saith hee Friths other writings call to have it so namely to mean it according to Mr. Norton Reply 26. It is an open wrong to Mr. Frith and to the Reader to make Frith of his judgement the words of Frith which I have truly cited him do cry shame upon him for saying so and in all his writings hee makes the death of Christ to bee no other but a true bodily death 12 I have cited Cyprian in Reply 8. to the sense of Frith namely to bee sorrowful unto death and for the exceeding grief thereof to powre forth a bloody sweat 13 Damasen saith thus Christ took unto him all blameless and natural passions for he assumed the whole man and all that pertained to man except sin Natural and blameless passions are those which are not in our power and whatsoever entred into mans life through the condemnation of sin namely of Adams sin as hunger thirst weakness labour weeping corruption shunning of death fear agony whence sweat and drops of blood These things saith he are in all men by nature Christ therefore took all these unto him that he might sanctifie them all Howbeit our natural passions were in Christ according to nature and above nature According to nature they were stirred up in Christ when hee permitted his flesh to indure that which was proper to it Above nature because nature in him did never go before his will for there was nothing forced in him but all things voluntary when hee would hee hungred when he would hee thirsted when hee would hee feared and when hee would hee dyed From this speech of Damasen touching Christs Passion and Agony in the Garden we see he held 1 That shunning of Death Fear Agony whence sweat and drops of blood which are in all men by nature and therefore saith he Christ took all these unto him that hee might sanctifie them all 2 That these were in Christ not only according to nature but above nature because nature in him did never go before his will 3 That nothing in him was forced therefore hee was far from holding as Mr. Norton doth in page 70. that he was pressed under the sense of the wrath of God Conclusion When the fulness of time was come that the seed of the woman Christ Jesus was to be bruised and peirced in the foot-soals with an ignominious torturing death by Satan and his instruments according to Gods declared permission in Gen. 3. 15. The divine nature might not protect the humane but must leave the humane nature to its self to manage this conflict in which conflict he was to manifest his true humane infirmities and therefore when the Devil and his Arch-instruments were to seise upon him he began to be sore amazed and to be very heavy and then he said unto Peter James and John My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto the death or it is surrounded with sorrow that is to say Every part of my body wherein I have my vital soul is in a quaking fear of such an ignominious death by such a malignant enemy as is armed with power and authority from Gâ—d to execute it on me and I do here manifest my true humane nature and the infirmities of it that you may record it to all posterity that I have took part with them that for fear of death are all their life time subject to bondage that they may be assured I am a merciful High-priest and that I am truly touched with the feeling of their infirmities not in a small degree for then it might be doubted whether I am so sensible of their condition as I am but in the highest degree according to the most excellent temper and tender constitution of my nature above the nature of other men But yet it is of necessity that I must overcome this natural fear because I have covenanted to lay down my life by my own will desire and power Joh. 10. 17 18. and therefore my rational soul must betake it self to prayer therefore tarry yee here and watch and pray that yee be not overcome by the many temptations that now are at hand to try you and then he went a little from them and fell on the ground and prayed That if it were possible that hour might pass from him namely that the dread of his ignominious usage might pass from him for so much the hour imports in Mark 14. 35 41. And his Agony was so
great that it caused him to sweat as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground And when he had three times offered up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from the natural dread of his ignominious torturing death he was heard and delivered from the natural fear of his vital soul because of his godly fear in his rational soul and then he was confirmed against his natural fear and so he never feared more after this and then as soon as he had fulfilled all his sufferings he did in perfection of patience and obedience make his vital soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation for mans Redemption This Relation of Christs Combate and of his Agony in his Combate is every way agreeable to the scope of the blessed Scriptures and therefore Mr. Nortons Tenent must needs bee dangerous because he makes this Combate to be between Christs humane nature and his divine being pressed under the sense of Gods wrath and conflicting with eternal death and so forcing out clods of blood as wine is forced from the grapes by Gods pressing wrath such expressions of pressing do utterly destroy the voluntariness of Christs obedience in his suffering and do make him to be no lesse than an inherent sinner in his Death and Sacrifice CHAP. XVII SECT I. The Examination of Psal 22. 1. with Matth. 27. 46. THe Dialogue cites Mr. Broughton saying My God my God sheweth That Christ was not forsaken of God but that God was still his hope 2 Saith he The word Forsaken is not in the Text But why dost thou leave me to the griefs following from the malice of the Jews as they are expressed in the body of the Psalms 3 Saith he None ever propounded one matter and made his amplification of another But Psal 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by men and not from Gods anger And therefore the Proposition in the first verse is not a complaint to God that hee had forsaken his soul in anger for our sins c. Mr. Norton Answers thus in page 78. The Hebrew as also the Syriack used by our Saviour in Mat. 27. 46. and the Greek word used here by the Septuagint signifie to leave another helpless in their necessity and extremity which appeareth not only in its frequent use in the Scripture but also in that this very word per Antiphrasin it being one of those Hebrew words that have two contrary significations signifies to help up that which is down and to forâ—iâ—ie Neh. 3. 8. 4. 2. And such leaving we usually express by forsaking and accordingly it is read by Latine Expositors â—romiscuously who do in effect say with Mr. Ainsworth there is no material diffâ—rence between leaving and forsaking so as the meaning be kept sound Reply 1. He saith that this Hebrew word Azab to leave is one of those Hebrew words that have two contrary significations The Hebrew word Azab hath two contrary significations as Mr. Norton affirmeth to amuse his Reader about Gods forsaking Christ I wish he do not cast a mist in this speech as well before his own eyes as before his Readers Though I am no Linguist yet I love and approve such as do labor to use the Originals to the advantage of the truth and to the profit of the Reader But as far as I can learn this Hebrew word Azab is none of those that have two contrary significations if there be any such when things are searched to the bottom but yet I freely grant that this word as well as many others have several differing significations but not contrary namely a proper signification and a metaphorical But saith Mr. Norton It hath two contrary significations First Because it signifies to help up that which is down as well as to leave or forsake Reply 2. I grant that Azab by a necessary consequence from the context doth signifie helping up that which is down and in this he alludes to Exod. 23. 5. and there the words run thus Exod. 23. 5. If thou see the Ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden and wouldest forbear to help him thou shall surely help with him I grant that our Translation doth twice in this Text render Azab to help but yet in the Margin they translate it to leave in both places according to the propriety of the Hebrew thus wouldest cease to leave thy business for him thou shalt surely leave it to joyn with him hence it follows by a necessary consequence that if he must leave his business to joyn with his hater whose Ass lies under his burden it must be to help him and in this respect the Translators may well render Azab to help And to the like sense doth Ainsworth translate it in his Annotations When thou shalt see thy haters Ass lying under his burden then thou shalt cease from forsaking him and hence it follows that he that ceaseth from forsaking his hater when his Ass lies under his burden must needs help him And therefore in the next clause Mr. Ainsworth reads it thus Thou shalt leaving leave thine own business to be with him thou shalt not leave him by passing away on the other side of the way as the Priest and the Levite did from the wounded man but thou shalt leave thy hatred to help him as the Samaritan did Luk. 10. 33 34. And according to this sense the Seventy render it thus Thou shalt not pass by the same that is thou shalt not leave his Ass under his burden but shalt raise up the same together with him And the Chalde speaks thus Thou shalt leave what is in thine heart against him and hence it follows That he that leaves what is in his heart against his hater when his Ass lies under his burden must needs help him Therefore from hence I conclude that the Translating of Azab to help is more from the sense of the Context than from the proper sense of the word and therefore though it be translated to help up yet that doth not prove it to have a contrary sense to leave it onely proves that Azab may be taken in a various sense according to the circumstances of the Context where it is used The like he affirms of a contrary sense in other words p. 48. and he gives three instances To which I answer that they are not contrary though different in respect of the metaphorical sense and so the word Tzedec Righteousness is often put for a counterfeit righteousness which in proper speaking is unrighteousness in Gods sight And therefore the Seventy translate it unrighteousness in Ezek. 21. 3. Isa 49. 24. But it is ironically called righteousness Secondly Saith Mr. Norton Azab signifies to Fortifie Neh. 3. 8. 4. 2. Reply 3. I grant that to fortifie is contrary to leaving and forsaking in case it can have no other sense in the place cited But our larger Annotations on Nehem. 3. 8. do rightly expound our Margin Translation which is
according to the propriety of the Hebrew word Azab of leaving off to fortifie when they came to the broad wall because that was done in former times and was still standing undemolished as the rest was and the like sense they give of Neh. 4. 2. and the like sense must be given of Azab in Isa 49. 25. and therefore as yet there is no contrary signification of the word Azab as Mr. Norton doth make his Reader beleeve to bewilder his understanding in the manner of Gods leaving or forsaking Christ on the Cross But for the better finding out the truth I will first give some instances of the various sense of Azab and then I will examine what sense it hath in Psa 22. 1. 1 It is used in a metaphorical sense for a Mart or Fair Ezek. 27. 12 14 16 19 22. And it is also used for Wares of Merchandize in Ez. 27. 27 33. And the reason is plain because in Fairs and Markets there is an usual and continual leaving of one thing for another by way of contract as of mony for Wares and of Wares for mony of one sort of Ware for another So in like sort the Hebrew word Gnereb which in propriety doth signifie the connexion or con-joyning of two or more things together is used by Ezekiel by a Metonymia for Fairs or Markets and for Wares of Merchandizâ— Ezek. 27. 13 17 c. Because of the connexion and conjoyning of sundry sorts of Wares to sell and because of the sundry conjunctions between men by contracts about Wares as I have shewed at large in my Treatise of Holy Time 2 As Azab is put for leaving one thing for another in Markets so it is put for any other kind of leaving either by way of agreement or disagreement As for example when it is agreed that two shall strive for the mastery there all friends must stand aside and leave their friend alone to try the mastery as David was left of his friends when he alone undertook to try masteries with Goliah 3 Leaving is put for leaving of a mans own business to help another in his necessity as in Ezek. 23. 5. afore expounded 4 Leaving is put for forsaking or leaving another that is helpless in their necessity Sometimes it is to leave in anger as 2 Chron. 24. 25. And sometimes not in anger but by necessity 1 Sam. 30. 13. And sometimes willingly and so Mary left Martha to serve whiles she attended to Christs Doctrine and in that respect Martha complained to Christ saying Dost thou not care that my Sister hath left me alone to serve Luk. 10. 40. There Sabactani is in the Syriack just as it is in Psa 22. 1. and in Mat. 27. 46. 5 Leaving in Hebrew is often used in mercy favor and kindness as in Ruth 2. 16. Jer. 49. 11. and so it is used in the Chalde in Dan. 4. 15 26. the word Leave there is in favor as ver 26 sheweth 6 Azab is applied to Gods leaving or forsaking of notorious sinners in anger 2 Chron. 24. 18 20 24. Deut. 31. 17. 32. 36. 1 King 14. 10 21. 21. 2 King 14. 26. Yea sometimes Gods hatred is joyned to his leaving or forsaking as in Isa 60. 15. But remember this that God never forsakes any in wrath but such as do first forsake him by provoking sins 7 Azab is used for leaving of a mans first love to the Truth in Prov. 3. 3. Let not Mercy and Truth leave thee or forsake thee 8 God left Hezekiah onely to try his heart 2 Chron. 32. 31. 9 Azab is put for a leaving of those that a man loves well to cleave to that which a man loves better as to leave a Father for a Wife Gen. 2. 24. Ruth 1. 16. 10 A man leaves a thing because he is forced Gen. 39. 12 13 15 18. 11 A man often leaves that he loves through haste Josh 8. 17. 1 Sam. 30. 13. 12 Hee leaves a thing through fear 1 King 31. 7. 1 Chron. 10. 7. 13 Azab is to leave or cease or rest from complaining and so the Divine nature did often rest or cease or leave the Humane nature to his own natural principles in his sufferings and combatings with Satan and his Instruments These several senses of Azab and many such like do shew the various sense of the word leaving 14 And this is worth the noting That though Azab doth often signifie such a leaving as is a forsaking yet it doth not alwaies signifie forsaking as it doth leaving For Azab is applied to sundry kinds of leaving which cannot with any fitness be called a forsaking as in Gen. 39. 6. Potiphar left all he had in trust in Josephs hand So in Gen. 50. 8. Their little ones and their flocks and their heards they left in the land of Goshen And so in Exod. 9. 21. 2 Sam. 15. 16. and so in Ruth 2. 16 Boaz commanded his Reapers to let fall some of their handfuls and leave them in kindness on purpose for Ruth to glean them So Job 39. 14. The Ostritch leaveth her eggs in the warm dust to hatch her young ones So in Jer. 49. 11. Mal. 4. 1. 2 Chron. 28. 14. Ezra 6. 7. And many other places might be cited to prove that Azab cannot so fitly be translated to forsake as to leave I grant notwithstanding that the word leave is so large that many times it doth most fitly agree to the word forsake in the largest use of it But ere long I shall shew the particular sense of the word left or forsaken Psa 22. 1. But saith Mr. Norton in the page aforesaid The meaning of the word leave or forsake was kept sound with Mr. Ainsworth but with you is not Reply 4. I grant that Mr. Ainsworth did hold that God forsook or left Christs soul in wrath but yet for all that he was far from holding as Mr. Norton doth namely that Christ suffered the Essential torments of Hell I received some Letters from him not many years before his death about the point of Christs sufferings And his Letters tell me that he held this as a principle that Christ suffered no other afflictions for kind but what the Elect do suffer in this life though in a far greater measure 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 Isa 53. 5. All Christs greatest sufferings are comprised under the word chastisements iâ— Isa 53. 5. of Christs sufferings on the cross are also comprised under 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 â—â—cause 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 sweat 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 meer folly and madness This wary and judicious Annotation is quite opposite to Mr. Nortons Tenent for Mr. Norton holds no sufferings to be available to our Redemption but a just satisfaction to the Law namely Christs suffering of the Essential punishment of Hel torments both of loss and sense both in body and soul But saith this Annotation I will not say 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 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 Our larger Annotation on Ps 22. 1. doth account Mr. Nortons way of satisfaction to be but bare humane ratiocination which is but meer folly and madness that Christ suffered the very essential torments of Hell both in 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 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 â—2 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 God
forsook Christ on the cross by not protecting him against his crucifiers not protecting him from the hands of Satan and his Instruments 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 aâ— 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 thâ—â— 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 mee to be thus afflicted Why dost thou permit these things to mine enemies When wilt 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. 17. he saith Why should not these words My God my God be translated Why hast thou left me and given â—e up to such hands shame and tortures rather then to intricate the sense with a surmise of Christs spiritual desertion 5 Mr. Robert Wilmot in his Manuscript on Christs Descent on these words in Act. 2. 25. He is at my right hand saith thus God is at Christs right hand for support and comfort as in this Text and in Psal 109. ult This by the way Oâ—e would think saith he evinceth That the complaint of our Lord in Psal 22. 1. and in Mat. 27. 46. imports not any total dereliction or desertion without all comfort but a leaving of the holy One of God Mark 1. 14. to the extremities of wicked men mentioned in that Psalm and felt upon the Cross Ibidem
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 iâ— 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 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 as it is expounded by sundry Orthodox which I will cite 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 bâ—cause 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 forsaken 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 did leave the humane nature to act of it self according to its own nâ—tural 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 posiâ—â causâ 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 sitly exemplifie See Pareus Notes on Athanasius Creed Art â— this union to the union of our soul and body making one 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 out 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 Theodâ—râ—t 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. faith 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 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 perfecutoâ—s 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 sâ—crilegiously 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 Combaâ—er 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 The Geneva note on the word Forsaken in Psa 22. 1. doth make Christ a sinner inherently But yet some there are that do affirm that he was forsaken 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 respect of outward protection as I have shewed in Answer to the second Question but yet he did not forsake the inward man by any weakning of Grace nor in respect of the comfort of that Grace and this is evident by what I have cited in my Answer to the first Question from v. 11. and 19. And also I shall now add another reason by conferring it with v. 24. There Christ doth exhort all the seed of Jacob to praise God he hath not hid or turned away his face from him Hence it follows by good consequence that when Christ said my God my God why hast thou forsaken me he could not mean that God had hid
concerning Christ Peter hath concerning himself I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13. 37. and John hath the same concerning Christ and the Saints because he laid down his life for us we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren 1 Joh. 3. 16. Reply 25. I grant that all the godly ought to say to Christ There is a transcendent difference between the manner of Peters laying down his life for Christ and Christs laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect. Joh 10. 11. as Peter said to him I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13. 37. and they ought also to say as John said in 1 Joh. 3. 16. For it is the duty of all the godly to venture their lives as Martyrs for the defence of the truth and for the defence of the godly that stand for the truth if they be called thereto rather than to deny it But the death of Christ must be considered not only as hee was a Martyr from his Combater Satan but it must also bee considered as it was ordained to be a Sacrifice of satisfaction to Gods Justice for mans Redemption in the formality of it In the first sense Christ saith in Joh. 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd the good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheep that is to say Hee spares not to venture his life to incounter as a voluntary Combater with the proclaimed Enemy of his elect Sheep The old Serpent according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. to rescue as the good Shepherd David did the prey or the Lamb which was taken for a spoyl from the Lion and the Bear 1 Sam. 17. 35. Job 29. 17. And thus Christ gave his life as a Martyr 2 But in the second sense his death must be considered as it was to be made a sacrifice of Reconciliation in the formality of it and so it must be considered as it was effected by his own Priestly power and in that respect his death is set forth in divers other words in Joh. 10. 17 18. to be of a Joh. 10. 17 18. transcendent nature beyond that voluntary suffering that is expressed by Peter or by any other Martyr as it appears by these particulars First Saith Christ in v. 11. 15 I lay down my life for my sheep I am the good Shepherd I will not play the Coward to flye when the Wolf cometh to devour my sheep but I will readily and voluntarily undertake to combate with the Wolf for the redemption of my sheep I am ready to venture my life in the Combate with the old proclaimed Serpent for the rescuing of my sheep from Satans spoyl for though I know before hand by Gen. 3. 15. that Satan hath an unlimited power given him to do his worst against me and to use me as a sinful Malefactor for a time which time is truly called the hour and power of darkness in Luke 22. 53. yet like a good Shepherd I will readily enter the Lists with Satan and will so exactly manage the Combate by my humane nature for the trial of the Mastery according to the Laws of the Combate that my death at last shall not only bee a death of Martyrdome such as Peter speaks of but over and above I will make my death in the formality of it to bee a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to the eternal Covenant for the full redemption of all my captivated sheep I will divide the spoyl with the strong enemy Satan I will redeem the Elect though he keep the refuse and therefore Secondly Christ doth still amplifie the most excellent nature of his death saying in verse 18. I lay down my life of my self namely by my own will desire and power according to my voluntary Covenant for I am a voluntary and equal reciprocal Covenanter and therefore I must never bee over-ruled by any supreme power for that would destroy the nature of such a voluntary Covenant as mine is Thirdly Christ doth still amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying None takes my life from me and if none saith Chrysostome then surely not death that sentence of death that was denounced to sinful Adam in Gen. 3. 19. was denounced as a death to be co-acted by the justice of God for original sin this kind of death could not take away Christs life from him therefore the death of Christ must be considered as a death of Covenant only it was founded in the voluntary Cause and Covenant to be performed by himself as a Priest and to bee accepted as a sacrifice of Reconciliation as the full price of mans Redemption But on the contrary if Christ had been our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam then God might in justice have taken away his life from him volence nolence then God might in justice have said to death Let death seize upon him as upon a guilty Sinner or as on a guilty Surety and so death might have exacted his life from him as a true debtor to death by Gods justice and then his death had been no more but a co-acted natural death as Mr. Norton makes it to be But the blessed Scriptures do testifie that Christ in his death did overcome him that had the power of death Heb. 2. 14. and that he triumphed over Principalities and Powers in it Col. Heb. 2 14. Col. 2. 15. 2. 15. The Devil therefore could not put Christ to death formally by his tortures as he doth other men that are sinners by Gods legal imputation and therefore Christ said None takes my life from me Fourthly Christ doth still proceed to amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying I have power to lay it down namely of my self as he had expressed his meaning in the former sentence other men sometimes have a great desire to dye and to lay down their lives formally and yet they cannot dye according to their earnest desire because they want a power to effect it Jonab had a great desire to dye and yet he had not power to dye and therefore hee prayed unto the Lord saying O Lord take away my vital soul from me Jonah 4. 3. I have a great desire to dye but yet I cannot dye by my own will desire and power except I should use some sinful violence against my life Elijah also had a great desire to dye and yet hee had not power to dye and therefore he prayed unto God saying O Lord take away my vital soul 1 King 19. 4. But Christ had a power to lay down his life of himself when the appointed hour was come to make his soul a sacrifice Fifthly Saith Christ I have the same power to lay down my vital soul that I have to take it up again and therefore I do compare my power which I have to lay down my life with my power which I have to take it up again This saith Origen afore cited neither Moses nor
therefore he commanded them to be thrown into the Lions Den and to be killed as the true murtherers of Daniel in Laws esteem Dan. 6. 22 23 24. Dan. 6. 22 23 24. 4 In case Mr. Norton will still deny this Priestly power to Christ in the formality of his death and sacrifice then why hath he not hitherto made it evident by Scripture rightly expounded how else Christ was the onely Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice seeing the Dialogue did give him just occasion to clear this point more fully than as yet he hath done I find that some eminent Divines do make his own submission to be put to death formally by the Devils Instruments to be his onely priestly act in his sacrifice But for the reasons fore-alledged from Joh. 10. 17 18. and from Heb. 7. and Heb. 9. 14 15 16. It is still evident to me that his act of submission to be put to death by the Devils Instruments is not sufficient to demonstrate his active priestly power and authority for the making of his death to be a mediatorial sacrifice for then the submission of Martyrs to be put to death by Tyrants might as well be called their Priestly power to make their lives a sacrifice But I have formerly shewed First That no other death can No other act of a Priest doth make a sacrifice but such an act as doth formally take away the life of the sacrifice properly be called a sacrifice but such a death onely as is formally made by a Priest namely by such a Priest as God hath designed for that work Secondly That no other act of that Priest can make it to bee a sacrifice formally but such an act as doth formally take away the life of the appointed sacrifice 5 Saith Mr. Trap on Heb. 2. 10. The Priest was first consecrated Heb. 2. 10 compared with Lev. 8. 30. with oyle and then with blood this I do the rather mention for the better consideration of the nature of Christs Consecration to his Priestly Office First He was annointed with the oyl of gladness when he was first extrinsecally installed into the Mediators Office at his Baptism by the apparition of the Holy Ghost in shape like a Dove Matth. 3. Secondly After this he was Consecrated with blood in all his bloody sufferings Heb. 2. 10 17. with Heb. 5. 9. 6 Every consecrated Priest must have some good thing to offer to the offended party for his reconciliation to the offender Heb. 8. 3. and none knows what good thing will be acceptable to our offended God but himself and therefore he onely must both ordain the Priest and the manner of his consecration and the good thing that he will accept and the manner of the offering it And therefore it pleased God in the first Covenant to ordain typical Priests that had sinful infirmities and typical cleansings by the ashes of an Heifer and by the blood of beasts for the cleansing and purifying of the flesh from Ceremonial sins And these beasts he appointed to be First of the gentle and harmless kinds and such as would continue patient under ill usage Secondly To be such as were without spot outwardly And thirdly To be such as were without blemish inwardly that so they might be types of the perfection of Christs humane nature and of his sacrifice 1 Pet. 1. 10. as the onely good things which he had ordained to be offered by his Priestly power to purge the conscience from all our moral sins and so to bring us again to God as the Dialogue hath shewed in p. 91 c. Therefore when he came into the world he said Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldest not have but a body hast thou prepared me God that was offended knew best what good thing would be most acceptable unto him for the procuring of his reconciliation prepared a body for Christ that so it might be that worthy thing that from eternity he had appointed to be offered in the fulness of time And therefore in the fulness of time Christ said Lo I come to do thy acceptable will O God and so he took away the first typical Priests and sacrifices that he might establish the second to stand for ever Heb. 10. 5 6 7 c. By which will of God thus performed by Christ in making his prepared body a sacrifice we are sanctified or made holy and righteous again Heb. 10. 10. namely set into a state of savour Heb. 10. 10. The woâ—d Sanctifie and make holy in the Law is often ascribed to Gods attonement and forgiveness procured by sacrifice and therefore sinners that are so made holy are justified and righteous persons in Gods sight as we were in our first creation for so we must understand the word sanctified and so the legal phrase in the word sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh in vers 13. doth teach us to carry the sense and how else did the offering of Christs body sanctifie or purge the conscience as the word is in ver 14. from dead works that is to say from original and actual sin But because God was pleased to ordain that offering to be the onely meritorious procuring cause of his reconciliation attonement pardon and forgiveness So then it is Gods Attonement so procured that did sanctifie the sinner or make him holy and righteous in Gods sight in respect of his state in relation to Gods favor even as Adam was in his first Creation and the reason is so plain that he that is but observant of the typical phrases may run and read it namely because originally God created the nature of all mankind in holiness and righteousness after his own image for in case Adam had but first eaten of the Tree of life all his children should have been holy but in case he did first eat of the forbidden fruit then he and all his posterity should with him forfeit their creative purity and instead thereof become dead in sin and so be in a state of enmity with God but by Gods reconciliation and attonement procured through the sacrifice of Christ all their sins should be forgiven and so they should be again restored into their former estate of holiness and righteousness namely into Gods gracious favour again as Adam was in his innocency And saith Baxter to Molivaeus p. 181. It is the same act of God that is called constitutive justification and pardon of sin so far as Justification is taken as comprehending onely the restoring of us to the happiness that we fell from But this I perceive is a Riddle to Mr. Norton for in p. 209. he saith to be sinless is not enough to make a sinner righteous but if he will but search better into the Ceremonial Types he may see that it is Gods forgiveness from his attonement procured by legal washings and by the blood of beasts by which all Israel were sanctified or made a holy people again as the legal Heb. 9
which we call Soul saith Ainsworth in Ps 16. 10. hath the name of Breathing and Respiring and saith he it is the vital spirit that all quick things move by therefore beasts birds fish and creeping things are called Living souls Gen. 1. 20. 24. and this soul is sometimes called The blood Gen. 9. 4. because it is in the blood of all quick things Lev. 17. 11. 2 Christopher Carlisle proves on the Article of Descent page 144. 153. that Nephesh is never used for the immortal soul in all the Old Testament and saith Dr. Hammond in 1 Thes 5. 23. Psuche the soul doth ordinarily in the New Testament signifie The life and saith Carlisle in p. 155. Psuchee doth signifie the immortal soul but in three places namely in Mat. 10. 27 28. Jam. 1. 21. 1 Pet. 1. 9. and saith he in the New Testament it signifies for the most part that which Nephes doth in the Old And secondly he makes it to signifie the fear of death in Christs humane nature in Mat. 26. 38. Mar. 14. 34. But thirdly Though Neshemah doth also signifie the vital soul yet t is never used for the vital soul of the unreasonable creatures as Nephesh is but only of man and therefore the Hebrews do often understand by it the immortal or the rational soul See Aben Ezra upon Eccles 3. 21. 7. 5. And saith Carlisle in p. 162. Neshemah hath its name of Shamaim Heaven for that the immortal soul cometh from Heaven These things considered I think Mr. Norton hath but little ground to perswade his Reader from his learned Authors that the word Soul in Psal 16. 10. is to be understood properly of the immortal Soul of Christ CHAP. VIII The Examination of Mr. Nortons eight Arguments His first Argument is this in Page 10. Either Christ suffered the Justice of God instead of the Elect denounced against sin Gen. 2. 17. or God might dispence with the Execution thereof without the violation of his Justice But God could not dispence with the Execution thereof without the violalation of his Justice Reply 1. BOth Propositions are unsound 1 The major because hee presupposeth from Gen. 2. 17. That Christ was included in the first Covenant as Adams Surety in the same Obligation with him This hath been denied and answered several times and indeed the plain letter of the text doth directly out-face it both in Gen. 2 17. and in Deut. 27. Gal. 3. 10. Ezek. 18 4. c. All these Gen. 2. 17. places do directly threaten the sinner himself only Yea some Divines that hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering Gods vindicative wrath yet in this they do oppose Mr. Norton In the rigor of the Law saith Mr. Ball the Delinquent himself See Ball on the Covenant p. 290. is in person to suffer the penalty denounced Every man shall bear his own burthen Gal. 6. 5. And in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death Gen. 2. 17. so that the Law in the rigor thereof doth not saith hee admit of any commutation or substitution of one for another and so hee concludes that satisfaction was made by another free Covenant 2 The minor is unsound for it affirms that God could not dispence with the excution of the Essential Curse without the violation of his Justice But in this Tenent Mr. Norton 1 King 21. â— M. Norton leaves the point of satisfaction in an uncertaintie because he doth one while say that Christ suffered the essential curse onely that another while that onely which was equivalent doth sufficiently confute himself for he doth often say that Christ suffered pains equivalent to the pains of Hell If they were but equivalent then they were not the same and then God did dispence with the Essential pains in kind which is contrary to his minor and contrary to his first Distinction Ahab offered unto Naboth that which was equivalent to the full worth of his Vineyard but yet Ahab could not accept it for satisfaction because God had determined in Lev. 25. 23. That the Land should not be fold for ever and therefore Naboth could not account any equivalent thing to be satisfaction but his Vineyard in kind onely 1 King 21. 3. So changeable are Mr. Nortons Principles that they can have but little truth in them Reply 2. But Mr. Norton doth labor to confirm his minor by Matth. 5. 18. Till Heaven and Earth pass one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled This Scripture Mr. Norton doth cite several times 1. To prove that Christ fulfilled the Law by suffering the Essential punishment of the Curse for us as in p. 10. 104. 213. 2 He doth also often cite it to prove that Christ as God-Man Mediator fulfilled the Law in a way of works for us as in p. 152 192 197 240 267. Therefore seeing he doth lay such great weight upon this Text I think it needful to examine the true sense of this Text and then it will appear that Mr. Norton doth pervert the true sense of it to his corrupt ends This Text of Mat. 5. 17 18. doth speak of Christs fulfilling Mat. 5. 17 18. the Law but not in respect of his own personal conformity to it as Mr. Norton would have it to speak but it speaks of his fulfilling it by filling up the spiritual sense of it which was suppressed by the Scribes and Pharisees he fulfilled that is to say he filled up the true Interpretation of it in its latitude for the regulating of the inward man as well as of the outward in the way of sanctified obedience In this sense Matthew saith That Christ came to fulfill the Law and in this sense it did belong to his Mediators Office as he was the Prophet of his Church to rebuke the Scribes and Pharisees for destroying the spiritual sense of the Law by their litteral and corrupt Interpretations But saith Christ I came to fulfill it by giving the spiritual sense and meaning of it for the regulating of the inward man as well as of the outward as ver 21 27 33 38 43. do plainly shew And then he concludes with an exhortation in ver 48. Be ye therefore perfect as your Father which is in heaven is perfect namely be perfect in Exposition and Doctrine for it is the perfect rule of an upright life and conversation Mr. Joseph Mead on Mat. 5. 17. saith thus Think not that I In his Diatribae or discourses on several Scriptures am come to take away the obligation of the Rule of mans duty to God and to his Neighbor given first by Moses in the Law and afterward repeated and inculcated by the Prophets but to fulfill them that is to supply or perfect those Rules and Doctrines of just and unjust contained in them by a more ample inetrpretation and other improvement befitting the state of the Gospel For surely saith he this must be the meaning of this speech of