and to fight the great combate hand to hand with his angry Father Ibidem in page 320. hee calls the said combate Handy gripes with his Father and his suffering on the Cross hee calls The main battel fought three whole hours with his Father all which time â—ugging in the fearful dark with him that had the power of darkness to hide from the eyes of the world the fire of his Fathers wrath which in that hot skirmish burnt up every part of him And saith Calvin Wee see that Christ was thrown down so far that by inforcement of distress hee was compelled to cry Just l. 2 c. 16. Sect. 11. out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And thus instead of entring the Lists with the Devil according to Gen. 3. 15. he saith He entred the Lists to fight the great combate hand to hand with his angry Father and instead of the Devils wrath they put in Gods wrath and instead of the Devils force they put in Gods force to compel the humane nature of Christ to suffer his immediate wrath And let the Reader take notice of this word Compelled most unadvisedly used by Calvin and others And now let the judicious Reader judge whether such descriptions of our Saviours Agony be sutable to the language of the holy Scriptures whether he was pressed and compelled by Gods immediate wrath And whether his Agony and Conflict were not rather from the pressure and compulsion of the Devil and his instruments according to Gods declared Decree in Gen. 3. 15. and judge if it bee not utterly unlike that the humane nature of Christ as it was accompanied with our infirmities was able to enter the Lists with his angry Father and to be pressed under his wrath and to conflict with eternal death as Mr. Nortons phrases are was his humane nature which was left by his divine nature on purpose that his humane infirmities might appear able to fight it out three whole hours on the Cross with his angry Father Perhaps you will answer hee was able because his humane nature subsisted in his divine I grant that it alwayes subsisted in the divine because the divine nature was never angry with the humane but yet it doth not follow that it was alwayes assisted and protected by the divine for then it could not have suffered any thing at all from Satan and his instruments I find it to be an ancient orthodox Tenent that the divine nature did often put forth a power to withdraw protection and assistance from his humane that the infirmities of the humane might appear and in this sense his infirmities in his sufferings were admitted by his divine power But let it be as the objection would have it namely that his humane nature being assisted by his divine was able to induce to bee pressed under his Fathers wrath Then it wil follow from thence that his divine nature did assist his humane nature against the divine Is this absurd language good Scripture-logick But saith Mr. Norton in p. 123. The divine nature was angry not onely with the humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him Reply 23. First I have shewed in p. 101. from Mr. Burges that sin was not imputed to the Mediator in both his Natures Secondly Was it ever heard that a Mediator between two at variance did fight hand to hand with the stronger angry opposite party to force him to a reconciliation Can any reconciliation be made whiles displeasure is taken and whiles anger is kindled against the Mediator that seeks to make reconciliation These are paradoxes in Divinity by which the clear Truth is made obscure Such Tenents are like the smoak of the bottomless pit that darkens the Sun and Air of the blessed Scriptures The Lord in mercy open our eyes to see better But saith Mr. Norton in p. 70. Through anguish of his soul he had clods rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body a thing which neither was seen nor heard before or since the true reason thereof saith he is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the If it be true that Christ sweat clods of blood then doubtless it was a miraculous sweat and then no natural reason can be given of the cause of it wrath of God Reply 24. If it be true that Christ through the anguish of his soul had clods of blood streaming down his blessed body then doubtless it was a miraculous sweat and then no natural reason can be given as the cause of it but I have all along affirmed that his Agony was from natural causes and that his sweat was increased by his strong prayers and cryes and that his sweat was not from the miraculous cause But I perceive that Mr. Norton himself is put in a wavering mind in p. 66. whether the sweat of Christ in his Agony was from the natural or from the miraculous cause for when he had expounded his Query he concludes thus We leave it to them that have leasure and skill to enquire And saith he Though the Evangelist mentioneth it as an effect proceeding from a greater cause than the fear of a meer natural death notwithstanding saith he our Doctrine is not built onely or chiefly upon this Argument Hence 1 Any indifferent Reader may easily perceive that Mr. Nortons answer to his own Query is but a very wavering and confused answer and therefore his bold conclusion aforesaid is built but upon a sandy foundation and therefore it is not sufficient to satisfie a doubting conscience 2 This speech of his our Doctrine is not built onely or chiefly upon this Argument is a plain acknowledgment that the Agony of Christ and his sweat like blood is no sound Argument to prove that Christ conflicted with eternal death and yet in p 70 39 68 89 c. he laies great weight upon his Agony as a true reason to prove that he died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death 3 Mr. Norton is wavering in this that he dares not affirm that Christ suffered the Torments of Hell but by Gods extraordinary dispensation as I have noted it in Chap. 7. Sect. 1. 4 Hence Mr. Norton might as well question whether the first touch or real impression of Hell pains would not utterly have dissolved the link and bond of nature namely of the sensitive soul that is between mans mortal body and his immortal soul in a moment Seeing he holds that his death was caused by the wrath of God For he saith That his blood was shed together with the wrath of God because it was shed as the blood of a person accursed For this is a clear Truth That the vital body of man cannot subsist under the Torments of Hell untill it bee made immortal by the power of God at the Resurrection 5 Hence it may be propounded as another question of moment whether
took unto him not by any bond of necessity but by the good pleasure of his mercy as he did flesh and death it self Wherefore his death was truly free and not forced because he had power to lay down his soul and to take it up again From these words of Beda which accord with Damasen and other ancient Divines we may see that they held it to be an evident truth that Christ was often his own afflicter with soul-sorrows and to that end he voluntarily took unto him our infirmities of fear sorrow c. they were not pressed from him from the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton holds And saith Beda his death was truly free and not forced therefore especially in the last act of his death he was the onely active Priest in breathing out or sending out his soul from his body But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. And in this case Christ was his own Executioner which last saith he the Dialogue it self expresly rejecteth Reply 20. There is good reason to reject it for though God commanded Christ in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our infirmities to enter the Lists with his envious Combater Satan and also permitted Satan to enter the Lists with Christ and to assault him with a Band of Souldiers Christ was not his own executioner or self-murderer though he was the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice with staves and swords yet he did not command Christ to take any of these weapons from them and run them into his own body on purpose to kill himself that so he might be his own executioner as Saul was to prevent the ignominious usage of his Adversaries this kind of killing is Diabolical and Christ might not be his own executioner in any such like manner therefore the Dialogue had good reason to reject that kind of Tenent The Dialogue saith thus in p. 102. Though he did not break his own body and pour out his own blood with nails and spear as the Roman Souldiers did yet he brake his own body in peeces by separating his own soul from his body by his own Priestly power And thus Beza makes Christ to break his hody actively as well as passively But it is a prophane expression to compare the act of a Priest in killing a sacrifice to the act of an executioner that puts a malefactor to death and it is a like prophane expression to call such a death Self-murder or Homicide If Abraham had formally killed Isaack as he intended yet he had not been Isaacks murderer no nor yet his executioner according to the known use of the word neither was Isaack to be called a Self-murtherer or a Homicide being now thirty three years old and therfore able to have resisted his Father in submitting himself to be bound and to be laid on See Beza Annot on 1 Cor. 11. 24. And Haymo there also the Altar to be killed But in that act we see how God esteemed it for in that act Abraham should have been the Priest and Isaack the Sacrifice And so ought we to esteem of the act of Christ in his death in his Divine nature he was the Priest and in his humane nature he was the Sacrifice as the Dialogue saith or thus by the joynt concurrence of both his natures he was both Priest and Sacrifice But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. Though Haman according to the true sense of the Text Ester 8. 7. be said to lay his hand upon the Jews yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman Abraham is said to have offered up Isaack yet Isaack is said no where to be slain by Abraham as Abraham did sacrifice Isaack so was Isaack sacrificed that is to say interpretatively or vertually not actually Reply 21. Those instances in the Dialogue in p. 100. are more clearly expressed than they are related by Mr. Norton and the intent of those instances was no more but this namely to exemplifie that though the Jews are said to kill Christ yet that they did not formally separate his soul from his body though they did enough to make themselves true murderers of the Lord of life but the last act was done by himself as he was the Priest in his own death But saith Mr. Norton in p. 85. How oft do we read in Scripture that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews Act. 2. 37. and 4 10. 1 Cor. 2. 8. Reply 22. I grant the Scripture doth often say that the Jews did slay and murder the Lord of life but saith the Geneva note on Act. 2. 23. on the word you have slain The fact is said to be theirs by whose counsel and egging forward it was done By this note it appeareth that in their judgement Christ was not actually put to death by the Jews but vertually onely and so Isaack is said to have been offered up by Abraham in the Preter-tense so the new Translation in Jam. 2. 21. because he did really intend and endeavor to do it So then I hope the Dialogue saich true notwithstanding Mr. Nortons busling contradiction namely that the Jews did not put Christ to death formally But in case he was put to death formally by second causes then it follows that it was done by the Devil in the Roman powers for they had the power of life and death at this time and not the Jews as I have shewed at large in the Dialogue the Jews and Romans were true murtherers but not the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice This distinction of his death is contemned by Mr. Norton But it is a very harsh saying in mine ears to say That the Devil in the Roman powers was the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice as they must bee if they were the formal cause of Christs death and to me it is as hard a speech to say That the wrath of God the Father was the formal cause of Christs death as some say it was and as Mr. Norton saith also sometimes in true effect for in page 79 he saith That Christs death was joyned with the curse made up of the pain of sense and the pain of loss and in page 70 he saith It is a fiction to assert any divine prediction That Christ should only suffer a bodily death and presently after he saith Christ dyed as a sinner impuratively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Hence I reason thus If the wrath of God the Father did put Christ to death formally then the Father was the Priest in the death and sacrifice of Christ which is quite contrary to Gods own established order for by his oath hee made Christ an unchangeable Priest that so hee might bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice Heb. 7. 21. Christ was not by nature obnoxious to death nor to any other misery but by Covenant
him mastery according to the Rules of the said voluntary Law I beleeve that he should by experience find that he must bear many a sour stroak and brush and it may be shed much blood which I think would be accounted a true punishment though it be not a vindictive punishment from the sense of an angry Judge and yet all this without any imputation of sin from the Superiors in the voluntary Covenant unless he should disobey their Laws in the manner of trial in like sort God told the Decree in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put enmity between Christ Gen 3. 15. and the Devil and that the Devil should drive hard at him all the time that he executed his Office and that at last the Devil should prevail so far as to pierce him in the foot-soals as a sinful Malefactor and it pleased the Lord thus to bruise him and put him to grief Is 53. 10. even at the same time when he should make his soul a sin The Lord took much delight and pleasure to behold the knowledge and skil the valor and wisdom of this his righteous servant in this conflict continuing obedient to the death according to all the Articles of the Covenant untill he had triumphed over all Principalities and Powers on his cross and so he won the prize namely the salvation of all the Elect. According to this way of punishment Christ suffered our punishments no punishment was due to him from the imputation of sin and therefore no punishment was inflicted on him from Gods anger as our punishments are We indeed do justly suffer according to that Court-language which Mr. Norton hath expressed but Christs punishments though they were as true punishments in sense and feeling as ours are and more sensible to his nature than to us yet they were not inflicted on him from the same compulsory ground and Law as ours are on us but all his were from the voluntary Law and Covenant as I have before declared And in chap. 12. at Conclus 1. I have shewed that any imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 96. Christ is expresly said to be made a curse Gal. 3. 13. It will thence unavoydably follow saith he that sin was some way judicially upon Christ for we read of no curso inflicted according to the determinate and revealed way of proceeding with the reasonable creature but it presupposeth sin wherefore he could neither have been made a curse nor die since the onely cause of the curse and death is sin from which he was free but because he had taken upon him our sins Reply 9. Sin saith Mr. Norton was some way judicially upon Christ Why then is it not proved and made manifest by Scripture I find no other proof of it but Scripture mis-interpreted as I have shewed already and as for Gal. 3. 13. it doth clearly faile him as the Reader may see in my examination of his Conclusions from the Text. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 55. God charged Christ with sin as the supreme Law-giver and Judge Christ accepts the charge as a Surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of Justice which is the part of a Surety And in the said page God cannot be just without a judicial imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety And in pag. 34 28 and 136. he saith It was requisite that Christ should be made sin i. e. that the guilt of sin should be legally imputed to him 2 Cor. 5. 21. Reply 10. These speeches and others do imply that God could not impute our sins to Christ unless he had been first a legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam but that hath been all along denied and disproved and therefore now except Mr. Norton can more clearly prove than hitherto that Christ was a true legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam All that he hath said hitherto about Gods imputing our sins to Christ will come to nothing As for his great proof that Christ was such a legal Surety from Heb. 7. 22. it shall have a full examination and reply in my Reply to his third Argument and touching his many proofs of imputation from 2 Cor. 5. 21. See more there But saith Mr. Norton pag. 70. Through anguish of soul he had clods rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body a thing which was neither seen nor heard before nor since The true reason thereof is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Reply 11. Touching his sweating clods of blood I have replyed in Luk. 22. 44. if it were clods of blood doubtless it was miraculous and if it were miraculous how is that a proof that it was caused from the pressure of the sense of Gods wrath But I beleeve his Agony was from natural causes namely because his pure nature did so much abhor that ignominious and painful death which he did grapple withall in the garden and I beleeve if Mr. Norton had made his Agony to proceed from the voluntary cause conflicting in his earnest prayers with Satans temptations and with the natural fear of death untill he had overcome that natural fear that so he might perform his oblation in all exact obedience according to Gods positive Covenant he had come far nearer to the true cause of Christs Agony than by making his Agony to proceed from the compulsory cause Being pressed under the wrath of God it seems his word pressing doth allude to that violent constraint that is used to press out the blood of grapes but yet it is also beyond it because he makes the wrath of God to press out clods of blood in Christ it makes me tremble at such expressions of violence from Gods immediate wrath against Christ But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 219. As Christ was guilty of our sin so also he was sensible of an accusing conscience and alittle after saith he the question is not whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently but whether he may not be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively Reply 12. In words Mr. Norton saith Christ was not guilty of our sins inherently but his arguing doth prove him a sinner inherently for his whole drift is to prove that Christ suffered the essential torments of hell and the second death and none can possible suffer the second death until they be first inherently guilty of the first death of sin 2 If he was polluted with our sin by Gods imputation as Mr. Norton holds then his death and sacrifice must needs be abominable in the sight of God But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 123. The Divine Nature was angry not onely with the Humane Nature but with the person of the Mediator becausâ— of sin imputed to him Reply 13. Mark the dangerousness of this Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ for here Mr. Norton makes God
there is a differing sense hee that shall point to a Priest making a sacrifice for sin may say there is a sin and he that shall point to Cain killing Abel may also say there is a sin the word Sin therefore must bee taken in each place where it is used as the Context shall direct sometimes in a proper sense and sometimes in a metaphorical And for the want of this observation a man may make a contrary signification of Piaculum or else not The word Sin in Exod. 30. 10. is there put for the Sin-offering and that sin is by the Seventy called the purgation of sin and in 2 Chron. 29. 24. they render it the expiation of sin and in Exod. 29. 36. the cleansing of sin and in Ezek. 43. 22. the Propitiation or Reconciliation and in Ezek. 44. 27. the appeasing for sins and in Num. 19. 12 13 19. the Purification And the reason why sin is named by these several names is because the Sin-offering was ordained to appease Gods anger to expiate to purge and to cleanse the sinner from his sin yea the word sin is rendred by the Seventy the change or the exchange in Zach. 13. 1. and that most fitly because the sin namely the Sin-offering doth cause a true change in the sinner from unclean to clean and from enmity to Reconciliation These and such like phrases given to sin by the figure Metonymia shews the word to have a differing sense but not a contrary sense as Mr. Norton affirms to amuse his Reader the like happily may be said to his other Instances But for further light See what I have replied to the signification of Aâ—ab in Psal 22. 1. 4 I will now return to speak further of the Hebrew word Pagah take it without the conjugation Hiphil and then it signifies only to meet but the particular occasions of every meeting must bee sought out by the circumstances of each place where the word is used As for example 1 It signifies the meeting of the bounds of the Tribes in this or that place 2 It may signifie the meeting of time as when the Forenoon doth meet with the Afternoon or the meeting of words or the meeting of persons for this or that end either in mercy or in wrath 3 Pagah to meet is applied to Gods meeting with man or to mans meeting with God in his worship Moses and Aaron said unto Pharaoh The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us and commanded us to go into the wildernesse to offer sacrifices to him therefore wee pray thee let us go three dayes journey to sacrifice to the Lord our God lest hee meet us with Pestilence c. Exod. 3. 18. and Exod. 5. 3. So also in Numb 23. 3 4 5 15. 16. Balaam did mee the Lord with sacrifice and the Lord was pleased to meet him with words of advice what he should say to Balack In these places Pagah is put for Gods meeting with man and mans meeting with God And in Gen. 23. 8. Abraham said to the people of the land If it bee your mind that I should bury my dead meet with Ephron for mee namely meet him by way of intreaty the Seventy say Speak for mee And so Ruth said to Naomi Meet mee not to leave thee that is to say Meet me not by thy earnest intreaties to leave thee Ruth 1. 16. So Jacob met Esau namely with an acceptable present to cover his face that is to appease his anger Gen. 32. 20. as we see it did in Gen. 33. 8 10. These Instances shew that Pagah is used for a meeting in divers respects And after this manner God ordained Christ to bee our High Priest to meet the Lord with that most acceptable gift of himself Christ attoned his Fathers wrath with the Sacrifice of his body blood in a Sacrifice for it is of necessity that every Priest that meets with God to mediate his reconciliation to sinners must have such an excellent thing to offer unto God as hee will accept and therefore it must bee that which is constituted by a mutual Covenant Heb. 8. 3. and the thing appointed was the â—est thing that Christ had to meet God withal and that was his vital soul with his body and blood offered in perfect obedience to Gods will notwithstanding Sathan endeavoured to disturb his obedience with this present Christ did meet his offended Father that was most justly provoked by Adams sin and by our sins and so according to Covenant God accepted this Priest and Sacrifice for the attoning and the appeasing of his wrath as the word Attonement doth signifie Of which word see more in Chap. 14. pag. 142 143. In this sense I say the Father made or caused the Mediator to meet him for the iniquities of us all 1 He met his Father in his eternal Council and Contract And 2 In the execution of it Pagnin renders this verse two wayes indifferently 1 Occurrere fecit ei poenam 2 Vel rogere fecit eum pro iniquitate And both these readings may well agree to the same sense 1 He made the iniquities of us all to meet upon him namely hee made him to undertake our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice to make Attonement for them and in this sense the Dialogue hath expounded this verse 2 The Lord made him to meet for the iniquities of us all or caused him to meet him as our Priestly Mediator with the Sacrifice of his body for the iniquities of us all And thus both readings do agree to the same sense but because the last is more exact according to the Hebrew therefore now I follow that The Chaldy Paraphrase of this verse speaks thus And the So Mr. Clendon in Justification justified p. 11. Eternal is well pleased to remit the sins of us all for his sake And Tindal translates it thus But through him the Lord pardoneth all our sins From these Translations and Expositions it follows 1 That the Doctrine of Gods imputing our sins to Christ in Mr. Nortons sense was not held forth by these Translators neither can it be proved from this verse nor from any other when the right interpretation is given and Mr. Norton himself consesseth thus much in general That the guilt of ouâ— sins could not bee imputed to Christ unlesse unlesse he did first become our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam in Gen. 2. 17. But I have shewed in Chap. 2. and elsewhere with the concurrence of sundry eminent Divines that Christ was not our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam and therefore by his own consession untill hee prove that Christ was Adams Surety Gen. 2. 17. his Doctrine of Imputation is without a foundation and thence it follows that it must needs bee an unsound Assertion to hold that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his death and sufferings But yet though I deny Christ to bee our legal Surety I do
21 25 27. Numb 19. 20. And sometimes such persons are threatned with death as I noted above from Levit. 15. 31. And for fear of Gods displeasure by transgressing these positive Ordinances all Israel in general were exactly careful to observe these works of the Law called Lev. 15. 31. Sacrifices and washings were ordained for their typical justification under the first Covenant from their ceremonial sins Exod. 22. 31. the first Covenant in Heb. 9. 1. in relation to Heb. 8. 7. 8. for their justification when they were to come into Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary or to feast on the holy flesh and for their exact care herein the whole Nation though many times there were but few that were truly godly among them were called men of holiness Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 11. 44. Exod. 19. 6. and saith Ainsworth in Gen. 17. 12. By three things did Israel enter into Covenant 1. By Circumcision 2. By Baptism 3. By Sacrifice And their Levitical cleansing and worship is called the first Covenant as I have noted it also in p. 118. That had Ordinances or Justifications of divine service Heb. 9. 1 and they are called carnal justifications in ver 10. as Mr. Dickson Mr. Trap and others have well observed from the Greek word Dicaiomaâ—a for it pleased God by his positive Laws Heb. 9. 1 10. to â—ordain that the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashâ—â— 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 Dâ—n 8. 14. was ceremonially cleansed by carrying out thâ— 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 Heiser 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 Hebrew 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 Heifer 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
that Christ suffered in his soul the terrible torments of the damned and forsaken men and this speech of Mr. Nortons in page 56. That Christ conflicted with eternal death and that speech in page 213. That Christ was accursed with a poenal and eternal curse For my part I can find no difference in them but I will leave such nice distinctions to them that love them and that can discern the difference for I cannot SECT II. Mr. Nortons Answer in page 62. to the Dialogues Exposition of Mark. 10. 39. Examined Mar. 10. 39. Mat. 26. 39. Mat. 20. 22 23. THe words in the Dialogue run thus in page 46. our Saviour doth explain the quality of those sorrows which hee suffered at the time of his death unto the two sons of Zebedeus he tells them They must drink of his cup and be baptized with his baptism Mar. 10. 39. Hee tells them That they must bee conformable to the quality and kind of his sufferings though perhaps there might bee some difference in the degree of their sufferings and he doth explain the kind of his sufferings by a twofold expression 1 Hee tells them They must drink of his cup that is to say of the same bitter portion of death 2 Hee tells them That they must be baptized with his baptism that is to say They must be put to death by the malice of Tyrants as he must be and this is expressed by the metaphor of Baptism for baptizing is a diving or drowning of the whole body under water and therefore Christ ordained Baptism as a typical sign of drowning the body of sin in his blood but the baptizing of Tyrants was used for no other end but to drown mens bodies to death and in this respect Christ saith I am entred into the deep waters Psal 69. 2 15. and in this very sense the Apostle saith Else what shall they do that are baptized for dead namely what shall they do that are baptized with death as Martyrs are if the dead rise not at all why then are they baptized for dead 1 Cor. 15. 29. Godly Martyrs would never be baptised 1 Cor. 15. 29. with death if the hope of a better resurrection did not animate their spirits to suffer death for the truths sake being therin conformable to the death of Christ Pbil. 3. 10 11. By these two expressions saith the Dialogue which are Synonima or equivalent our Saviour doth inform the two sons of Zebedee what the true nature of his sufferings should bee namely no other but such only as they should one day suffer from the hands of Tyrants And hence it follows 1 That the troubled fear which Matthew and Mark do ascribe unto Christ in the Garden must bee understood of his natural fear of death and not of his fear of his Fathers wrath 2 Hence it follows that all the outward sufferings of Christ were from mans wrath and malice incited by the Devil according to Gods decree declared in Gen. 3. 15. Thou Sathan shalt peirce him in the foot-soals Mr. Norton in page 62. doth thus answer to the Dialogues Exposition Herein saith he is a fallacy confounding such things as should bee divided This Text saith Piscator is to be understood with an exception of that passion in which Christ felt the wrath of God for the Elect. Reply 11. It is most evident that Mr. Nortons distinction is a fallacy because it confounds things that differ for it confounds the death of Christs immortal soul with the death of his body so he makes Christ to suffer two kinds of death formally and so consequently he makes Christ to make two kinds of satisfaction formally But saith the Dialogue No other death but his bodily death is to be understood by Mar. 10. 39. our larger Mar. 10. 39. Mr. Norâ—on saith that Christ suffered a twofold death in p. 155 70. 174 and he makes his immortal soul to be spiritually dead in p. 159. and makes it the second death in p. 115. Annotation doth fully concur with the Dialogues exposition on Matth. 20. 22 23. without any such exception as Mr. Norton makes from Piscator But I wonder that Mr. Norton dares honor Piscator so much as to take this exposition upon trust from him alone seeing he makes the form of justification to lye only in remission of sins which opinion of his Mr. Norton doth damn for heresie and yet now he so much honors Piscator as to cite his judgement above for his exposition of this Text. But for the better trying out of the truth let us a little more narrowly search into the sense of Mar. 10. 39. by a cleer conference with the context which I account to be a good rule for the trying out of a sound exposition 1 James and John the sons of Zebedee desired of Christ that the one might sit at his right hand and the other at his left in his glorious Monarchy 2 Thereupon Christ demanded of them Can yee drink of the cup that I shall drink of they said We can then Christ replied Yee shall indeed drink of the cup that I shall drink of Hence it follows That seeing the cup of Christ was filled with the vindicative wrath of God as Mr. Norton affirms then James and John must drink of the same cup for said Christ to them Yee shall drink of the same cup that I shall drink of But I think Mr. Norton himself will say that they did not drink of the cup of Gods vindicative wrath but of the cup of an ignominious and violent death only Therefore it hence follows by the like consequence that the death of Christ was of the same kind But saith Mr. Norton in page 63. Christ suffered both as a Martyr and as a Satisfier the sons of Zebedee saith he drank of the cup of Martyrdome not of the cup of Satisfaction or Redemption James and John were asleep whiles Christ was drinking that cup. Reply 12. I grant that Christ suffered as a Satisfier but the only reason why the death of Christ was a death of satisfaction was from the mutual Covenant that was made between the Trinity it was their agreement that made the death of Christ to be a sacrifice of full satisfaction or to be the full price of The only reason why thâ— death of Christ was a deâ—th of satisfaction dâ—stinct â—â—oâ— Martyrdome was the Covenant between the Trinity our redemption as I have shewed also in Chap. 9. but because God made no such Covenant with the sons of Zebedee therefore though they drunk the cup of a violent death as Christ did yet it was not for satisfaction it was no more but the cup of Martyrdome in them But as I said before because the death of Christ was a death of Covenant it was not only a death of Martyrdome but it was a death of satisfaction also Secondly I have often shewed from the first declared Will and Covenant of the Trinity in Gen. 3. 15. that
his death Reply 20. The Dialogue shews plainly that the approach of his ignominious and painful death by his Combater Satan was the main cause of his exceeding natural fear and so consequently of his Agony But Secondly in order to overcome that fear the Dialogue doth make his godly fear in his rational soul by putting up strong prayers with cryes and tears for the overcoming of his natural fear to be another ground that did increase his violent sweat in his Agony And thirdly I makes his pious care to perform all the sufferings that were written of him in exact obedience in all circumstances to the Laws of the Combate without any diversion by Satans provocations to bee another circumstance that did aggravate his zeal in his prayers and so it was a helping cause to increase his sweat in his Agony But mark this the Dialogue doth still make his natural fear of death to be the foundation of all this and therefore I know no just cause given why Mr. Norton should say That my words are a secret acknowledgement that his fear of a natural death was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows before his death Natural death is the punishment of original sin but Christs humane nature was not by that justice subjected to death 2 I cannot chuse but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often charge the Dialogue to speak of Christs natural death only seeing the Dialogue doth shun that word as altogether unfit to express the formality of his death as I have shewed at Reply 5. This is a plain evidence That Mr. Norton doth not understand the drift of the Dialogue about the true nature of Christs death natural death is that bodily death which was by Gods positive justice inflicted on fallen Adam as the punishment of original sin in Gen. 3. 19. which is now natural to us this is a true description of natural death But Christs humane nature was not made subject to death by the curse of that supreme positive Law because he was free from orginal sin and so free from the curse of that Law for sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. But by another positive Law and Covenant wherein hee was an equal and reciprocal Covenanter Mr. Norton having gone astray in his first foundation-proposition he strayes further and further from the true nature of Christs death and sacrifice first he saith That all the curses of the Law are heaped together and laid upon Christ And then in page 83. and in divers other places hee strayes further and further till hee make the death of Christ in the formality of it to be his subjection to that cursed bodily death that was inflicted on fallen Adam for their original sin in Gen. 3. 19. But I hope I have sufficiently shewed in Reply 3. and 5. a little before and elsewhere That the death of Christ was not a natural death but a death of Covenant only or else it could not have been a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement to the Elect which no other mans natural death in the world is besides And therefore the Dialogue doth rightly argue in page 6. that the death of Christ is not included in that cursed death that was threatned to fallen Adam in Gen. 3. 19. But it was declared to be of another nature and exemplified to Adam by the death of some Lamb offered in sacrifice for the breaking of the Devils Head-plot four verses before namely in Gen. 3. 15. 3 It is evident to all men that his earnest prayers did increase Ains doth make the earnest prayeâ—s of Christ to be a part of his Aâ—ony his sweat in his Agony by the very words of the Text in Luke 22. 44. And saith Ainsworth upon the word Incense beaten small in Lev. 16. 12. It figured the Agony of Christ in his prayers before his deaâ—h which hee offered up with strong crying and tears Luke 22. 44 Heb. 5. 7. And saith Trap in Mat. 26. 36. our Saviour prayed himself into an Agony to teach us to strive in prayer even to an Agony as the word signifieth in Col. 4. 12. for earnest prayer is an earnest striving or wrastling it out with God Rom. 15. 30. And so Jacob wrastled both bodily and spiritually with Christ for a blessing Gen. 32. 24. Heb. 12. 3 4. Rom. 15. 30. Deut. 9. 14. Ex. 32. 10. And saith Ains in Gen. 32. 24. Jacob wrestled or combated with Christ and so Rachel wrastled or combated with Leah Gen. 30. 8. And so Christ with excellent wrastling wrastled it out with Satan He fought the good fight and kept to the Rule of obedience in his fears and prayers and such kind of prayers do often cause men to sweat though they have the Spirit but by measure how much more fervent then was Christ in his prayers in his Agony in the Garden which had the Spirit above measure as the Dialogue doth argue it is no marvel then that his prayers which were uttered with strong cryes and tears did increase his sweat in his Agony until it trickled down like as it were great drops of blood Nature it self without the gracious actings of Gods Spirit may strive it self into a sweaty Agony as the Physician that wrote the book de utilitate Respirationis among Gallens Works Attribut Tom. 7. saith It sometimes happeneth that servent spirits do so dilate the pores of the body that blood passeth by them and so the sweat may be bloody Hence I reason thus If a natural man may bee thus fervent in spirits till his sweat may bee bloody then why might not Christ that had his natural fervency increased Also in Reply 24. you may see an example of a bloody sweat caused through the sudden fear of an ignominious death in his prayers by the Spirit above measure provoke a bloody sweat from his body and therefore the reasoning of the Dialogue is sound and good which runs If the natural fear of death and the striving of the Spirit in prayer may cause men to sweat then it might cause our Saviours pure humane nature to sweat much more c. as it follows in the Dialogue 4 Consider how terrible to nature death is at sometimes but at sometimes again not terrible After our Saviour had finished his prayers in the Garden hee said to his Disciples in Matth. Mat. 26. 46. 26. 46. Arise let us be going namely to meet that ignominious death that a little before was so dreadful to my humane nature that it put me into an Agony but now I have obtained a confirmation to my nature against those fears and therefore See Dr. Hall in his Select Thoughts p. 139. now I say unto you Arise let us go meet it Which till he had prayed saith Trap he greatly feared And saith Dr. Hall the fear of death is natural and so far from being evil that it was incident to the Son of God who was heard in
the Greek word for this bloody sweat be not stretched beyond the Context as well as hee hath done the word Amazed in Mark 14. 33. as I have shewed before 6 Hence it may be considered what a learned Divine saith There are some saith he that take Christs bloody sweat in that grievous agony to be a symptom of infernal pains But saith he from what grounds either in Phylosophy or Divinity I know not If the pains of Hell or hellish pains so some distinguish be procured by the fire of Hell be that material or immaterial bloody sweat saith he can be no probable effect of the one or of the other fire nor is such sweat any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or demonstrative sign of pains more grievous than may be inflicted or suffered by patience meerly natural For saith he however in cold Countries bloody sweats be as rare in mens bodies as showres of blood in the Air. Yet as a good Phylosopher hath long ago observed To sweat blood Curaus is not usuall to Italians yet usual onely as I take it to men of that Climat in some particular diseases The most remarkable instance which I have read of bloody sweat in a man not oppressed with any disease is a Captain an Italian if I mistake not who being surprised by the subâ—leâ—y of his Enemy whom he had trusted too far upon a Tristee of Parly and thereby inforced either to yeeld up the Fort which he had stoutly maintained or otherwise to be presently hanged The consideration of this perplexity wherewith through his own folly he had intangled himself did make such a deep impression into his generous spirits that it squeezed blood out of his veins And as this sudden fear squeezed blood out of the veins of this Captain so in Reply 20. I have cited the speech of a Physician that saith thus It sometimes happeneth that servent spirits do so dilate the pores of the body that blood passeth by them and so the sweat may be bloody And saith the former Author our Savior no doubt as man had a more deep touch of all the malicious disgraces and cruel indignities which his enemies could put upon him than this Captain had The measure of his bodily sufferings and personal wrongs were in number far more and for quality more grievous than ever were intended to this Captain or any other mortal man by their enemies And though the death of the cross was in it self an ignominious and cruel death yet in our Saviors particular that was most true * Of the ignominious manner of his death and what I have said on 1 Sam. 31. 4. There Saul did so loathe to be put to a disgraceful death by the mockings of the Philistims that he prayed his Armor-bearer rather to kill him as I have noted it in Gal 3. 13. at Reply 6. And Sampson rather than to live to be an ignominious mocking-stock to the Philistims desired to die Judg. 16. 25 26. Mortis modus morte pejor The manner of his Apprehension of his double Arraignment and Conviction of his usage before he was brought to the place of Execution and all the time whiles the malice of the Jew and Gentile was wrecked upon him was more grievous than the death of the Cross it self without these grievous concommitants could have been 7 I find that many Divines though they hold that Christ suffered in soul from the immediate wrath of God upon the cross yet they do not hold that his Agony in the Garden was from the sense of the immediate wrath of God upon his soul But his sorrow and dread there they make to be in relation of what he was afterwards to suffer upon the cross and the fear of that say they was the cause of his bloody sweat First Dr. Williams saith That the clear sight and considerstion Dr. Williams in his seven golden Candlesticks p 143 144. Bradshaw on justific p. 75. of that cup which he was to drink was the cause of his Agony Secondly Saith Mr. Bradshaw Whiles he hung upon the accursed tree he had such a deep sense of the incomparable wrath of God that the very apprehension thereof before it seized upon him made him sweat drops of blood Thirdly Saith George Downham The fear of Gods wrath In his Coven of Grace p. 68. when he was in his Agony caused him to sweat great drops of blood Luk. 22. 44. And saith he the sense thereof on the cross made him cry My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee Fourthly Saith Mr. Wall In his Agony in the Garden he sweat drops not of water but of blood c. and all this in Wall in his none but Christ p. 27. expectation of what he should suffer when no hand touched him but his own thoughts of what he was to suffer I could cite divers others that speak to this purpose But these are sufficient to evidence thus much that many of the learned do hold that though Christ suffered the wrath of God upon the cross yet they deny he suffered the wrath of God in his Agony in the Garden and therefore his bloody sweat is no certain reason to prove that he was pressed under the sense of the wrath of God in the Garden as Mr. Norton holds though after he hath affirmed it he doth again leave it doubtful which doth not well agree to the property of a Judicious Confuter Fifthly Seeing such eminent Divines as I have above cited do hold that Christ suffered the wrath of God not in the Garden but on the cross onely once for all It shews that Mr. Norton hath not so many Divines on his side as he intimates ever and anon by us and our and we say as in p. 44 c. 8 It is also very considerable that there are sundry learned Divines that deny that our Savior sweat blood and therefore they do much more deny that he sweat clods of blood as Mr. Norton affirms he did for the original word they say his sweat was as it were great drops of blood And first So speaks the Greek Text plainly And secondly So do our Translators interpret it And thirdly Saith Dr. Hammon in his paraphrase on Luk. 22. 44. He sweat as men in agonies are wont great glutenous drops like those of blood when it drops on the ground and saith hee in his Annotation That Christ sweat drops of blood is not affirmed in this place but only that he sweat drops of sweat of a strange thickness or viscousness and consequently as big as when blood is wont to fall upon the ground So saith Justin Martyr Theophylact and Entymius And truly I may well adde this That seeing his sweat was in the open air and in a cold night it might well thicken as it ran down his body and bee glutenous before it fell to the ground And saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as or as it were doth note some resemblance as saith he the Spirit
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 13 14. Lev. 11. 44. Pardon of sin by Gods Attonement and a sinners righteousness is the same thing contrary to M. Nortons long disâ—curse in p. 209 210 211 212 c. phrase doth testifie in Heb. 9. 13. and in Lev. 11. 44. and so in Exod. 29. 36 37. to Purifie and Sanctifie are Sinonimous terms and from these legal phrases the Apostle doth reason thus If the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean doth sanctifie to the purifying of the flesh Heb 9. 13. then saith he in v. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works in these two verses he compares the force of the word purge with the word sanctifie and therefore these legal phrases do teach us the nature of a sinners Justification in Gods sight for as their legal washings and cleansings by the blood of beasts c. did sanctifie or make their bodies holy because it procured Gods Attonement for the expiation of their legal sins by which they were again made fit to have communion with God in his holy Sanctuary Lev. 11. 44. and 19. 2. Num. 15. 40. and 16. 3. and 5 1 2 3. Even so it must be understood in the typical sense and therefore as often as Gods holy people were legally defiled what did God require them to do to make them holy and righteous again but to observe the Laws of their legal washings and cleansings which God ordained on purpose for the procuring of his attonement pardon and forgiveness and then they were made holy again or then they were sanctified to the purifying of their flesh Heb. 9. 13. Lev. 11. 44. Numb 6. 8 9 Deut. 14. 2. 21. and 26. 16 19 Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 17. and 20. 25 26. Even so it must bee understood in the typical sense But this is needful to be remembred that this kind of holiness and sanctity by Gods attonement procured by their legal washings and sacrifices must be distinguished from that kind of sanctity and holiness that is first wrought in us by Gods Spirit in our Regeneration For this kind of holiness which we obtain by Gods Reconciliation Attonement Pardon and forgiveness may more fitly be called The satisfaction of merit For first This satisfaction of merit sets sinners in statu quo prius namely it sets them by Gods gracious voluntary positive Law and Covenant into that state of holiness and righteousness which they lost both in the legal sense by their ceremonial sins and in the moral sense by Adams sin Secondly This is further evident because the Sin-offering of Attonements in Exod. 30. 10. is translated by the Seventy the blood of the purgation of sins because in their understanding Gods attonement procured by their sin-offerings and the purgation of sins by Gods attonement is all one and this very phrase of the Seventy doth Paul apply to the merit of Christs sin-offering saying by himself he made a purgation for our sinâ— Heb. 1. 3. Thirdly On the day of Attonement the High Priest made Attonement for all Israel To cleanse them that they might be clean from all their sins before the Lord Lev. 16. 30. Mark the phrase Lev. 16. 30. He made Attonement for their cleansing and how did he make Attonement for their cleansing but by offering their publick Sacrifices by which he procured Gods Attonement which did formally cleanse them or sanctifie them or make them holy from the defilement of all their legal sins for these legal terms are synonimous and this did typifie That it is Gods Reconciliation or Attonement procured by the death and sacrifice of Christ that doth formally cleanse us from all our moral sins and by which means onely we are sanctified Heb. 10. 10. or made holy just and righteous in Gods sight as I have opened the matter more at large in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Fourthly Saith the Apostle in Heb. 10. 4. It is not possible Heb. 10. 4. that the blood of beasts should procure Gods Attonement for the expiation of our moral sins which kind of arguing of his had not concluded any thing if the bloody combate of Christ in his sufferings and his sacrifice by his own Priestly power had not been established by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant as the onely means to cleanse and purifie the conscience by procuring Gods Attonement for all our moral sins by the which wil of God we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all v. 10. And here Mr. Norton may see that Gods attonement and forgiveness is called sanctity and holiness to justification For the self-same gracious will of God that gave efficacy to his first positive Law and Covenant at Horeb for the sanctifying of their polluted flesh by the blood of beasts Heb. 9. 13 gave efficacy to his eternal positive Law and Covenant by the death of Christ to sanctifie or purifie the polluted conscience from dead works and therefore in verse 14. the Apostle doth infer from verse 13. How much more shall the blood of Christ who offered himself by his eternal Spirit purge your conscience from dead works and here it must be noted that the word Purge in ver 14 is of the same force with the comparative word Sanctifie in ver 13. and with the word sanctifie in chap. 10. 10. and also from this act of Christ in offering himself by his eternal spirit in ver 14. namely both as Priest and sacrifice in one and the same person he proves in ver 15 16. That he was the Mediator of the New Testament in this kind of death and so by this kind of death he got the victory over Principalities and Powers tâ—at could not put him to death formally though they had liberty to do their worst and spoiled them as a Col. 2 15. Mark 15. 39. victorious conqueror because they could not disturb his patience by all their ill usage triumphing over them in it namely in the priestly formality of his death on the cross Col. 2. 15. and the Roman Centurion confessed in Mark 15. 39. that the formality of his death was not after the manner of other malefactors of which he had seen many to die but that