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
two wayes the blessed Scriptures do often speak of the death of Christ First Of his passive death And secondly Of his active death But because his passive death from his malignant Combater Satan was accompanied with very many ignominious punishments and reproachful Tortures which he was permitted to use as thinking thereby to provoke his patience and so to spoil his obedience that so he might not make his soul a sacrifice Therefore much Scripture is taken up to record the long story of his passive death and in that long and sharp trial his perfect patience and obedience through all his ignominious sufferings is much to be admired especially from the time that he was apprehended to the end of the time of his crucifying which was twelve full hours and hee aboad under the pains of a violent death for three hours together and all the actions that fell in about his sufferings in all this time were many and therefore the story thereof must needs bee long and his sensible feeling of our infirmities in all his sufferings doth not only prove the truth of his humane nature but the perfection of his patience and obedience and in that respect his sufferings were ordained to be for the perfection of his Priestly Consecration to his sacrifice Heb. 2. 10. And therefore as soon as he had finished his Priestly Consecration by suffering the utmost of Satans temptations Heb. 2. 10. Christs Priestly Consecration Christs Sacrifice and trials he presently after without delay made his vital soul a sacrifice by his Priestly power in both his natures as the formality of all satisfaction for mans Redemption But because this short singular act of his sacrifice was done as it were but in a moment of time and because it was done in the middest of his sensible torments on the Cross therefore it comes to pass that this short singular act of his sacrifice is not so much marked as it ought to bee But most an end the long obvious story of his sufferings from his Combater Satan which indeed doth belong to his sacrifice as much as the consecration of the Priest doth to the Sacrifice is named instead of full satisfaction and so it may be justly called by the figure Synecdoche provided his sacrifice in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power be not neglected but a real distinction ought to be observed when the parts of Christs Priesthood are to be explained though this distinction is often sleighted and divided by Mr. Norton So then from the long passive action Christ may bee truly said to be killed and slain for he was crucified with the sores of death even as truly as it is said that Christ was the Son of Joseph for indeed he was the Son of Joseph in a true legal sense because he was born of Josephs wife after Mariage and in that respect he was truly and properly in Laws esteem the Son of Joseph and accordingly he was every where esteemed and called the Son of Joseph yea his mother Mary that best knew the truth told her Son Jesus that his Father Joseph sought after him Luke 2. 48. yea and Jesus himself did also acknowledge Joseph to be his true Father according to Laws esteem and therefore he was subject to him as to his proper Father for nine and twenty years together namely until he was extrinsecally installed into the Mediators office and then he had the business of another Father to do and the world in general some few excepted knew no other but that he was the true natural Son of Joseph and herefore no man did contradict that usual talk and speech and yet notwithstanding all this plain and downright speaking Christ was not the true natural Son of Joseph hee was legally but not formally the Son of Joseph So in like sort it may be as truly said That Christ was killed and slain by the sores of death on the Cross by the Jews because they did as much to kill him as they did to kill their own Prophets 1 Thes 1. 15. yea Christ himself foretold his Disciples that he should be killed by the Jews Mark 8. 31. Mark 12. 8. and all the Prophets said It should be so Gen. 3. 15. Psal 22. Isa 53. and the Evangelists said It was so Luke 24. 20. Act. 2. 23. and the Martyrs in Rev. 5. 9 12. said It was so and yet in verse 6. they say also that he stood there as though hee had been killed both speeches are true and both are truly affirmed For first He was truly killed and slain both by the Jews and by the Roman powers in Laws esteem and yet the Martyrs said It was but as though it were so legally they killed him but formally they did not kill him though they did what they could to kill him formally and they thought they had killed him formally because he died formally whiles he was under the sores of death but indeed they could not kill him formally because God had given power to Christ to lay down his life formally of himself and that no other created power should take away his life from him as I have formerly expounded Joh. 10. 17 18. Himself was ordained to be the only Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice as soon as he had fulfilled al the tortures of the Cross from his Combater Satan but that act of separating his soul from his body was not so sensible to the beholders as his external tortures of death were and therefore they thought nothing less was the true cause of his death They could not by the power of their natural reason discern how God did interpose his power between the tortures of death and their ordinary killing effect neither could they discern the difference that was between his sinless nature and their own corrupt nature nor yet how he was God and man in personal union and therefore they could not know as they ought to have known how he must be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice and that he must offer himself by his eternal Spirit that so he might be the Mediator of the New Testament through that kind of Mediatorial death Heb. 9. 14 15. And yet this ignorance both of the Jews and Romans did no whit exempt them from being the true murderers of the Lord of life in as high a degree as if his God-head had not interposed to hinder their killing power as we may see by that eminent example of Justice that was done by Darius upon such like murderers of Daniel for after that Darius was come to the Lyons Den and perceived that God had interposed his power between the fierce devouring nature of the ravenous Lyons and their executive power and that Daniel was not formally killed by them he did not in that respect excuse Daniels accusers from being the true murderers of Daniel but on the contrary he did adjudge them to be Daniels true murderers and
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 indure 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 sweâ—t 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. Nortou 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 the Greek word for this bloody sweat be noâ— 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 noâ— 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
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
Sam. 15. The time of the burial of the person hanged might be done after Sunset provided it were done within the compass of the same natural day which lasted till midnight p. 272 The latter Editions of King James 's Translation on Deut. 21. 23. is corrupted from the integrity of the first Editions p. 273 The true reason why he that was hanged must be buried the same day in which he was stoned to death was because his curse of infamy by hanging so long on a Tree by exemplary Justice had appeased Gods anger and so consequently because it had now removed the curse that else would have fallen on the land p. 275 The whole land might be defiled by the Judges negligence in suffering notorious sinners to go unpunished p. 277 The whole land was never defiled by any one Ceremonial sin p. 279 The rule of Gods relative Justice is his secret Will which is sometimes contrary to his revealed Will p. 281 37 100 183 The second death is defined by the Hebrew Doctors from whom that term is borrowed to be a misery to the soul in the perpetual hatred of God p. 286 All sorts of death that men do suffer in this world that is to say both our spiritual death in original sin and our bodily death are altogether called and accounted both by ancient and later Divines the first death in relation to the term second death because that is only suffered in the world to come p. 287 Mr. Norton doth sometimes hold satisfaction to be made by Christs suffering the essential curse of Hell-torments in kind but at other times he doth hold an alteration to equivalency p. 291 72 107 113 CHAP. XVI CHrist did fear death regularly more than other men can do because his pure nature was not made subject to death by that curse in Gen. 3. 19. as the nature of all other men is p. 293 Christ did first effect his Combate with Satan in his human nature and then he did effect his sacrifice by his Priestly power in both his natures and all this according to his Covenant and therefore he was not made subject to death by Gods curse as ours is p. 293 297 308 and p. 9 The excellent temper and tender constitution of Christs humane nature made him more sensible of shame fear and pain than other men can be p. 294 Christ feared his ignominious death after the rule of fear and not after the example of this or that man p. 295 Christs doath was not a natural but a supernatural death p. 296 333 * Add this Note to p. 297 at line 1. and also to p. 9. and p. 293. The death of Christ was effected according to the Articles of the Covenant between the Father and the Son * Add this Marginal Note to p. 298. Christ did not pray to escape death but only that his humane nature might bee confirmed against his natural fear of death and so saith Trap Heb. 5. 7. hee was heard in that hee feared that is saith he he was delivered from his fear for no sooner had he prayed but he met his enemies and said Whom seek yee I am he p. 298. Christ did voluntarily take our passions to him as they were a punishment inflicted on mankind for Adams sin p. 300 Christ had natural fear actually which the first Adam had not because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before the eyes of Christ p. 300 152 If there be any Martyrs to whom it is pleasant to dye that they have from otherwhere and not from the nature of death p. 301 When the pains of death have astonished sanctified reason then no man can express what conflict there is between their nature and death the destroyer thereof which conflict was not in Christ p. 302 Mr. Norton doth in p. 153. most dangerously affirm That Christ suffered a twofold death namely not only a bodily death but also that God inflicted a spiritual death upon his immortal soul which he doth also affirm to be the second death p. 307 315 The only reason why the death of Christ was a death of satisfaction distinct from Martyrdome was the Covenant between the Trinity p. 308 9 122 130 All the sufferings of Christ were as necessary to his sacrifice as the consecration of the Priest was to his sacrifice p. 309 The Sacrifice of Christ doth properly lye in the formality of his death which himself effected by his own Priestly power namely by the actual power and joynt concurrence of both his natures p. 309 315 145 God did all the external sufferings of Christ by giving license to Satan and his instruments to do them and God did all Christs internal soul-sufferings by appointing Christ to assume our true humane nature and affections and to use them at his own will and pleasure more or less as objects did present p. 311 178 Ch. 17 There is a sympathy between soul and body in sufferings p. 313 The sufferings of Christs soul in Matth. 26. 38. and in Isaiah 53. 10. must be understood chiefly of Christs vital soul and not of his immortal soul p. 314 Satisfaction was made by the true bodily death of Christ and not by his spiritual death as Mr. Norton doth affirm most dangerously p. 315 307 A true description of the vital soul and so consequently of the death of Christs vital soul but not of his immortal soul for our Redemption p. 320 A true description of our natural fear of death p. 321 Christs soul-sorrows could not be lethal and deadly as Mr. Norton doth affirm most dangerously because they were governed by right reason p. 322 Add this Note to p. 322. Disorderly and irregular fear and grief doth sometimes prove lethal and deadly but it is dangerous to affirm the same of Christs regular fear and grief I find it recorded in the French Academy p. 34. That Hereâ—nus the Sycilian dyed with fear for he being found to be a Co-partner in the conspiracy of Caius Gracchus was so astonished and oppressed with fear in consideration of his judgement yeâ— to come that he fell down stark dead at the entry of the prison And it is also recorded that Plautinus dyed of grief for upon the sight of his dead wife he took it so to heart that he cast himself upon her dead body and was there stifled with sorrow and grief But it is most dangerous to make Christs soul-sorrows to be lethal and deadly after this manner for saith Damasen His passions never prevented his regular will neither might his death be effected by natural causes but by his own Priestly power or else it could not be a Sacrifice Christ was not fully amazed in his Agony p. 323 By consequence Mr. Norton doth impute the sin of unmindfulness to Christ even in the very point of time when he was in the execution of his Priestly office p. 327 76 Mr. Norton stretcheth the word very heavy in Mark 14. 33. beyond the Context
the first Adam non comedendi over and above the moral Law not to eat of the forbidden fruit such a Law was this which was given to the Mâ—diator it was the Law of his being a Mediator and a Sacrifice over and besides the moral Law which was common to him with us and saith he as that special law of not eating the forbidden fruit was unto Adam Praeceptum Symbolicum as Divines call it given over and besides all the ten Commandements to be a trial or symbol of his obedience to all the rest such was this Law given to Christ the second Adam and thus he expounds the word Law in Psal 40. 8. of the peculiar Law of Mediatorship just as the Dialogue doth and not of the moral Law as Mr. Norton doth 4 Mr. Rutherfurd saith that Christs obedience in laying down his life was in obedience to a positive Law and not to the moral Law as I have cited him more at large in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 5 Mr. Joh. Goodwin doth cite divers eminent Divines that do distinguish the obedience of Christ into two kinds the one they call Justitia personae the righteousnesse of his person the other Justitia meriti the righteousness of merit and for this distinction Christs obedience to the moral Law is called by Divines Justitia personae but his obedience in his death and sufferings they call Justitia meriti he cites Pareus Dr. Prideaux Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Forbs and Mr. Gataker and Justitia personae they place in Causa sine qua non 6 Saith Mr. Baxter many learned and godly Divines of singular esteem in the Church of God are of this judgement In his Pos of Just p. 53. and there he names many and saith he in his late Apologie to Mr. Blake p. 115. I deny not but that Christ as man was under a Law yea and a Law peculiar to himself whereto no other creature is subject even the Law of Mediation which deserves in the body of Theologie a peculiar place and the handling of it as distinct from all the Laws made with us men is of speciall use c. SECT 3. But saith Mr. Norton in page 192. The Death of the Mediator was in a way of Justice and was Legal obedience And in the same page he makes the Incarnation of Christ also to be legal obedience Reply 1. IT seems that Mr. Norton holds That God had ordained Christs obedience in his Incarnation and Death was not moral obedience but Mediatorial obedience to the special Law of Mediatorship no other way to take satisfaction but first by our Saviours performing of legal obedience for us and suffering the essential punishment of hell torments for this way only he calls The way of Justice But in the former Section I have shewed that sundry orthodox whereof some of them do hold as Mr. Norton doth that Christ made satisfaction by suffering hell torments as Pareus and Mr. Rutherfurd and yet they deny that Christs obedience in his death was legal obedience contrary to Mr. Norton 2 I will adde Mr. Ball to them for he held that Christ made Ball on the Covenant p. 281. satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God though in page 290. he seems not to hold that he suffered hell torments and yet he also doth exempt the death of Christ from being any part of legal obedience The Law saith he did not require that God should dye nor that any should dye that had not sinned nor such a death and of such efficacy as not only to abolish death but to bring in life by many degrees more excellent then that which Adam lost And saith Mr. Ball Christ upon the Crosse prayed for them See Ball on the Covenant P. 259. that crucified him Luke 23. 34. But saith he that might be of private duty as man who subjected himself to the Law of God which requires that we forgive our enemies and pray for them that persecute us not of the proper office of a Mediator which was to offer up himself a sacrifice who was to interecede for his people by suffering death It behoved Christ as he subjected himself to the Law to fulfill all Righteousnesse and to pray for his enemies but that was not out of his proper office as Mediator Hence the Reader may observe that Mr. Ball makes Christs obedience to the moral Law to bee out of private duty as a man and not ex officio out of the proper office of a Mediator as Mr. Norton doth make all his legal obedience to be And saith he in page 287. Christ was Lord of his own life and therefore had power to lay it down and take it up And this power he had though he were in all points subject to the Law as we are not solely by vertue of the hypostatical union which did not exempt him from any obligations of the Law but by vertue of a particular Command Constitution and Designation to that service of laying down his life This Commandement have I received of my Father Joh. 10. 18. 3 Saith Baxter The Law of the Creature and the Law of In Appendix to his Pos p. 128. the Mediator are in several things different The will of his Father which hee came to do consisted in many things which were never required of us And such saith he are all the works that are proper to the office of Mediatorship 4 Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Animad upon Gomarus doth thus Upon Gomarus p 25. Heb. 10. 10. expound Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will By which Will wee are sanctified through the oblation of his body c. That Will saith he is the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father about Christs undertaking our cause upon himself and performing those things that were requisite for the Expiation of our sins therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ which he performed to the peculiar Law of Mediation for this Law set apart he was not bound by any other Law to the oblation of himself And hence it follows that if Christ made satisfaction by his obedience to another Covenant then not by his obedience to the moral Law 5 If God had commanded Christ to dye by the Justice of the moral Law then his desire That the Cup might passe from him in Matth. 26. 39. had been a sinful desire But saith Mr. Rutherford because it was a positive Law only by which God commanded him to dye therefore that desire was no sin as I have noted his words more at large in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 6 Saith Mr. Thomas Goodwin The death of Christ was not manded by the moral Law but iâ— was commanded over and besides the moral Law as I cited him in the former Section 7 It seems that Mr. Norton hath an art beyond others by which hee can make the miraculous work of Christs Incarnation to be moral obedience or else he would never say as hee If the Incarnation of Christ had been
de facto was executed or not executed on the Elect seeing betwixt them and the Curse the Covenant of grace doth and from eternity did virtually interpose by Christ and his Ransome It is more proper to judge what de jure doth essentially flow from the curse to such as being the proper subjects of the Curse remain under it without any interposition of Christ and his Ransome by the Covenant of Grace 3 I propound this to consideration from a passage of Mr. Nortons in page 117. Gods rejection saith he as it is the Antecedent not the cause of sin so it is also the Antecedent and not the cause of condemnation Reprobation saith he is an act of absolute Lordship and Sovereignty not of Justice Condemnation that is the judicial sentencing to punishment for sin is an act of Justice not of Lordship no Reprobate suffers the smart of his finger because a Reprobate but because a sinner Here I might by way of Parenthesis insert this Query Was Adam rejected and was that the Antecedent to Adams sin And were not all mankind once in Covenant with God in Adams innocency 4. I say that absolute separation dis-union or dis-covenanting with God is a part of that condemnation and judicial sentencing unto punishment for sin Matth. 22. 13. Matth. 25. 41. Matth. 7. 23. 2 Thes 1. 9. See further also in Dr. Ames his Marrow of Divinity l. 1â— 16. n. 7. 5 If total and absolute separation and dis-union with God c. be a consequent only of Reprobation then it proceeds only from Gods Lordship and Sovereignty as Mr. Nortons words speak but in Rev. 20. 12. it proceeds from justice The dead were judged according to their works not according to Gods Lordship nor Reprobation And saith Dr. Ames The hatred of Reprobation doth not inflict evill but the desert of the creature In his Marrow l. 1. c. 25. n. 38. coming between 6 The same thing may be both a consequent of Reprobation and a proper effect of justice as Mr. Norton himself also acknowledgeth in page 111. The legal dis-covenanting saith he of the Reprobate for their sin which they have committed is the effect of justice that being dis-covenanted they fall into the bottomlesse pit is also an effect of justice but totality and finality of their dis-union with God without recovery by the Covenant of Grace is a consequent of Reprobation And why may it not bee as truly said That the legal discovenanting of the Reprobates and their falling into the bottomlesse pit are consequents of reprobation as say that totality and finality of dis-union with God is a consequent of reprobation they are alike consequents of reprobation not proper effects of it but rather effects of sin intervening and consequently proper effects of Vindicative justice SECT 6. But Mr. Norton doth still explain his first Distinction in these words in page 8. Sin is not of the Essence of Punishment because Essential punishment is a satisfaction unto Justice for injury done but sin is a continuing of the injury and a provocation of not a satisfaction unto justice 2 Saith he Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But it is blasphemy to say that God is the Author of sin 3 Saith he The Elect suffer no part of penal punishment yet are left unto sin for a time This in the Parenthesis was in his Manuscript 4 Saith he in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned proceed not from Hell-torments as an effect from the cause The torments of Hell are an effect and execution of justice whereof God is the Author Sinful qualities are a defect not an effect therefore they have a deficient not an efficient cause therefore of them God cannot be the Author 5 Saith he in page 118. Christ suffered the Essential punishment but was without sin These five Reasons Mr. Norton hath given to prove that sin in fallen man and sinful qualities are not Essential but Accidental to the Curse His first Reason examined MR. Norton saith That sin is not of the Essence of punishment because sin is not a satisfaction to justice but rather a provocation of it for injury done Reply 1. But saith Dr. Ames Punishment is an evil inflicted on the sinner for sin In his Marrow l. 1. c. 12. n. 10 11. This is a more proper definition of punishment than Mr. Nortons Death in sin is an evil inflicted by God as the essential punishment of Adams sin and was a satisfaction to justice till it pleased God to make an alteration by the Covenant of Grace Original sin as it was from Gods justice was an evill inflicted of God on mans nature in general as a satisfaction to justice and so it was a vindicative punishment till Christ was revealed to difference the Elect from the Reprobate by the Covenant of Grace Sect. 1. Sect. 3. 2 Besides the punishment of original sin God doth often punish mens personal sins with sin which in some sort may also be said to bee a satisfaction unto justice But as that sin doth proceed from mans disobedience to Gods Command so it is a new and further provocation His second Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Essential punishment is an effect of justice of which God is the Author But saith he It is blasphemy to say that God is the Author of sin Reply 2. It is granted that sin as it is sin namely as it is a transgression of Gods Law is not from God as the Author of it But yet when man doth act voluntarily without any compulsion from God and to hold otherwise were blasphemy that sin as it is vindicative from God is a fruit and curse of former sin carrying with it the respect of punishment so taken it is neither blasphemy nor unsound Divinity to say that God is the Author of it And thus original sin was from Gods justice inflicted on all mankind for Adams Covenant-sin And Mr. Norton himself saith thus in page 118. in that Proposition God punisheth sin with sin the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin it self The infallible and penal futurition of sin is â—n effect of justice The Reader will see cause to take his meaning to be an Essential effect of justice and for this see also Dr. Ames in his Marrow l. 1 c. 12. n. 45 46 47. And sundry others of the Learned do say That God is not permissive but active also as a just Judge in some sins of men from these and the like Scriptures 2 Sam. 16. 10. 2 King 22. 22 23. Rom. 1. 26. Ezek. 14. 9. His third Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That the Elect though they suffer no part of penal justice yet they are left unto sin for a time The punishments that the Elect suffer are de jure penal justice but in the issue de facto are not Reply 3. I have said oft that original sin was penal justice in Adam till it please God to make
an alteration by revealing the Covenant of Grace And so also the punishments that the Elect do suffer since the Covenant of Grace was revealed are de jure penal justice though in the issue de facto they are not To be under the power of sin though but in part and so likewise to be under temptations afflictions bodily death c. are the due wages of sin effects of the Curse flowing from it as such in themselves and by their own nature though God is pleased by the Covenant of Grace to alter the nature of them to the Elect and Mr. Nortons own words do testifie that the Elect do suffer that de jure which is penal justice for in Page 10. Argument 1. he saith thus This sentence namely Gen. 2. 17. was universal given to Adam as a Gen. 2. 17. publick person and holds all his posterity whether Elect or Reprobate in case of sin guilty of death His fourth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That sinful qualities are a defect not an effect they have a deficient not an efficient cause and therefore of them God cannot be the Author Reply 4. I may say the same of natural death it is a defect therfore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause and darkness also is a defect therefore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause Now let Mr. Norton shew how either of these have God for their Author and when that is done he may see the weaknesse of his reason If he be unwilling to answer then Dr. Ames doth answer the former in these words Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from God as taking vengeance on sin And Dr. Willet doth answer the latter hee first Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from Gods justice as a punishment for original sin The like may be said of eternal deâ—th it is from Gâ—ds justice as a punishment of original sin to such as do not repent and beleeve in the promised seed See Dr. Ames Mar. l. 1 c 12. n. 31. Dr. Willet in Ro. 5 Q 22. in Ans to Obj 2. Bar. Traheron on Rev 4. P. Mar. in Com pl. part 1. p. 190. makes this Objection If Death be the punishment of sin then God should be the Author of death because he is the Author of punishment He answers thus As God created light darknesse he created not but disposed of it so he made not death but as it is a punishment Gâ—d as a disposer rather and a just judge than an Author inflicted it And Bar. Traheron answereth his Objecter thus Will you say That death came into the world by the envy of the Devil ergo it was not ordained of God Did God as Isaiah teacheth Chap. 30. 33. ordain Gehenna from yesterday that is to say from eternity and not death and so saith he Sin came not into the world besides Gods Ordinance And to this purpose speaks Peter Martyr of the Privation of Gods Image in Adam and of Original sin as I have cited him in Chap. 2. Sect. 3 ult So then sin as it is a punishment hath an efficient as well as a deficient cause His fifth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Christ suffered the Essential punishment and yet was without sin Reply 5. Christs sufferings do all arise from the voluntary cause and not from natural causes as ours do namely from a voluntary positive Law and not from the moral Law But whether Christ suffered the essential punishment or no is the great businesse of this dispute The Dialogue denies it all along let the judicious Reader judge whether this be fair disputing to bring in such a Proposition as is in controversie and which hee knows before-hand will be denied as a reason to confirm another doubtful point this is no better than a begging of the Question And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whether his five Reasons have weight sufficient in them to prove that sin as it is vindicative from God flows not from the curse Essentially and his own words on Gen. 2. 17. which I have cited in my former Reply to his third Reason do affirm as much and his words also in page 37. Judicial punishment saith he of sin with sin but in his Manuscript copy it is penal punishment of sin with sin is an act of vindicative justice The Reader may understand him to mean it of the essential part of justice 6 I will examine that passage in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned saith he proceed not from Hell-torments as an Effect from the Cause Reply 6. It is worth examination what he means by the sinful qualities of the damned whether such as they carry with them to Hell or the multiplication of sin when they come there flowing from that sinful habit which they brought with them thither The former may properly be called sinful qualities the latter sinful acts proceeding from that sinful habit of original sin And of these latter Dr. Ames doth tell us That they have more respect of punishment than sin In like sort the Summe of Divinity In his Mar. l. 1. c. 16. n. 10 11. set forth by John Downame page 254. makes hatred against God in the damned and final desperation to be a great part of their punishment as the Dialogue doth See also Peter Martyrs Answer to Pigghius in Chap. 2. prope finem SECT 7. Still Mr. Norton explains his first Distinction in these words Duration for ever and the place of punishment are adjuncts as the nature of them sufficiently shews Reply IT is beyond my capacity I confesse to judge whether the eternal estate both of Elect and Reprobate after this life do come within the compasse of a Physical adjunct of time all things are called Eternal that were before the Creation of the world because there is no setting of them out by any measure of time and why should wee think of any Physical adjunct of time after this world is ended shall there be Physical bodies and time then as there is now I wish the Learned to resolve this point Eternity saith Rutherfurd In Christ dying is not such a particular duration as time is that hath a poor point to begin with and end at Mr. Norton makes this point of duration to bee an adjunct only to Hell-torments by a comparison taken from the inability of the debtor to pay and therefore hee continues in prison But to this I have already answered in the second Section of this Chapter SECT 8. Giving some Reasons why Mr. Nortons Judgement cannot be sound in this Point of Christs suffering of the essential curse Reason I. BEcause he doth often confute and contradict his foundation-Principles For 1. whereas the Dialogue doth propound this Quere Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his Body as well as in his Soul to redeem our Bodies as well as our Souls from hell torments His
as touching his God-head he obeyed as a friend towards a friend and not as an inferior unto death The Lord of life submitted himself to death and being immortal he died How contrary is this of P. Martyr to Mr. Nortons kind of imputation Surely by Mr. Nortons imputation of sin to the Mediator in both his Natures the God-head of Christ did not obey as a Friend to his Friend to the death as P. Martyr saith but as a Delinquent to the supreame Judge to the death is not this kind of imputation good Divinity Now let the judicious Reader judge whether some of these expressions do not exceed the bounds of his said third Distinction for there he makes the imputation of guilt to be the obligation to punishment But in sundry of those speeches of his which I have repeated he goes further than I beleeve most men could imagine by his said Distinction and he doth all along make Christs sufferings to be from the imputation of sin that so he might deserve hell torments and the second death according to the exact order of Courts of Justice in their proceedings in criminal causes Some Philosophers saith Mr. Traberâ—n do teach that all things come to pass by the copulation of causes wrapped up one in another In Rev. 4. p 49. Christs sufferings were not inflicted on him according to the natural order of Justice by imputation of sin But from the voluntary â—ause and so they make God subject to the order and row of causes depending upon each other But saith he we say that all things come to pass because God through his secret will and purpose hath ordered them so to be done as they are done Ibidem saith he the latter Schoolmen say truly that all things come to pass necessarily not by the necessity of natural causes but by the necessiâ—y of Gods Ordinance which they call necessitatem consequentis And saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. p. 124. God is not to be compelled to order neither ought he to be ordered by humane Laws But Mr. Norton doth all along put Christs sufferings into the order of Justice according to the order of humane Courts and Laws namely by infliction of punishment from the imputation of sin And saith P. Martyr in p. 111. It is much to be marvelled at how the Pelagians can deny that there is original sin in Infants seeing they see that they daily die but saith he here ought we to except Christ only who although he knew not sin yet died he for our sakes But death had not dominion over him because that he of his own accord suffered it for our sakes And the like speech of his I have cited in chap. 10. at Reply 2. By which speechs it is evident that Peter Martyr could not hold the imputation of our sins to Christ as Mr. Norton doth but he held that Christ bore our sins namely our punishments according to the antient Orthodox and no otherwise and that phrase and sense is according to the Scriptures 1 Pet. 2. 24. but that sense is very far from the sense of Mr. Nortons imputation for the first sort agrees to the voluntary cause but Mr. Nortons kind must be ranked with the compulsory cause of Christs sufferings according to Courts of justice But I would fain know of Mr. Norton what was the sin that God imputed to Isaak for which he commanded Abraham to kill his Son for a sacrifice did not God command it rather for the trial of Isaaks obedience as well as of Abrahams for in that act of obedience Abraham was the Priest and Isaack was the Sacrifice and in that act both of them were a lively type of the obedience of Christ who was both Priest and Sacrifice in his own death and Sacrifice doubtless if Abraham had killed Isaack it had not been from the imputation of any sin to him but in obedience to a voluntary positive command of God and not to a moral command from sin imputed for then it had been grounded on the copulation of causes wrapped one in another as Mr. Norton would have Christs death to be but the Scripture imputes no sin to Christ but makes him the Holy one of God in all his sufferings In our judging of the ways of God saith Dr. Preston in his Treatise of God without causes p. 143. we should take heed of framing a model of our own as to think that because such a thing is just therefore the Lord wills it The reason of this conceit saith he is because we think that God must go by our rule we forget this That every thing is therefore just because the Lord doth first will it and not that God doth will it because it is first just but we must proceed in another manner we should first find out what the will of God is for in that is the rule of Justice and Equity So far Dr. Preston And it is now manifested that the Rule of God from eternity was that Christ should be the seed of the woman to break the Devils head-plot by his blessed Sacrifice and that he should be such a High Priest as is holy and harmless and separated from sinners and that he should be a Lamb without spot and blemish and therefore without all imputation of sin in the sight of God and of his Law and that he should be consecrated through afflictions Heb. 2. 10. and 5. 9. and 10. 20. and to this end should aâ— a voluntary Combater enter the Lists with Satan c. as aforesaid And all this may be further cleared if we consider what kind of cause Christs death is to take away our sins it is saith M. Burges a meritorious cause in his just p. 190. which is in the rank of moral causes of which the rule is not true Posiâ—â causâ sequitur effectus This holdeth in natural causes which produce their effects But saith he moral causes work according to the agreement and liberty of the persons that are moved thereby as for example God the Father is moved through the death of Christ to pardon the sins of such persons for whom he dieth so this rule must be applyed to the voluntary and eternal Covenant and also to the event as from the voluntary cause CHAP. VII His Fifth Distinction Examined which is this Distinguish between a Penal Hell and a Local Hell Christ suffered a Penal Hell but not a Local Hell Reply 1. THis Distinction makes two Hells that have the same Essential Torments one Temporary and the other Eternal one for Christ alone in this world and the other for Reprobates in the world to come By the like Reason there are two Heavens that have the same Essential blessednesse the one Temporary and the other Eternal for if Scripture may be judge there are as many Heavens for Essential blessednesse as there are Hells for Essential torment I think the judicious Reader may well smile at this odde Distinction and yet I do not see how Mr.
by a valuable sum of mony or the like But it is evident that the Law may be satisfied two wayes 1. Either according to the exact letter of the Law which requires Eye for Eye Tooth for Tooth Exod. 21. 24. and so for him that steales one Ox five Exod. 21. 24. Oxen in kind Exod. 22. 1. Or 2. The Law may be satisfied by suffering or by paying that which is equivalent to the damage of the Eye lost And so in case a poor man steal an Ox and not able to pay five Oxen for one yet if his rich friend will pay that which the owner shall accept for five Oxen the Law in the true intent of it is satisfied and so the first born of man and of beast was redeemed with mony Numb 18. 15 16. In like sort I find this sentence in the learned that that is to be held for satisfaction which was mutually agreed on between the Father and he Mediator from Eternity and to this very purpose doth Mr. Gataker cite that Proverb Money is recompensed by the feet and thus Christ made satisfaction for the Elect and this is acknowledged even by such as hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the wrath of God There is a twofold payment of debt saith Mr. Ball one of the things altogether the same in the obligation and this ipse facto freeth from punishment whether it be paid by the Debtor himself or by the Surety Another of a thing which is not altogether the same in the obligation so that some act of the Creditor or Governor must come unto it which is called Remission in which case deliverance doth not follow ipso facto upon the satisfaction and of this kind saith he is the satisfaction of Christ Now if Mr. Nortons meaning be that except Christ did satisfie the punishment due to the Elect in kind the Law doth for ever remain unsatisfied then I deny the major for the Law may be satisfied though Christ did never suffer the Curse in kind 1 It cannot be in kind according to the first Covenant made with Adam as I have shewed often 2 It is evident that it was from another Covenant made between the Trinity according to the Council of their own will which Covenant was revealed to Adam presently after the fall as I have opened it in some measure Upon Goviarus p. 25. Heb. 10. 10. Mr. Gataker in his Elenchtick Aâ—imad gives this exposition of Heb. 10. 10. I come to do thy will by which Will we are sanctified through the oblation of his body c. That Will saith he is the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father about Christs undertaking our cause upon himself and performing those things that are requisite for the expiation of our sins therefore it comprehends all the obedience of Christ which he performed to the peculiar Law of Mediation for this Christ did not make satisfaction by fulfilling the first Covenant but by fulfilling another voluntary Covenant that was made between the Trinity Law set apart he was not bound saith he by any other Law to the oblation of himself Hence it follows that if Christ made satisfaction by another voluntary Covenant between the Trinity then not by the first supreme Covenant made with Adam And to this very purpose also doth Mr. Ball and Mr. Baxter speak as I have noted in Chap. 3. Sect. 3. His fifth Argument examined which is this If the Gospel save without satisfaction given to the Law then the Law is made void by the Gospel and the Law and the Promises are contrary But neither of these are so Rom. 3. 31. Gal. 3. 21. Therefore c. Reply If by satisfaction Mr. Norton mean such a satisfaction as he hath formerly laid down namely by suffering the essential torments of Hell in kind Then I deny the consequence For first The Gospel doth save without satisfaction in kind And Secondly without any prejudice to the Law as I have shewed in my Reply to the former Argument and shall reply further to Rom. 3. 31. at the Examination of his eighth Argument His Sixt Argument examined which is this If Christ suffered not the punishment due to the Elect then the Elect must suffer it in their own persons Reply Niether of these is necessary for the Gospel doth tell us of another price paid and so consequently of satisfaction by that price and therefore not by suffering hell torments in kind as in Isa 53. 10. When he shall make or set his soul a trespass i. e. a Trespass offering as Ephes 5. 2. Mat. 20. 28. and by his soul must be understood his vital soul as I have expounded it in Chap. 7. Sect. 3. p. 68. His seventh Argument examined which is this If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no justification of a sinner without his suffering the punishment due to sin i. e. his passive obedience There is no reason to acknowledge his active obedience whence we are accepted as righteous this being in vain without that if there be neither passive obedience nor active then there is no remission of sins nor acceptation as Righteous and consequently no justification Reply The consequence of this Argument is built upon a very weak foundation neither do the reasons annexed sufficiently strengthen it First saith he If Christ did not suffer the punishment due to the Elect for sin then there can be no remission This is but humane language the Scripture doth not say so but that which the Scripture saith is this namely That without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin Heb. 9. 22. God told the result of the eternal Decree to Adam that the Devil must persecute Christ and shed his blood by peircing Heb. 9. 22. Esa 53. 10. Gen. 3. 15. Phi. 2. 8. him in the foot-soal and yet that the Seed of the Woman at the self-same time should break the Devils Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death through all his temptations and trials and then having finished all that was written of him he should set his soul a Trespass-offering which he did when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and at that time he bowed his head and gave up the ghost by his own Priestly Power and not by Sathans power And without this combate with Sathan and without this shedding of blood there is no Satisfaction and so no Remission But this Death and Sacrifice of Christ might be and was without any suffering from the immediate wrath of God Though not without Gods appointment and permission to Sathan to do his utmost against this Seed of the Woman to spoil his obedience if he could in which conflict Christ had his Col. 2. 14 15. Foot-soal pierced but the Devil had his Head-plot broken Gen. 3. 15. because he could not provoke Christ to any impatience or turning away back till he had spoyled the Head-plot of Principalities and Powers by
27 28. He Answers thus The word All in this Text saith he is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fulfilled by the Romans and the Jews as the instruments thereof Reply 4. In this Answer he doth but repeat the full and true sense of the Dialogue and in so doing he justifies the sense of the Dialogue Now let the Reader judge how well he hath confuted the Dialogues proofs for the stating of the case And whether this Answer of his be not rather a confused shuffling of an Answer than an Answer to satisfie any judicious Reader CHAP. X. The Examination of Mr. Nortons Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in page 21. For the true understanding whereof saith Mr. Norton consider these three things 1 What is here intended by Death 2 The Distribution of Death 3 The Application of that Distribution SECT I. 1 Saith he The Commination Thou shalt surely dye is not particular concerning some kind of death but indefinite therefore equivalent to an universal comprehending all kinds of Death Reply 1. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. from two circumstances in this Text of Gen. 2. 17. that the death there threatned is limited to a spiritual death in sin only 2 In his Distribution And 3 In his Application of this Death he brings Christ within the compasse of it two wayes 1 By separation of his soul from his body which he makes to be a temporal and penal death in Christ 2 By the separation of his soul from the sense of the good things of the promise and the presence of the evill things in the commination which he calls Total Temporal and properly Penal in Christ Reply 2. I deny that the death of Christ namely the separation The death of Christ could not be a penal death because Gods Law threatens none with a penal death but sinners themselves In his Common places part 2. p. 244. of his soul from his body was a proper penal death for the Law of God threatens no man with a penal death nor yet with any other true curse but sinners themselves Sin and Death saith Peter Martyr is compared as cause and effect But saith he here we must exempt Christ only who notwithstanding he knew no sin yet for our sakes he dyed But saith he Death had no dominion over him because he of his own accord did suffer it for our salvation The like speech of his I have cited in page 54. Had not Christ dyed voluntarily saith Bernard ad milites Templi cap. 11. that death had not been meritorious how much more unworthily he dyed who deserved not death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wilt ask is this that an innocent should dye for a malefactor It is no justice it is mercy If it were justice then should he not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed he should dye but the other for whom he dyed should not live yet though it be not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not be both just and merciful These Testimonies of the Orthodox and more to this purpose I might bring do point-blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent that Christs death was inflicted on him from Gods penal justice through the meritorious cause of sin as our death is on us But it is no such matter Christs death is of another nature The true nature of Christs death was to be a sacrifice because he undertook it from the voluntary Cause and Covenant onely upon condition of meriting the destruction of Satans Head-plot and the redeeming of all the Elect thereby and in this respect his obedience in giving his life was covenanted to be accepted by the Father as a free gift and as the richest Present that the world could afford namely as a sacrifice of Attonement or Reconciliation smelling like a most sweet savor in the nostrils of God and in this respect his death is the ground of merit but had it been inflicted on him from Gods penal wrath as deserved through the imputation of sin it had merited nothing as Bernard speaks above When conditions are made by a voluntary Covenant for the winning or meriting of a rich prize he that will strive for the mastery with his opposite Champion for the winning of the said Prize must strive lawfully that is to say in obedience to those Laws and he must be willing to undergo all the hardships that he must meet withall from his opposite Champion it may be to the forcing of his body into an Agony it may be to the breaking of his body and to the shedding of much blood all this he must do from the voluntary cause from the voluntary Covenant for the Masters of the Game do not compel any man to undertake these difficult services neither do they out of anger and wrath inflict any of the said punishments though the opposite party may happily do what he can in anger to pervert the Combaters obedience and to provoke him to some miscarriage against the Laws of the prize that so he may not win the prize from him Even so Jesus Christ the author and finisher of our Faith for the joy that was set before him indured the cross despising the shame and is now set down as a Victor over Satan and all his potent Instruments at the right hand of God having first endured the cross and the contradiction of sinners and hath spoyled Principalities and Powers in it namely in his death on the cross which by Gods appointment did strive for the mastery with him and the Devil did in anger provoke him what he could to spoil his obedience and so to hinder him from destroying his head-plot and so from winning the prize namely from the salvation of the Elect and the Devil proceeded so far in his rage that he peirced him in the foot-soals for a wicked Malefactor These things I bring to exemplifie my meaning that the death of Christ was not a proper penal death inflicted from the wrath of God as Mr. Norton doth make it to be in his distribution But it was a death agreed on by the voluntary Covenant having A description of Christs merit respect unto the curse accidentally because his Combater Satan had a commission from God to do his worst to make him a sinner and so to use him as a Malefactor by putting him to an ignominious and cursed death and so to disturb his patience if he could but because Christ continued constant in his obedience therefore he merited the redemption of all the Elect from the curse of the Law And this is a true description of merit whereby God made himself a debtor to Christ But to affirm that the death of Christ did proceed from Gods penal curse as an effect from the cause as Mr. Norton affirms doth utterly destroy the merit of his death and Sacrifice as Bernard said above and as you may
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
Scape-goat it is sure enough that it must bee done before its escape for after it was escaped it was too late to lay on hands upon the head of it But saith the Dialogue It escaped with that act of imposition upon the head of it and therefore that act of imposition did typifie that Christ doth still bear our sins by Gods imputation in heaven as much as on earth But saith the Dialogue The Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition to typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ but on the contrary they understood it to bee a typical sign of their faith of dependence depending upon Christs sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement for the sins they had confessed over the head of it and so much the prayer of the high Priest doth import for when he imposed his hands upon the live Scape-goat hee said thus O Lord make Attonement now for the sins and for the iniquities and for the trespasses of thy people Israel See Ains in Lev. 16. 21. And in this sense the Lord made the iniquity of us all to meet upon him because his once offering was sufficient to procure Gods Attonement for all our iniquities Mr. Norton answers thus in page 52. Mr. Ainsworth on this very place saith That this act shewed how our sins should be imputed to Christ It is not likely therefore that he so understood the Hebrew Doctors otherwise we might well think hee would have forborn a needlesse citation Reply 17. The studious in Mr. Ainsworth cannot but take notice that Mr. Ainsworth doth often cite the Hebrew Doctors in a differing sense from himself and so leaves the Reader to his choice 2 The Dialogue did not cite Ainsworth in Lev. 16. 21. for his own judgement but for the judgement of the Hebrew Doctors cited by him as I shewed in the Dialogue page 39. and in the Epistle to the Reader page 3. I have shewed that Mr. Broughton who was well read in the Hebrew Doctors did often affirm that the Jews generally do stumble at these two Positions of ours 1 Because we make Christ to stand before God as a guilty sinner by his imputing our sins to him And secondly Because wee make the Messiah to suffer the vindicative curse of the Law for our Redemption But if the Hebrew Doctors had held that imposition of hands with confession of sins upon the head of the sacrifice had typified Gods imputing our sins to the sacrifice they could not have so stumbled at our said Tenents as they do they despise the imputed righteousnesse of Christ saith Mr. Weams in his four Regenerations page 318. and they jest at this that one should bee punished in a legal way for anothers fault 3 It may be worth the while for such as are able to search into the Hebrew Doctors to see how they do understand the signification of this Imposition with confession of sin 4 Saith the Dialogue If Gods imputing the sins of the Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them upon earth Elect to Christ was the meritorious cause of Gods extreme wrath upon him then by the same reason Christ doth still bear the said wrath of God for Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much as ever he bare them here upon earth according to the type of the Scape-goat Mr. Norton Answers thus in page 52. Christ on earth suffered the wrath of God that is The execution of Divine Justice because he then stood as a Surety to satisfie the curse due for sin Isa 5. 3. 10. but having satisfied it Joh. 19. 30. Col. 2. 14. the same Justice that before punished him now acquits him Rom. 8. 34. If the Debtor be discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free Reply 18. I shall not need to examine the particulars of this Answer at this time because it is no answer but a plain evasion to the Dialogues Argument which is this Christ by his Intercession is still satisfying the justice of God for the sins of the Elect even as long as the Elect are under sin in this world and thence the Dialogue infers that in case Christ bare our sins here on earth by Gods imputation then hee doth still bear our sins in heaven by Gods imputation for hee doth still bear away our sins by his intercession in heaven according to the type of the Scape-goat This Argument Mr. Norton hath not answered but evaded with a by-answer but saith Mr. Norton If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free I have oft replied That seeing Mr. Norton doth hold that Christ as our legal Surety hath made full satisfaction in kind both by fulfilling the Law of Works and suffering the eternal curse thence it follows according to his own conclusion That the Surety having paid the full debt and cancelled the Bill the sinner is free from all sin ipso facto and so not liable to ask any pardon for sin at Gods hand nor liable to any temporal plague no more than Adam in his innocency But say I because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it is otherwise even as I have shewed in Chap. 4. 2 This conclusion of Mr. Nortons If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled then doubtlesse the Surety â—s free seems to bee drawn from Col. 2. 14. as hee hath cited it above Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us he took it out of the way nayling it to the Crosse I say his conclusion from this Scripture is a grosse abuse of this Scripture for though Christ hath blotted out the hand-writing of the Ceremoaial Laws that was against us yet for all that the moral Law doth still continue against us and doth continually charge us with the breach thereof and therefore the debt of punishment due to us for sin is not discharged in full in respect of temporal plagues though it bee discharged in full in respect of eternal condemnation to all that beleeve in the Promised Seed I say that till the Resurrection all the godly do still suffer for sin both in their life in their death and in their putrifaction in their graves and therefore they do still stand in need of the daily intercession of Christ for the pardon of their sins by the satisfaction of Christ continually presented unto God and in this respect Christ doth stil bear away our sins in heaven by his Priestly intercession as much as ever hee did when he was here upon earth as I noted afore in Reply 4. And this doth plainly shew that the satisfaction of Christ was not Ejusdem but Tantidem If Christ had been our legal Surety to pay the uttermost farthing in kind at his death then our Redemption had been perfect at once but because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it was agreed that wee should have our Redemption but
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
other but from the power which himself had in promising Consequent whereunto is this according to the opinion which wee beleeve to be the Truer That no man can by his becoming surety lose his * Mans Law doth not allow Sureties for capital crimes Vide Panâ—rmitan Rubri de fide jussoribus nor for judicial corporal pains vide digest l. 2. tit iâ— Si quis cautionibus lege quotiens And saith Mamony The Judges are warned that they take no ransom of the Murderer though he could give all the wealth in the world and though the avenger of blood should be willing to free him for the soul of him that is killed is not the possession of the avener of blood but the possession of the holy blessed God See Ains in Num. 35. 31. Ex. 21. 25. Lev. 24. 19. Ps 49. 8. None have a true legal power over their own life but God and the Magistrate to whom God gives power over Delinquents life because we determine no man hath such right over his own life that hee can take it from himself or ingage it to bee taken away by another though the Ancient Romans and Greeks were of another minde in this matter But it seems the latter Romans saw the inconvenience of their Ancestors Customes and therefore they made other Laws in opposition thereto Vide Codic lib. 9. Tit. 47. de poenis lege Sancimus And saith Grotius in the next page what wee have said of life ought to bee understood of members too for a man hath not right over them but for the preservation of the body But saith he If exile or losse of mony were in the promise and by the others fault the forfeiture was made the Surety shall bear the losse which yet in him to speak exactly will not be a punishment c. Ibidem And saith he because Beasts are not properly guilty of a fault when a beast is put to death as in the Law of Moses for copulation with man Lev. 20. 15. that is not truly punishment but the use of mans dominion over the beast Then hee proceeds to shew in Chap. 113. that none is justly punished in propriety of speech for anothers fault None saith he that is free from the fault can bee punished for the fault of another because the obligation to punishment ariseth from merit and merit is personal having its original from the will than which nothing is more ours whence it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in Chap. 78. hee doth distinguish upon the word punishment properly so called and improperly so called punishment in general saith he is the evil of passion which is inflicted for the evil of action To be kept from Assemblies or functions are not properly punishments although for a certain similitude and abusively they are so called Hierax defined Justice to bee an exacting of punishment from offenders And saith he punishment properly so named must be rendred to some * Vide Codic l. 9. T it 74 de poenis lege Sancimus There the Emperors Arcadius and Honerius say thus We appoint that punishment shall be there where the fault iâ— let offences bind their committers and let no fear of punishment extend further than to such as are guilty of crime And â—o this purpose speaks P. Martyr in Jud. 2. Eze 18. 20. offence This is also noted by Austin All punishment saith he if it bee just is the punishment of sin and in Chap. 113. Grotius cites Austin thus God himself should be unjust if he should condemn any one guiltlesse Job 34. 23. Ibidem God indeed threatens to punish the iniquities of the Fathers upon the children But saith hee hee hath a most full right of Dominion as over our goods so over our lives too being his gift which without any cause and at any time he can take away from any one at his pleasure But saith he men may not imitate that vengeance of God The reason is not alike because wee have said God without regard of the fault hath right over the life men have not but upon some great crime and such as is the persons own Wherefore that same Divine Law as it forbids Parents to be put to death for their children so it forbids children to be put to death for the deeds of their Parents which Law pious Kings have followed even in the case of Treason Deut. 24. 16. 2 King 14. 6. And saith he at ult An heir that is liable to others debts is not liable to the punishment of the deceased for though the heir doth bear the person of the deceased in respect of goods which are ingaged yet not in respect of merits which are properly personal From these speeches of Grotius it follows 1 That hee did beleeve it to be the truer opinion That no man can by his becoming Surety lose his life because no man hath right over his own life and therefore those humane examples of taking away the life of Sureties for the faults of others though they passe for good justice in Mr. Nortons opinion yet not in Grotius opinion being rectified nor in the Scriptures and therefore Mr. Norton hath laboured in vain to make Grotius his abettor in this 2 Hence it follows that seeing Grotius held this as a principle that the obligation to punishment doth arise from merit and that merit is personal having its original from the will that hee could not hold as Mr. Norton doth that Christ was made legally guilty of our sins by Gods imputation 3 Hence it follows That the punishments that Christ suffered were not in true propriety of speaking legal punishments because true legal punishments must bee inflicted for personal faults and therefore hee could not hold that Christ suffered any punishments from Gods vindicative wrath 4 Hence it follows That the punishments which Christ suffered are so called by a certain similitude but not properly the wounds received in the trial of Masteries from the opposite Champion are improperly called punishments no sufferings are properly punishments but such as are legally inflicted for Delinquency 5 Hence it follows That the punishments which Christ suffered were not inflicted on him from Gods legal and vindicative wrath but hee suffered them from his voluntary combate with Sathan and his Instruments as I have at large shewed in Chap. 16. and in divers other places 6 Hence it is evident That Christ could not in true propriety of speech bee our legal Surety in Grotius judgement joyntly bound with us to fulfill the Law and suffer the Curse and so to pay our full debt in kind as Mr. Norton holds 7 I grant notwithstanding that Christ may improperly be called our Surety because hee did of his own accord undertake the combate with Sathan and his Instruments for our redemption and by his constant patience and obedience to the death he overcame them all and at last in the perfection of his obedience he made his soul a sacrifice by which he obtained the prize
even the Redemption of all the Elect and thus hee broke the Devils Head-plot as our voluntary Surety but this kind of voluntary Surety is as far distant from Mr. Nortons legal Surety as a free Redeemer is from a delinquent Surety 8 Hence it follows also that in Grotius judgement there is a very wide difference between a Surety for mony-matters and a Surety in criminal cases but these kinds of Sureties are confounded by Mr. Norton without distinction or else hee would never have brought the instance of Pauls ingaging to Philemon verse 18. to exemplifie Christs obligation to his Philemon v. 11 punishments 9 Hence it follows That though a man may lay down his life for others as voluntary Sureties in divers cases as Mr. Weams shews in his four Degenerations page 358. yet not as legal bounden Sureties But saith Mr. Norton in page 223. The Doctrine of Imputation is not a doctrine of late dayes only The Reader that pleaseth may bee fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius who at the end of his defence of the Catholick Faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ against Socinus hath gathered together the Testimonies of many of the Ancients still extant to this purpose from Irenaeus Anno Christ 180. untill Bernard who lived 1120. Reply 6. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Grotius and the Testimonies of the Ancient Divines for the defence of his kind of legal imputation seeing they differ from him as much as truth doth from error Mr. Anthony Wotton doth learnedly dispute against that De Recon pec part 2. l. 1. c. 18. Sect. 10. kind of imputation which Mr. Norton holds and yet hee doth approve of that kind of imputation which the Ancient Divines held If saith he any man say That by accounting Christ a sinner they mean no more but that God deals with him as if he did account him to be a sinner this though it be true would not avail them for thereby they overthrow the foundation that they laid That Christ could not be a sacrifice for sin except hee were first made guilty of our sins such an imputation of our sins to Christ I think no Divine will deny I am sure saith hee it hath warrant enough from the Fathers And in Sect. 11. he cites some of the Fathers speaking thus He suffered him to be condemned as a sinner and to dye as one accursed For cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree Chrysost in Homil. 11. on 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Theophilact on 2 Cor. 5. 21. saith He made him subject to death for us and to dye as if hee had been a notorious offender And saith he in Sect. 12. Other imputation than this I find none in the Scripture for whereas it is said in Isa 53. 12. Isa 53. 12. Hee was numbred with the Transgressors This doth Mark expound of his bodily death at the time of his crucifying and it sheweth mens dealing with him and not Gods opinion of him And with him they crucified two Theeves the one on his right hand and the other on his left and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith And he was numbred with the Transgressors Mark. 15. 27 28. Mar. 15. 27 28 And saith he in Sect. 13. Neither can any man find any other imputation in the writings of the Ancient Divines than that hee took on him to expiate for our sins by his blood and sacrifice according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. Heb. 10. 10. Therefore wee may conclude that our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ might bee a sacrifice for sin or dye as a sinner although our sins were not so imputed to him that God accounted him to be guilty of them And saith he in Sect. 14. This also may yet further appear because his sacrifice was such as might bee without such imputation for it was the price of our Redemption as I shewed in part 1. lib. 2. cap. 10. n. 5 6. But there may well be and ordinarily is Redemption by a price without any kind of imputation And you may also see what hee speaks further to this point in Sect. 7. In these words of Mr. Wotton the Judicious may please to take notice that Mr. Wotton doth confidently affirm these two things 1 That there is no other imputation of sin to Christ in all the Scripture than such as he hath cited out of Chrysostome and Theophilact 2 That no man can find any other imputation in the wrirings of the Ancient Fathers 3 Let me adde this Testimony of Mr. Wotton both from my own knowledge and from the testimony of other eminent Christians that Mr. Wotton was a man of approved integrity one that suffered much for Christ through the iniquity of the times a man of great reading in all kind of Writers both Ancient and Modern and a man of deep judgement And his book of Reconciliation was printed in his old age after much debate and study and revising and therefore what hee saith in this point of imputation ought not and will not bee slighted of the Judicious The wise will understand 4 Hence it follows That the Reader that pleaseth may yet bee more fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius that this affirmation of Mr. Wottons is a manifest truth namely That our sins were no otherwise imputed to Christ but as hee bare our punishments in his body on the Tree according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. 5 Hence it follows That Grotius had good reason to produce such testimonies from the Ancient Divines against Socinus because as I perceive by several Writers Socinus denied Christs sufferings to belong to the meritorious cause of Christs satisfaction 6 On the other hand I do also beleeve that Grotius did as much oppose Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as hee did Socinus Tenent for I have shewed in my former Reply that Grotius held the obligation to legal punishments to arise from merit and that merit is personal Secondly It is further evident that Grotius did oppose Mr. Nortons kind of imputation because hee doth oppose the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the formal cause of our justification for thus hee saith The righteousnesse Grotius in his Appendix to God and his Providence p. 83. 96. and in his War Peace part 1. ch 36. which they call imputative the meer devices of men are thrust upon us instead of divine Dictates And saith hee in his War and Peace The death of Christ was not determined by any Law but by a special Covenant But Mr. Norton holds that both the Incarnation and the Death of Christ was legal obedience quite contrary to Grotius These things considered I cannot but stand and wonder what Mr. Norton will now say to Grotius surely if he will still hold to Grotius then hee must first renounce his own Tenents for Grotius doth fully overthrow both Mr. Nortons comparative Arguments cited in the beginning of this Chapter 7 Hence also it followeth that the imputation of our sins to
they are not capable of sin in a proper sense and therefore also they are not capable of this kind of righteousness But the Dialogue speaks only of sinners that are reasonable creatures yea and of such sinners as are in Christ and therefore it speaks of such creatures as are capable of pardon and so they are fit subjects of being made righteous by pardon But Secondly Why cannot pardon compleat righteousness hath not God a supreme power by his voluntary Law and Covenant to make it a sinners formal righteousness as well as he had to constitute a fruit tree which he called the Tree of Life to confirm Adam in his created perfections if he had but once eaten thereof We must not look to what is a perfect righteousness to our senses but we must look to Gods positive Ordinance he could tell how to ordain such a righteousness as will best fit sinners Thirdly We see also that by his own voluntary Ordinance he made unreasonable creatures that are not guilty of moral sins to be guilty of ceremonial sins and to be capable also of ceremonial justification as I instanced afore of the Temple it was first polluted by Antiochus and it was afterwards justified by sanctified Priests in carrying out the filth thereof Dan. 8. 14. The like may be said of the defiled leprous house and of the cleansing of it in Levit. 14. And see more for this in Ainsw in Exod. 29. 36. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 212. If you inquire after the essential matter of justification among the The material cause of Justification causes enumerated by the Author behold the Dialogue is speechless and presents you with a form without matter such a being as is neither created nor increated And he takes delight in this Irony because he doth so often repeat it as in p. 212 217 225 237 c. Reply 6 Herein Mr. Norton doth mock at Gods Wisdom and Work in giving a form to the Angels without matter Mr. Ainsworth saith that the Angels have a form without matter and he cites Maymony to concur in that in Gen. 1. 1. Yea the matter of mans body and the form of Angels may be united to do service to man and yet not be but one person but may continue still to be both distinct matter without form and form without matter As for example when the Angels assumed bodies it was noâ— to give that matter any natural form but it was a miraculous union onely for their present ministry to men And hence you see that the matter of mans body and the form of Angels may be united and yet remain two distinct things Secondly Mr. Norton doth not only mock at the Dialogue but at sundry other eminent Divines who make no other material cause than the Dialogue doth 1 The Dialogue saith that the subject matter of Justification is beleeving sinners and in this the Dialogue follows learned Mr. Wotton And 2. Mr. Wotton doth follow Peter Martyr who makes See P. Martyr in Rom. 3. 26. no other material cause in Justification but beleeving sinners And 3. Saith M. Ball It is to be observed that the Apostle saith And Ball on the Coven p. 219. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself where saith he the world is the subject or matter of reconciliation and by the same reason he makes it the matter of Justification for he makes Justification to be a branch at least of Reconciliation if not the whole as I noted before 4. Mr. John Goodwin doth learnedly dispute against that kind of material cause that Mr. Norton contends for and hee also See Vindiciae fidei par 2. follows Mr. Wotton for the subject matter 5. Mr. Baxter in his Aphorisms p. 213. enumerating the causes saith that a material cause properly it hath none If saith he you will improperly call Christs satisfaction the remote matter I contend not And in p. 217. he saith thus Christs righteousness cannot be the material cause of an act which hath no matter And in his Reply to Mr. Ayre p. 20. Sect. 4. He saith thus First As matter is proper to substance so Justification being an accident hath no matter are not you of the same mind Secondly As accidents do inhere in the subject so the subject is commonly called their matter In this sense also our righteousness or justification passive is not in Christs righteousness but in our selves and so our selves are the matter for I think it is we that are justified and saith he in another place if any please to make the blood of Christ the matter improperly I contend not And to this I do also give my consent But Mr. Norton makes Christs suffering of hell torments and the second death to be the matter and this matter I cannot consent to But saith Mr. Norton in p. 222. To speak after the stile of the Dialogue if righteousness for sinners be purchased and procured by Christs sacrifice of attonement neither then can attonement be a sinners righteousness that which procureth or purchaseth is the cause that which is procured is the effect the cause cannot be the effect Reply 7. 1 The stile of the Dialogue is borrowed very much from the types of the ceremonial Law which were ordained to be our School-master to Christ and I beleeve if more pains were taken to express the point of satisfaction and the point of justification in that stile it would be much for the clearing of the truth 2 It seems that Mr. Norton will have no other righteousness for a sinners formal righteousness but Christs moral righteousness imputed for he makes the Fathers righteousness in being attoned to sinners of no account in the formal cause But saith Mr. Baxter in his Apology to Mr. Blake p. 24. It must be known that the righteousness given us is not the righteousness whereby Christs person was righteous for accidents perish being removed from their subject but it is a righteousness merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience for us And that can be no other say I but a passive righteousness by Gods merciful attonement in not imputing sin as I have exemplified it from the types of Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances 3. I have already shewed and I think it needful to repeat it again First That it was Christs satisfactory Righteousness to perform the Covenant on his part by his death and sacrifice And secondly That it was Gods Righteousness to perform the Covenant on his part which was to be reconciled to sinners by not imputing their sins to them as soon as they are in Christ by faith The meritorious righteousness of the death and sufferings of Christs combate with Satan performed on his part did bind God to perform his said Reconciliation on his part and both these Righteousnesses together with the performance of the Covenant on the part of the Holy Ghost which was to proceed from the Father and the Son to convert sinners and â—o unite them to Christ
Gods anger and so removed the curse from the Land after that Gods justice was satisfied by the figure Metonymia as the sacrifice that was ordained to attone God for sin was called sin So then the true reason why the Judges were admonished not to let his carkass that was hanged continue hanging all night but to bury him the same day to cover and hide his carkass in the earth from further publick shame and ignominy because he had already satisfied Justice by hanging on a tree to be gazed on as long as the day light made him a spectacle which at some time of the year might be till it was near midnight where the natural day endeth So then the defect or want in the Hebrew Text may be supplied by any word or words that do explain the true sense as well as by is As thus thou shalt in any wise bury him the same day for he that is hanged to be gazed on as long as the day gives light to be gazed on hath appeased God and born the curse from the land and thereby he hath made attonement for the curse and so procured Gods favor to the Land And it is most evident by three remarkable examples that the execution of the visible curse upon such malefactors did procure attonement to the land First The Lord himself commanded Moses to take the chief Ring-leaders of them that had coupled them to Baal Peor and to hang them up before the Lord against the Sun Numb 25. 4. Numb 25. 4. 1 It must be done before the Lord namely openly by the publick Judges for God is still with them in the cause and judgement 2 Chron. 19. 6. Deut. 17. 1. Psa 82. 1. 2 It must be done against the Sun namely in the open view of all persons as long as the Sun did give any light upon the face of the earth and because Phineas did execute judgement upon some of the chief of these sinners therefore in ver 13. he is said to make attonement for Israel Secondly David commanded the seven sons of Saul to be hanged up before the Lord 2 Sam. 21. 9. namely by the sentence of justice 2 Sam. 21. 9. but the Gibeonites said to David in v. 6. We will hang them up to the Lord namely to appease his fierce anger against the land and in that respect their hanging is said in ver 3. to make attonement and to this sense the Chalde paraphrase doth render the sense of Deu. 21. 23. for because he sinned before the Lord he is hanged namely to appease his wrath And all that are hanged before the Lord that is to say openly by the sentence of these Judges are said also to be hanged up to the Lord to appease his wrath and so both phrases do demonstrate the same thing and thus to do Justice and Judgement upon sinners is more acceptable to the Lord to attone his wrath than sacrifice Pro. 21. 3. Thirdly Achan was a cursed person in his death though his dead body was not hanged but burnt with fire because he had sinned in the cursed thing namely in the consecrated gold which God had cursed to any that did purloin it and therefore God said unto Joshua I will be with you no more except yee destroy that cursed person Josh 7. 12. For Israel hath transgressed the Covenant which I commanded them ver 11. But why doth he say that Israel transgressed seeing Achan alone sinned in a secret manner The Answer is Because it was Gods will to make such a supream voluntary Law and Covenant with all Israel that if but one man sinned in the excommunicate thing it should involve all Israel under the curse Josh 6. 18. untill they had purged themselves by the use of means to find out the transgressor but as soon as they had found out the transgressor and had executed Justice and buried his burnt body under a heap of stones the Lord was appeased to the people and turned from his fierce wrath Josh 7. 25 26. and so the Camp was cleansed Hence I do once more conclude that the onely true reason why he that was hanged must be buried the same day was not because else the Land would be ceremonially defiled as Mr. Norton doth argue but because one days open hanging on a tree as long as the light did last to be gazed on did satisfie Gods Justice and pacifie his wrath and therefore the Judges are admonished not to let his body hang all night but in any case to bury him the same day because he that is thus hanged hath born the curse that else would have fallen on the land and the Jews say That as soon as a Malefactor had satisfied justice by his See Trap on Gal. 3. 13. death then the tree whereon he was hanged the sword stone or napkin wherewith such a one was executed must be buried with them that no evill memorial of them might remain to say this was the tree sword stone or napkin wherewith such a one was executed But still this must bee remembred that in some extraordinary cases God permitted the Magistrates to let some notorious Malefactors to hang on a Tree not only for one day but also for many dayes together and yet the land was not defiled but cleansed thereby of which see more in n. 8. 6 Having now finished the former reason why the person hanged must be buried the same day namely because in the ordinary course of justice one dayes hanging on a tree did satisfie Gods justice and so remove the curse from the land as it is expressed in this sentence He that is hanged hath born the curse of God And at the end of this sentence the Geneva and Tindal have made a full stop and the other Translations have made a colon or a half stop for the time of his burial Then Moses proceeds in the next sentence to finish his former exhortation to the Judges in verse 22. That thy land be not defiled which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit the Context verse 22. lies thus If there be in thee a man namely any other man besides the Rebellious Son in verse 18. that hath committed a sin worthy of death namely by stoning thou shalt stone him to death and then if thou see cause thou shalt hang up his dead body on a tree that thy land bee not defiled by suffering such notorious moral sins and sinners to go unpunished This is the only true reason according to the Context why the Judges are exhorted to execute exemplary justice on such The whole land might be defiled by the Judges neglect in suffering notorious Malefactors to go unpunished notorious moral sinners namely that the land by their neglect of justice be not defiled for the Judges were the whole land Representatively as I have shewed more at large in the Jews Synagogues Discipline And it is evident not only by the Context that this was the true mind and meaning of
which Adams righteousness could do And it was one great part of the righteousness of Christ to agonize himself with the dread of that ignominious usage which his Combater was to inflict upon him And thus you see that the ancient Divines do agree That Christs greatest sufferings were from Satans malice by Gods permission and I perceive by conference with such as have been well read in the ancient Divines that they did not hold as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was a guilty sinner by Gods legal imputation nor that hee was pressed under the wrath of God but on the contrary they affirm that there was no sign of sin in him and that the Devil held him by no law of sin and that he was no way guilty of sin 8 Those few Hebrew Doctors that speak of the death of the Messiah do speak of his sufferings with his Combater Satan as I have noted their speeches in the Epistle to the Reader 9 The Apostle makes a like kind of reasoning in Heb. 2. 14. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood hee Heb. 2. 14. also himself took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the Devil Here two Questions may bee propounded and answered 1 How came the Devil to get the power of death 2 How came his power to be destroyed Adams first sin caused by the Devil was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death by original sin and that was the meritorious cause of Gods justice in appointing a bodily death and judgeâ—â—â—â— To the first Question the Geneva Note doth answer because he was the author of sin none but the Devil was the author of Adams first sin in causing him by his deceitful reasoning to eat the forbiden fruit which sin brought in the spiritual death of original sin And then secondly The spiritual death of original sin was the meriting cause of Gods justice in denouncing a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. bodily death therefore was not the immediate effect of Adams first sin as most Expositors do carry it though I think they misâ— it for if bodily death had been the immediate effect of Adams first sin then the Pelagians cannot The Pelagians cannot be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granted that bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for they may say as most Expositors say That bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin and then the Pelagians may still hold that the death of Infants is not the punishment of original sin traduced from their Parents But the Apostle doth make the death of Infants to bee the immediate effect of original sin in Rom. 5. 12. and the Devil was the author of original sin because it was the immediate punishment of Adams first sin whereof the Devil was the author and so consequently it occasioned God in justice to denounce not only a bodily death to all the fallen sons of Adam but also to denounce eternal death by necessary consequence to so many of the fallen sons of Adam as did not beleeve their Redemption by the promised Seed for when God did first denounce a bodily death he did at the same time implicitly denounce a judgement as the Apostle shews in Heb. 9. 27. and Heb. 9. 27. See Austin in Ser. 129. to this sense of death doth Austin speak There is a first death and a second death Of the first death saith hee there are two parts One when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator The other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods justice And the second death saith hee is the everlasting torment of body and soul And thus the Devil got the power of death The second Question is this How came this power of the Devil to bee destroyed The Answer is by the second Person in taking upon him the Seed of the woman in the fulness of time and by entring the Lists according to his Covenant in that nature as it was accompanied with our natural infirmities of fear sorrow c. and so by his constancy in obedience through all Satans conflicts he compleated his victory and at last hee made his vital soul a propitiatory sacrifice which was agreed and covenanted between the Trinity to be accounted for full satisfaction for the redemption of all the Elect And thus hee destroyed him that had the power of death The Devils plot was by some stratagem or other to make Christ a Transgressor as he had made Adam but because this Seed of the deceived sinful woman continued obedient to the death through all Satans malicious stratagems even to the death of the Cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice therefore hee got the victory and won the prize even the salvation of all the Elect. And thus through this kind of death he hath destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil But saith Mr. Norton in page 70. Christ in his Agony was pressed under the sence of the wrath of God and conflicted with eternal death Reply 23. This compulsary term of being pressed under the wrath of God is no way sutable to the voluntary obedience of a voluntary Covenanter I have shewed in Chap. 9. that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsary power When grapes or any other thing is pressed it is therefore pressed to force some thing from it Is this a fit speech to be applied to the voluntary Covenanters and to the voluntary undertaker of obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenanters Satan indeed did labour to oppress him to force him to impatiency but not God by his immediate wrath And the like strange expression I find also in the Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. By reason of the Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath guilt of our sins saith hee there fell upon him sorrow trouble of mind astonishment and heaviness to death Matth. 26. 38. when hee was to enter the Lists and to fight the great combate hand to hand with his angry Father Ibidem in page 320. hee calls the said combate Handy gripes with his Father and his suffering on the Cross hee calls The main battel fought three whole hours with his Father all which time tugging 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 out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Just l. 2 c. 16. Sect. 11. And thus instead of entring
off any other customs how much so ever he is affixed to them than to lay aside his accustomed opinion But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. Mr. Ainsworth whom the Dialogue often cites seemeth to understand death to be laid upon Christ according to the sense of Gen 3. 19. Gen. 3. 19. Reply 17. Mr. Ainsworth doth not explain himself touching the manner of Christs death by this verse But in Numb 19. 2. he doth thus explain himself Christ saith he was without yoke as being free from the bondage of sin and corruption and as doing voluntarily the things appertaining to our redemption From these words of his I reason thus If Christ was free from the yoke of sin and corruption and did all things voluntarily that appertained to our redemption then his death was not co-acted by Gods Justice like to the death of all other men that are sinners his death therefore must be considered as a voluntary act from the voluntary Covenant for as he was an absolute Lord in Trinity so he was a reciprocal Covenanter 1 To take our nature and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan and to suffer him to do his worst to provoke his patience and so to spoil his obedience as he did Adams if he could 2 He covenanted that as soon as he had fulfilled his utmost sufferings from his Combater Satan hee would send forth his Spirit as the onely Priest in the formality of his own death that so he might make his death to be a sacrifice of reconciliation for mans Redemption from Satans Head-plot both these acts of his voluntary obedience he performed exâ—ctly according to the Articles of the voluntary and eternal Covenant for the meriting of a great reward namely for the meriting of the Spirit for Regeneration and for the meriting of his Fathers Reconciliation and eternal Redemption of all the Elect. But saith the Dialogue I will distinguish upon the death of Christ for God appointed him to die a double kind of death 1. As a Malefactor 2. As a Mediator and all this at one and the same time 1 He died as a Malefactor by Gods determinate Council and Covenant and to this end God gave the Devil leave to enter into Judas to betray him and into the Scribes and Pharisees and Pontius Pilat to condemn him and to do what they could to put him to death as a cursed Malefactor and in that respect God may be truly said to bring him into the dust of death Gen. 3. 19. as the Dialogue doth open the phrase in Psa 22. 15. 2 Notwithstanding all this Christ died as a Mediator and therefore his death was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor for it was his Covenant to be our Mediator in his death Heb. 9. 15 16. and therefore he must separate his soul from his body by the power of his God-head namely after his Manhood had performed his conflict with Satan all the Tyrants in the world could not separate his soul from his body Joh. 19. 11. no not by all the torments they could devise till himself was pleased to actuate his own death by the joynt concurrence of both his natures Mr. Morton in p. 84. doth thus Answer The plain meaning of the Author in this distinction is this Christ died as a Malefactor onely though unjustly in the Jews account but not as a Mediator as Mediator onely in Gods account but not as a Malefactor This distinction saith he in name but in truth a Sophisme is used as a crutch to support the halting of the non-imputation of the sin to Christ Reply 18. This distinction it seems doth somewhat trouble Mr. Nortons patience because it agrees not to his legal court way of making satisfaction from Gods judicial imputing out sins to Christ and from his inflicting Hell torments upon him from his immediate vindicative wrath and therefore in contempt he calls it a Sophisme namely a false kind of arguing 2 To the same purpose Mr. Norton doth thus repeat another speech of the Dialogue Christs death as Mediator saith the distinction was not really finished by those Torments which he suffered as a Malefactor the Jews are said to put Christ to death because they indeavored to put him to death but did not separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death So saith he is the distinction expresly interpreted in the Dialogue p. 100. Mr. Norton in p. 84. doth thus Answer If Christs death was a suffering then the formal cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body so often mentioned in the Dialogue otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter Reply 19. I have often warned that the death of Christ is more largely or more strictly taken 1 The pains of dâ—ath 〈◊〉 ofâ—en called death in Scripture though they 〈…〉 the issue to be death formally 2 The Dialogue 〈…〉 affirm that Christ death was a suffering and that he was active in his compliance with all his sufferings for he delivered himself into the hands of Satan and his Instruments that they might use their best skill to try if by any means they could disturb his patience and so spoil his obedience as he did Adams that so hee might put him to death formally as he did the other Malefactors 3 It is also evident that Christ was more intirely active in all his soul-sufferings than in his outward sufferings for the Text saith He troubled himself at the death of Lazarus Joh. 11. 33. Christ was often his own aflicter with soul-sorrows and he sighed deeply in spirit for their infidelity Mark 8. 12. and so in Joh. 13. 21. and from hence I infer that he was his own afflicter very often as I have shewed more at large in chap. 16. at Reply 10. And to this purpose I lately cited Damasen for Christs voluntary soul-troubles in his Agony And unto him I will add Beda Jesus hungred saith he it is true but because he would he slept it is true but because See Beda in Joh. 11. he would he sorrowed it is true but because he would he died it is true but because he would Ibidem The affections of mans infirmity Christ took unto him not by any bond of necessity but by the good pleasure of his mercy as he did flesh and death it self Wherefore his death was truly free and not forced because he had power to lay down his soul and to take it up again From these words of Beda which accord with Damasen and other ancient Divines we may see that they held it to be an evident truth that Christ was often his own afflicter with soul-sorrows and to that end he voluntarily took unto him our infirmities of fear sorrow c. they were not pressed from him from the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton holds And saith Beda his death was truly free and not forced therefore especially in the last act of
respect he is denominated to be the Mediator of the New Testament through that transcendent kind of death Heb. 9. 14 15 16. A brief Reply to Mr. Nortons Charge of Heresie For out of his Heterodoxal Tenents he doth charge Heresie upon the Dialogue 1 For denying the Imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ and his suffering the punishment due thereunto contrary to 2 Cor. 5. 21. Gal. 3. 13. Isa 53. 5 6. Reply THe Dialogue doth indeed deny the imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ in that new upstart formal legal manner by imputing sin and inflicting punishments after the manner of the proceedings of legal Courts of Justice as Mr. Norton holds But it doth not deny but approve of the imputation of the sins of the Elect to Christ in the sense of the Ancient Divines and in the sense of Mr. Wotton for in this point of Imputation Mr. Wotton follows the sense of the Ancient Divines and the Dialogue doth approve and follow Mr. Wottons sense as I have shewed in Chap. 14. whose memory will be blessed where the truth prevails in this point namely That Christ bare our sins in his body on the Tree as the Dialogue hath rightly expounded 1 Pet. 2. 24. namely our punishments as our voluntary combating Surety against Satan according to Gods Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. Luke 1. 74. Heb. 2. 14 15. 1 Joh. 3. 8. and not as our legal bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam to the first Covenant of works as Mr. Norton holds 2 As for the several Scriptures which Mr. Norton hath cited to prove his corrupt sense I have expounded them in their right sense with the concurrence of several Orthodox Writers Therefore you may see that he hath wrested the sense of the blessed Scriptures to prove his corrupt Tenent therefore his charge of Heresie is but a paper shot and a deep Charge of Error may justly be retorted And whereas hee hath published another book called The Orthodox Evangelist wherein he hath asserted the same Tenents upon the same grounds that he hath done in his Answer to the Dialogue This Reply which I have made in this Book will serve to prove that the said high Title is an erroneous and misleading Title and therefore it will advise the Reader to search better into the truth His second Charge of Heresie runs thus For denying that Christ as God-man Mediator obeyed the Law and therewith that he obeyed it for us as our Surety contrary to Gal. 4. 4 5. Mat. 5. 17 18. Heb. 10. 7. compared with Psal 40. 7. 8. and Rom. 3. 31. Reply I have Re-vindicated all these Scriptures from his unsound sense and expounded them in a right sense with the concurrence and approbation of the Orthodox in Chap. 3. and elswhere and therefore this charge of Heresie doth also vanish as a mist before the Sun His third Charge of Heresie runs thus For denying the Imputation of Christs obedience unto Justification contrary to Rom. 4. and Rom. 5. 19. and Phi. 3. 9. Reply I have also fully Re-vindicated these Scriptures from his unsound sense and given the Reader the true sense and so this charge of Heresie may more justly be retorted to the giver thereof For the Curse that is causless shall not come on the innocent Prov. 26. 2. But it will return to the giver thereof according to Psal 109. 17 31. 2 By the Table of chief Heads and by the Table of Scriptures annexed the Reader may please to search out the several pages where the said several Scriptures are Re-vindicated from Mr. Nortons false glosses and there he shall find the genuine sense of them clearly discovered 3 Hence the five Divines that subscribed the Letter aâ— the end of Mr. Nortons Book may see their great unadvisedness in joyning with Mr. Norton to condemn the precious truth of the blessed Scriptures for Herefie and to approve of his perverted sense 4 I will now conclude with a reference to Lev. 4. 13 14. where a Church a Synod and a Court of Elders and Magistrates may see that they are sometimes subject to Error in the things of God and therefore they as well as persons of a lower capacity had need to watch and pray and to study daily and earnestly that God would guide their judgements unto the sound understanding and righteous preserving of the truth of his blessed Scriptures Amen The Wise will understand Dan. 12. 10. Austin Cont. Faust saith I pass not for the censures of such as dare to reprehend what they do not Comprehend FINIS Errata Reader Take notice that the first Figures stands for the Page and the second for the Line Page 23 line 23 blot out Now it remains to be expounded 40 11 r. granted 40 16 r. sinning 50 10 r. by the Ordinances 95 25 r. affect 113 14 r. Naboth 118 10 r. Wotton 130 28 blot out He. 145 10 for 25 r. 103. 148 10 r. this 161 18 r. obrogate ibid. 22 r. that he shall not have ib. 25 r. Wotton 164 10 r. this 175 17 r. to act according to Physical causes in his moral obedience and natural actions as the Dialogue doth reason in p. 111. l 31 and as it is opened in c. 17. Rep. 11 in c. 3. 176 26. for Psal r. page 178 33 r. Is 53. 5 10. 186 81 c 6. 192 8 r. 152 153 c. 193 19 blot out made 196 38 r. Goat Bucks 206 ult r. patience and obedience 21 11 r. saith he 223 16 r. Wotton 232 from this page for 9 pages together is false pâ—ged make all these 9 pages 233. then the pages following are right 234 16 r p. 119 238 32 r. statute 141 29 r. disposition and Rutherfurd on the Covenant doth at large concur with Mr. Ball 243 4 r. chiefly 248 13 blot out but r. and yet not be one person 252 13 r. this phrase of the Septuagint the Apostle c. 252 15 after fully purged add compare herewith also Heb. 9 22 23. 258 23 r. Christs body 259. 35 blot out it is in the same verses r. the word Attonement is also explained by c. 263 38. r. both of his sufferings and of his death and sacrifice 266 2 r. his Argument 273. 28. blot out And r. The only reason 275. 11 r. was to cover and hide 275 28 r. themselves to Baal peor 282 19 r. groundless phantasies 295 15. for disease r. curse of evil 299 31 r. distaste 307 13 r. alone 309 9 r. this last Priestly act of his death 311 â—7 r propounded 323 26 r. Ekthambeâ—sthai and so in p. 324 327 323 1 r. to the last gasp seeing he had got a confirmation against his sorrows by his prayers in the Garden 326 25 r. but Christs perfections could not be disturbed with that disorderly hasty fear as they were in 2 King 7. 15. 335 25 add thus 339 21 r. Consecrator 344. 31 r. Joh. 10. 11. 345 12 r. usage 362 5 r. propounded 363 14 r. patients 368 17 blot out which 371 in the Marginal note r. Azab hath not two 373 39 r. Exod. 23 5. 385 39 r. tryed 386 26 r. against me 395 6 r. because he haâ—h not hid 415 2 blot out to 427 20. r. derided by ib. 37 r. therefore 428 28 r. else 430 29 r. thing 432 34 r. sanctification of merit but not that of the Spirit Other faults there be which the Reader may mend