14. Heb. 9. 1. 10. Legal justification was a type of our moral justification Justifications in verse 10. because they represented our Justification saith Dickson namely such Justifications as were made by Ceremonial Cleansings such as I have formerly named in Heb. 9. 13. and also the cleansing of the Temple Dan. 8. 14. is called Tzedek justified and such Ceremonial Purifyings did typifie Gods moral justification by his being reconciled or attoned to sinners for the sake of Christs sin-offering and therefore when the Jews were cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary they said to the Porters of the Temple in Psal 118. 19. Open to me the gates of Righteousnesse I will go in to praise the Psal 118. 19. Lord called the gates of Justice saith Ains because only the just clean might enter into them And in verse 20. This is the gate of the Lord into which the righteous shall enter namely such as are legally righteous by being purified from their Ceremonial sins which was a type of the true nature of our moral jastification And in this respect the Temple is also called The habitation of justice Jer. 50. 7. for such purified persons as came thither were justified persons as to the outward man yea all the Nation in this respect are holy Exod. 19. and therefore any of Israel though never so vild by moral sins yet if they were but legally cleansed from their ceremonial sins they might lawfully appear before God in his Sanctuary as justified persons in regard of that place but on the contrary if any man though never so godly and therefore morally justified did but want this ceremonial cleansing they were unjustified persons in respect of their bodily appearance in Gods Sanctuary and were guilty of cutting off by death Lev. 15. 31. Num. 19 13. so then their outward legal cleansing from their ceremonial sins the Ordinances of the ceremonial Law was but to typisie their true justification by the death of Christ in the fulnesse of time at the procuring cause of Gods cleansing by his free pardon and forgivenesse as in Jer 33. 8. I will cleanse them from all their iniquity whereby they have Jer. 33. 18. finned against me and I will pardon all their iniquities whereby they have sinned and whereby they have transgressed against me Here cleansing is put for justification by forgivenesse And so in Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall bee clean from all your filthinesse and from all your Idels will I cleanse you And in vers 29. I will save you from all your uncleanesses These places do allude to the ceremonial purgations afore cited from Heb. 9. 13. and in this sense the bloody death of Christ which he offered in the fulnesse of time doth purge us Heb. 1. 3. and cleanse us Tit. 2. 14. 1 Joh. 1. 7. and wash us from our sins Rev. 1. 5. because it procures God the Fathers Attonement which doth formally expiate sin cleanse it purge it and wash it away See Ains in Exod. 30. 10. Lev. 16. 30 33. Numb 8. 7 21. Numb 19. 9. Psal 517. So that to them that are in Christ there in no condemnation Rom. 8. 1. 2 The second sentence of this vers of Gal 4. 4. is this God sent forth his Son This word sent implies that there had a mutual Covenant passed between the Trinity or else the Father could not have sent him forth for the Father had no supreme Authority over his Son because they are in nature equal Job 10. 30. and therefore can have but one will and consent which may bee called a Covenant I came down from Heaven said Christ not to do mine own humane will but the will of him that sent me Joh. 6. 38. 3 Made of a woman For according to Gen 3 15. Hee was made of the seed of the woman by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost Luke 1. 35. 4 Made under the Law Being made of a woman that was a Jew he was made under the Law of Types 5 That he might redeem them that were under the Law But hee could not redeem any from the boundage of Moses Rites untill hee had fulfilled all the Types by his own blessed death and sacrifice in the fulnesse of the time that was fore-appointed of the Father and by that act he hath both redeemed us from the bondage of Moses Rites and also hath redeemed us morally from the displeasure of God and from Sathans Head-plot It is true also that he fulfilled the moral Law as he was true man and also that he fulfilled the preceptive part of Moses Rites in his own practice but that he did as he was a Jew only but he fulfilled the Types as hee was a Mediator only by his death and sacrifice and by that fulfilling he hath redeemed us both from the bondage of Moses Rites and also from Sathans Head-plot And thus we may see that the Types of the ceremonial Law especially those Laws of Priests and Sacrifice were ordained to The ceremonial Types of cleansing especially of Priest and Sacrifice did typifie our moral justification or cleansing from all sin by Christs Sacrifice in precuring Gods Attonement Heb 9. 13. typifie the Law of Mediatorship and our moral justification by him Therefore all such as are desirous to see more fully into the true matter and form of that Covenant between the Trinity for mans redemption let them study the mysteries of Moses Ceremonies for in them as in a glasse they may behold the several Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption and therefore when Christ came into the world he said Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me in place of Types then said I Lo I come to do thy will O God by the doing of which will we are sanctified namely purged purified or cleansed from sin as the legal phrase is explained in Heb. 9. 13. Of which Ceremonial purifying see Ains in Exod. 29. 36. but metaphorically it signified the expiation of all sin through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all To cleanse men from sins meerly Ceremonial the bloody sacrifice of brute beasts was sufficient by Gods own Ordinance Heb. 9. 13. and hence the Apostle insers in vers 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ This inference of the Apostle doth not consist simply in this namely in the super-excellency of this High-priest above the Legal-priest in vers 11. nor in the super-excellency of his blood as vers 12. but in the super-â—xcellency of this High-priest and his sacrifice united personally as vers 14. How much more c. Suppose a Priest as excellent had been found and also a Sacrifice as excellent in two distinct persons yet that had not been effectual for satisfaction because it could not comprise the act of one Mediator but the admirable personal union of this High-priest and Sacrifice did comprise the act of
we may observe the execution of some of the Articles of the Eternal Covenant touching Christs Priesthood both on the Fathers part and on Christs part 1 It is said of the Father That it be came him to consecrate the Prince of our salvation through afflictions that is to make his obedience perfect through afflictions or else if the Devil had not had full liberty to try his obedience by afflictions hee would have objected thus against Christ In case I might have had full liberty to try his obedience as I had to try Adams obedience this seed of the Woman would have been disobedient to God as Adam was Therefore it became so perfect a Work-man as God was to declare that Sathan had full liberty to enter the Lists with the seed of the Woman and to do his worst to pervert his obedience Gen. 3. 15. And secondly It behoved Christ to be made like unto his brethren and to enter the Lists with Sathan not in his divine nature but in our nature and to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities and therefore it is also said That it behoved Christ to suffer Luke 24. 46. according to the Decree and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that so his obedience being made perfect he might bee fully consecrated to the execution of his Priestly office in making his Soul an acceptable Sacrifice to make Reconciliation for the sins of Gods people and thus hee became obedient to the death Phi. 2. 8. And thus it became God to consecrate and Christ to be consecrated through afflictions and therefore presently after the Fall God said to Sathan Thou shalt pierce him in the foot-soals and accordingly God is said not to spare his own Son but to deliver him up into the hands of Sathan for us all to try the combate Rom. 8. 32. So David said The Lord bade Shemei to curse David For saith Dr Preston In Gods All-Sufficiency There is no creature in heaven or earth that stirreth without a command and without a warrant from the Master of the house God sent Sathan to bee a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs false Prophets God is without all causes and the cause of all things no creature stirs but at his command and by his providence Eccles 3. 14. And thus Herod and Pontius Pilate the Devils Agents did unto Christ whatsoever God had before determined to be done Act. 4. and thus God declared his will to Sathan Thou shalt pierce the seed of the deceived Woman in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor but yet for all this he shall continue obedient and at last break thy Head-plot by his sacrifice of Reconciliation flesh and blood could not effect this way of consecration The Father delivered Christ to death saith P. Mart. not that the Father is bitter or cruel hee delighted not in evil as it is evil But I may adde he delighted to see him combate with Sathan not for the evil sake that fel upon Christ but for the good of his obedience in his consecration to his death and sacrifice And all this was done not from the row of causes as in Courts of justice from the imputation of the guilt of our sins but from the voluntary Cause and Covenant only But saith Mr. Norton in Page 13â— The soul that sinneth shall dye Ezek. 18. 20. Good saith he man sinned ergo man dyed Christ was a sinner imputatively though not inherently And the soul that sinneth whether inherently or imputatively shall dye Reply 7. It is a plain evidence that the Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ as our legal Surety is a very unsound Doctrine because it hath no better supports hitherto than Scripture mis-interpreted The sense of this Text is this The soul that sins i. e. the very soul that sins namely the very same numericâ—l and individual person that sins formaly and inherently shall die for the text speaks plainly of sin committed and it argues that Mr. Norton took little heed to the circumstances of the Text that did not mark that and the Text sheweth the effect that sin hath upon a sinner that repents noâ— namely he shall dye Now to this Exposition compare Mr. Nortons Answer Man sinned saith he mark his evasion for he doth not speak this of man numerically taken as the Text doth but he speaks it of man generally or of all mankind in Adam Ergo man died saith he here he takes the word man not for the particular individual sinner as the Text doth but for the individual person of Christ and so his meaning amounts to this Mankind sinned and Christ died By this the Reader may see that his Exposition agrees with the Text no better than Harp and Harrow Therefore unless Mr. Norton do affirm that Christ was a sinner formally and inherently he cannot from this place of Ezekiel gather that Christ was to suffer the second death neither can he gather it from Gen. 2. 17. because both these places speak of sin as it is formally committed and not alone of the effects of sin as guilt Neither of these Scriptures do admit of dying by a Surety neither doth the Law any where else admit of dying such a death as the second death is by a Surety to deliver other sinners from that death as these Scriptures do testifie Ps 49. 7 8 9. Job 36. 18 19. The Apostle saith the sting of death is sin but his meaning is plainly of sin inherent and not of such an imputation of sin as Mr. Norton makes to be the ground of Christs suffering the second death Adams first sin saith Bucanus was common to all mens nature but his other sins saith he were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. the soul that sinneth shall die But I wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Austin for the spiritual death of Christs soul from Gods imputing our sins to him Austin saith he in p. 130. calleth it a death not of condition but of crime it is as evident as the sun that Austins meaning is this Christ was not necessitated to die through any sinful condition of nature as fallen man is but that he was put to death as a criminal person by the Jews sinful imputations and that Austin infers it was therefore just that seeing the devil had slain him who owed nothing the debtors whom he held in durance beleeving in him that was slain without cause should be set at liberty See Austins sense more at large in Wotton de Recon â—pec par 2. l. 1. c. 21. Austins sense is no more like Mr. Nortons sense than an Apple is like an Oyster But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 41. If Christ had suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 8. If Mr. Norton from the Voluntary cause and covenant should undertake to strive with his opposite Champion for the All Christs sufferiâ—gs were from the vâ—luntary Covenant and not from Gods judicial imputation of our sins to
The Meritorious Price OF MANS REDEMPTION OR Christs Satisfaction discussed and explained 1 By shewing how the Sufferings and the Sacrifice of Christ did satisfie Gods Justice pacifie his Wrath and procure his Reconciliation for mans Redemption from Satans Head-plot 2 By vindicating the Sufferings and the Sacrifice of Christ from that most dangerous Scripture-less Tenenâ— that is held forth by Mr. Norton of New England in his Book of Christs Sufferings affirming that he suffered the Essential Torments of Hell and the second death from Gods immediate vindicative wrath 3 By shewing that the Righteousness and Obedience of Christ in relation to his Office of Mediatorship is a distinct sort of obedience from his moral obedience in Chapter the third and elsewhere 4 By shewing that the Righteousness of God so called in Rom. 3. 21 22 26 in Rom. 10. 3 in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in Phil. 3. 9. is to be understood of God the Fathers performance of his Covenant with Christ namely that upon Christs performance of his Covenant by combating with Satan and at last by making his death a sacrifice he would be reconciled to beleeving sinners and not impute their sins to them And therefore 1. This Righteousness of God must needs be the formal cause of a sinners justification And 2. It must needs be a distinct sort of Righteousness from the Righteousness of Christ contrary to Mr. Nortons Tenent This is evidenced in Chap. 14. and elsewhere 5 By explaining Gods Declaration of the combate between the Devil and the seed of the woman in Gen. 3. 15. from whence as from the foundation-principle this present Reply doth explain all the after prophecies of Christs Sufferings 6 By clearing several other Scriptures of the greatest note in these Controversies from Mr. Nortons corrupt Expositions and by expounding them in their right sense Both according to the Context and according to sundry eminent Orthodox Writers By William Pynchon Esq late of New England London Printed by R. I. for Thom. Newberry and are to be sold at his Shop in Cornhil over against the Conduit near the Royal Exchange 1655. To the Honorable OLIVER S T. IOHN Lord Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas Peace be multiplied SIR I Humbly present this insuing Controversie to your Honor because I deem you to be an able Judge not onely in those Controversies that concern the common Laws of this Land but also in Divine Controversies and especially in this insuing Controversie because it hath so much dependance on sundry sorts of Scripture-Laws and Covenants in all which you cannot chuse but have a judicious inspection as well as into the Laws of this Land and the rather because the Laws of England have either in their rise or in their use some relation to the said Scripture Laws and Covenants 1 This insuing Controversie hath some relation to the moral Law of Nature in which Adam was created And this Law though I call it the moral Law of Nature yet I do not call it the Covenant of Nature which God made with Adam touching mans nature in general as my Opponent doth 2 It hath some relation to that special positive Law and Covenant which God made with Adam concerning mans nature as he was ordained to be the head of mans Nature in general For God gave unto Adam two symbolical Trees unto which he annexed a Promise as well as a threatning namely That in case he did first eat of the Tree of Life then his Promise and Covenant which was necessarily implyed was That he and all his natural posterity should be confirmed in his created natural perfections for ever But in case he did first eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil then his threatning was That both he and all his natural posterity should die a spiritual death in sin 3 It hath some relation to the Laws of a Combate for the trial of the mastery for at the first the Devil thought that he had got the ful victory over all mankind by drawing Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit but God told the Devil in Gen. 3. 15. That he would put an utter enmity between him and the sâ—ed of that woman which he had deceived and conquered and that one of her seed should combate with him and break his cunning Head-plot by continuing constant in his obedience through all his ill usage until he had made his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation And moreover God told the Devil that he should have his full liberty to provoke his patience and to hinder him in the course of his obedience by his ill usage and that he should have so much power granted him as to pierce him in the foot-saols for a sinful Male factor on the cross to try if by any ill usage either by fraud or force he could provoke his patience to make him sin against the Laws of the Combate And God also warned the Devil by his proclamed Declaration That in case he could not prevail by all his ill usage to disturb the passions of the seed of the woman nor any other way to divert him in the course of his obedience then this seed of the woman by the onely weapon of his righteousness should break his Head-plot in peeces and so should get the victory of the Victor and rescue the spoil from his power or at the least the best part of the spoil namely the Elect and so it was prophecied of this blessed seed in Isa 53. 12. That he should divide the spoil with the strong namely with the strong enemy Satan 4 It hath some relation to the Laws of the Eternal Covenant between the Father and the Son for mans Redemption for God could not have declared the said Laws of the Combate for the Victory except there had gone before hand an eternal consent decree and Covenant between the Father and the Son for the trial of this Combate in order to the redemption of the Elect from Satans head-plot Therefore from this declared combate in Gen. 3. 15. it follows by necessary consequence that the second person did from eternity Covenant to take unto him mans true nature from the seed of the deceived sinful woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities of Fear Sorrow c. to enter the Lists and to combate with Satan for the end aforesaid And 2. Hence it also follows by necessary consequence That God the Father did Covenant to and with his Son that in case the Devil could not by all his ill usage prevail to disturb his humane passions nor could by any other way divert him in the course of his obedience until he had finished all his sufferings and until at last in that obedience he had made his soul a sacrifice then he would accept of the perfection of his righteousness and obedience both in his combate and also in the formality of his death by his own Priestly power as a sweet smelling sacrifice and thereupon would be
that did support it 3 Therefore it was but a connexed appendix which the God of Nature con-joynec ' to his soul and body in his creation as he con-joyned an admirable beauty to the body of Moses at his birth Exod. 2. 2. which might either continue or it might be lost by eating some prohibited meat that might cause a distemper that might cause his beauty to consume as a moth without the annihilating of his body and soul 4 The image of God in Adam was con-natural to his body because it should have been transmitted to his posterity by natural generation if he had but first eaten of the Tree of Life for the confirmation of his created perfections The death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. is limitted by two circumstances to our spiritual death in sin onely Therefore first That death must needs be the Essential curse that is there threatned Secondly therefore it must needs be no less than Blasphemy to affirm as Mr. Norton doth that Christ was Adams legal surety in the first Covenant to suffer that cursed death in his room and place for his Redemption p. 24. chap. 16. Rep. 22. at Sixthly * Add this marginal Note to p. 31. Bodily death was not threatned to be the immediate effect of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit in Gen. 2. 17. neither was a bodily death threatned till after Adams fall in Gen. 3. 19. which was not until four verses after that God had declared that Christ should be the seed of the woman c. as the proper punishment of Adams spiritual death in original sin * Add this Note to the Text in p. 33. at line 23. and in cha 16. at Reply 22. ult If it be granted that God denounced a bodily death as the immediate effect of Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit then the Pelagians cannot be convinced that Original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for then the Pelagians might reply That seeing it is granted that bodily death is the immediate effect of Adams first sin it cannot be the immediate effect of Original sin But seeing it is evident by Rom. 5. 12. that it is the punishment of Original sin in Infants therefore no other death bue a spiritual death in sin was at the first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. Original sin is the essential death that God threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as the proper passion of Adams first sin though in the issue the Elect are redeemed from it by Christs undertaking to be the seed of the conquered woman and in that nature as it was accompanied with our true infirmities to conquer Satan by his constant obedience to the Laws of the Combate notwithstanding Satans unlimited power to provoke and disturb his passions and because at last in the perfection of his said obedience he made his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation by breathing out his immortal Spirit by his own Priestly power p 34 63 65 Eternal death in Hell is but an accidental punishment to the first spiritual death in sin p. 36 Gods First Covenant with Adam was not made with Adam as a single person but it was made with him as he was the head of mans nature in general p. 25 The kind of life promised to Adam and so to all his natural Posterity was the perpetuity of his life in this world in his created perfections p. 27 All the glory of Gods Creation had been confounded at the very instant of Adams fall if God in his eternal Counsel and Providence had not ordained Christ to be ready at that instant to take on him the Government of the whole Creation p. 28 Gods secret and not his revealed will is the inviolable Rule of Gods relative Justice p. 37 35 and ch 15. CHAP. III. The quality or kind of Christs obedience ex officio as Mediator was not to the moral Law of Nature as Mr. Norton affirms but it was to the voluntary positive Laws of a peculiar voluntary and reciprocal Covenant that was made between the persons in Trinity from Eternity Secondly Though Mr. Norton doth one while affirm That the quality or kind of Christ obedience was legal the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto yet another while he doth contradict that and saith it was more also p 42 Christs obedience to the moral Law is by eminent Divines rightly called Justitiâ personae But his obedience in his death and sufferings they do rightly call Justitiâ meriti p. 44 Christs obedience in his incarnation and in his death was not his obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms but it was a special kind of obedience to the voluntary positive Laws of his Mediatorship onely p. 45 * Add this Note to p. 45. Dr. Willet in Dan. 9. p. 291. saith That Christs Descention Conception Incarnation and his Miracles are not imputed to us because they were no part of fulfilling the Law In these words he doth plainly contradict Mr. Norton for he denies that Christs incarnation was any part of Christs obedience to the moral Law If the Incarnation of Christ which was an act of his God-head had been an act of obedience to the moral Law as Mr. Norton affirms then his God-head had been in an absolute inferiority to his Father because the moral Law was given by God as a supream which Tenent doth fully maintain the Arrian Heresie p. 47 * Add this Note to p. 99. and to p. 101. Mr. Norton saith in p. 123. That the Divine nature was angry not onely with the Humane nature but with the person of the Mediator because of sin imputed to him And in p. 55. he saith That God charged Christ with sin as the supream Law-giver and Judge c. In these words he maketh the God-head of the Mediator to be in an absolute inferiority to his Father which doth also maintain the Arrian Heresie * Add this Note to p. 47. and to p. 51. at 5. Christ as he was true man was under the obligation of the moral Law and as he was a Jew he was under the obligation of the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws but as he was Mediator and as he acted as Mediator ex officio he was above the moral Law for he said he was the Lord of the Sabbath even as he was the Son of man And secondly he shewed himself to be above the Ceremonial Law in that he said A greater than the Temple is here Matth. 12. 6 8. The Jews legal justifications under the first Covenant by their outward observation of the works of the Ceremonial Law was a true type of our moral justification by the blood of Christ p. 49 51 235 and p. 259 CHAP IV. THe order of mens legal proceedings in Courts of Judicature is no way suitable to be alledged for an exemplification of the order of Gods proceedings in Christs sufferings as Mr. Nortons way is because it appears by Gods Declaration of the Combate in Gen
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 Herennus 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 yet 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 cist 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 p. 328 Luke 22. 44. and Christs Agony explained p. 331 Natural death is the punishment of original sin but Christs humane nature was not by that Justice subjected to death p. 333 296 Ainsworth and others do make the earnest prayers of Christ in the Garden to be a cause in part of his Agony p. 334 * Fervency of spirit in prayer to be delivered from a natural fear and dread of an ignominious death may force out a bloody sweat p. 335. A true description of Christs Agony p. 336 * A Declaration of the Plot of the blessed Trinity for mans Redemption p. 341. at line 18. All Christs greatest outward sufferings were by Gods appointment to be from his Combater Satan p. 344 169 178 266 311 387 Satan did first enter the Lists with Christ at his Baptism when he was first exâ—râ—nsecally installed into the Mediators office though more especially in the Garden and on the Cros p. 346 Christ did not enter the Lists with Satan in the glorious power of his divine nature but in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities of sorrow and fear at his appoaching ignominious death p. 353 Some expressions of the Ancient Divines do cleerly evidence that they could not hold any such imputation of sin to Christ as Mr. Norton doth p. 356 * Some few of the Hebrew Doctors writings yet extant do speak of the sufferings of Christ from Satans enmity p. 357 at line 16. Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death in sin and then our spiritual death in sin was the meritorious cause of Gods justice first in denouncing our bodily death and secondly in denouncing a judgement to follow to each departed soul p. 357 The Pelagians cannot be convinced That original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granâ—eâ— that God threatned a bodily death in Gen 2. 17. as the immediate effect of Adams first sin p. 358 Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath though in that nature he was able to conflict with Satan and his instruments p. 359 If it be true that Christ sweat clods of blood as Mr. Norton doth affirm then it must needs be a miraculous sweat and then no natural reason can be given as the cause of it p. 361 CHAP. XVII THe Hebrew word Azab hath not two contrary significations as Mr. Norton doth affirm to amuse his Reader about the manner of Gods forsaking Christ upon the Cross p. 371 All Christs greatest sufferings are comprised under the word chastisement p. 375 169 Our larger Annotation on Psal 22. 1. doth account Mr. Nortons way of satisfaction to be but bare humane Ratiocination which saith the Annotation is but meer folly and madness p. 377 God forsook Christ on the Cross because he did not then protect him against the Powers of darkness as he had done very often in former times p. 379 One main reason why God forsook the Humane nature of Christ upon the cross was that so his Humane nature might be the more tenderly touched with the feeling of our infirmities in all the afflictions that were written of him p. 383 174 The Humane nature was no true part of the divine person but an appendix onely p. 387 * Add this Note to the marginal Note in p. 387. Zanchy in his sixth and seventh Aphorismes to the confession of his faith p. 280. saith That the Humane nature was no true part of the person of Christ and saith he in his twelfth Aphorism at 4. Though the nature taken to speak properly is not a part of his person yet at 5. he saith It is acknowledged to be as it were a part of the person of Christ because without it we cannot define what Christ is and because of them both there is but one and the same Hypostasie Though the Humane nature of Christ ever had its dependance and subsistence in the divine after the union yet such was the singleness and the unmixedness of the divine nature in this union that it could leave the Humane nature to act of it self according to its own natural principles p 388 * Add this Note to p. 389. at line 6. In two things saith Pareus this similitude of Athanasius doth not agree and before him Zanchy said as much for in his sixth Aphorism he saith It is freely confessed by Justinus and by other Fathers that this fimilitude doth not agree in all things to this great mystery * The Geneva Annotation on Psal 22. 1. doth say That Christ was in a horrible conflict between Faith and Desperation and so by necessary consequence it makes Christ to be a true inherent sinner and this blasphemous Note hath been printed and dispersed in many thousand copies and yet where is the Boanerges to be found that hath vindicated Christ from this dangerous Tenent p. 393. God did not so forsake the soul of Christ on the cross as to deprive him of the sweet sense of the good of the Promises as Mr. Norton bolds most dangerously p. 394 Christ was often his owne voluntary afflicted with Soul-sorrows p. 404 178 Christ was the onely Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice But
rather did he not pull it upon himself This speech in Gen. 2. 17. said he is no other then if it were said whensoever thou dost wickedly thou shalt become wicked for what is it else to be spiritually dead but to be devoid of goodnesse or whensoever thou killest thy self thou shalt be dead besides saith he it is against the nature of God to deprive a creature of Holinesse and Righteousnesse and so to make it unholy unrighteous wicked evill These considerations I confesse did amuse me at the present my conscience I blesse God being tender of truth and not being able to satisfie my self at the present to the contrary I durst not oppose it and therefore I did at that present manifest my self to be convinced But since then I blesse God I find sufficient light to satisfie me that my first Exposition in the Dialogue was right Though I confesse I have found it a point of great difficulty to find out the true nature of that death in Gen. 2. 17. and to distinguish it from bodily death and I see that Mr. Baxter doth also make it a Query Whether Adam cast away Gods Image or whether God took it away from him in his Aphorismes page 75. but in page 34. he seems to hold that after Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit he dyed spiritually by being forsaken of God in regard of holinesse as well as in regard of comfort and so he was deprived of the chief part of Gods Image but so was not Christ saith he And I was the more inlightned and supported in my Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. by P. Martyrs Answer to Pigghius See P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 18. Original sin is the essential punishment of Adams first sin though in the issue the Elect according to Gods eternal counsel are redeemed from it by Christ Pigghius makes the corruption of our nature to be the natural effect of Adams sin P. Martyr doth answer thus The ground and reason thereof is rather taken from the justice of God whereby the grace of the Spirit and heavenly giâ—â— wherewith man was endowed before his fall were removed from him when he had sinned and this withdrawing of grace came of the justice of God Although the blame saith he be ascribed to the Transgression of the first man lest a man should straitway say that God is the cause of sin for when he had once withdrawn his gift wherewith Adam was adorned straitway vices and corruptions followed of their own accord Tindal also saith in page 382. The Spirit was taken away in the fall of Adam This of Peter Martyr and sundry others to the same purpose did much sway with me then also I considered that Adams perfections were created to be but mutable untill he should take a course for the confirmation of them by eating of the Tree of life and therefore they were but lent him for a triall for in case he should first eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evill he should dye the death and so lose his created perfections and therefore as soon as he had sinned by eating that forbidden fruit God in justice took them away But it hath pleased God by his free promise to make himself a debtor to the Elect for the confirmation and continuance of their faith and grace because it was purchased for them by the blood of Christ to be of a lasting and permanent nature but God made no such promise to Adam when he created him after his own Image for he created him to be but of a mutable condition and therefore his graces were to be continued no otherwise but upon condition only of his obedience in eating of the Tree of life in the first place so that when the condition was broken on his part by eating the forbidden fruit it was just with God to take away those gifts and graces wherewith he had endowed his nature at first In like sort at the first God gave unto Saul the Spirit of Government as a new qualification added to his former education 1 Sam. 10. 6. 9. But afterwards it pleased God to take away this Spirit of Government from him because he gave it no otherwise but upon condition that he should use it for the doing of his will and command And had he continued to use it for that end and purpose he should still have enjoyed it but when he abused the same to the fulfilling of his own will in sparing of Agag then God took away this spirit of Government from him and then Saul grew wicked 1 Sam. 16. 14. And why might not God as well take away his created qualifications from Adams nature for his disobedience against his positive command as well as from Saul for disobedience to his positive command Conclusions 1 Hence it follows that in case this Exposition of the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. be sound and good as I conceive it is Then Mr. Nortons second Proposition and all his other Propositions that affirm that the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. is the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice do fall to the ground 2 Hence it follows that the bodily death of the Elect and Eternal death in hel is but an accidental punishment to the first plritual death both the bodily and eternal death of the Reprobate are but accidental punishments to the first spiritual death of mans nature in sin and therefore that the first spiritual death in sin was the essential and substantial curse that was first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. or thus Adams disobedience was the meritorious cause of the death of mans nature in sin the spiritual death of mans nature in sin was afterwards the meritorious cause of bodily death though God was pleased to sanctifie that punishment to all that do beleeve in the Promised Seed and now through faith they have hope in their death to change for the better but the said bodily death was ordained for a further degree of misery to all that beleeve not in the Promised Seed for when God ordained death he ordained judgement to succeed it Heb. 9. 27. and this is the distribution of his judgement He that beleeveth on the Son bath everlasting life and he that beleeveth not the Son shall not see life But the wrath of God abideth on him Joh. 3. 36. 3 Hence it follows that the inviolable rule of Gods relative Justice for mans Redemption is not to be fetched from Gen. 2. 17. but from the voluntary cause of Gods secret will not yet revealed to Adam till after his fall and that secret will but now revealed was that the formality of Christs death in seperating his soul from his body by his own Priestly power should be a sacrifice and the formality of all satisfaction as it is explained in Heb. 9. 15 16. and Heb. 10. 4 I desire the Reader to take notice that I defer my Examination of Mr. Norton Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. to Chap. 10. His fifth
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 an 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 Reply 3. I have said oft that original sin was penal justice in The punishments that the Elect suffer are de jure penal justice but in the issue de factâ— are not 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 death it is from Gods 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 â—o 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 God 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 Isaiaâ— 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 Piggbius 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
to be angry with Christ because of sin imputed to him as to our Mediator in both his Natures and so all along he makes Christ as God Man to be our Surety and so sin to be imputed to him in both his Natures But Mr. Burges on Justific p. 176. saith That Christ as God Man was not bound by any imputation of ourguilt And he cites Zanchy for this The fore-quoted Author saith he makes this objection to himself How Christ could be said to be freed from the guilt of sin who had no sin He answereth the person of Christ is considered two waies 1. In it self as God Man and so Christ was not bound by any guilt 2. as appointed Head and so representing our persons in this respect God laid our iniquities upon him Isa 53. My drift in citing this is to shew That such learned Divines as Zanchy and Mr. Burges is do deny that the guilt of our sins were imputed to Christ as God Man contradicting Mr. Norton therein Christ in his obeying saith P. Martyr in his Ser. on Phi. 2. became not less than his Father 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 iâ— 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 â—ell torments and the second death according to the exact order of Courts of Justice in their proceedings in criminal causes Some Philosophers saith Mr. Traheron 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 hâ—m according to the natural order of justice by imputation of sin But from the voluntary cause 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 as a voluntary Combater enter the Lists with Satan c. as aforesaid And all thiâ— 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 Posâ—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 thinâ— the judicious Reader may well smile at this odde Distinction and yet I do not see how Mr. Norton can maintain that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hell without this Distinction This penal Hell was first devised and is still maintained for It is a meer fantacy to say that Christ suffered the essential Torments of hell in this world seeing it is acknowledged by Mr. Norton That the Devils are not in full Torments here the sake of Christs sufferings only I never heard it used in Mr. Nortons sense for any body else no not for the Devils themselves as long as they are in this world For first saith Mr. Norton in page 124. the full Torments of Hell are not inflicted upon the Devils before the day of Judgement Secondly neither dares he affirm that any man in this life did ever suffer the Essential torments of Hell For in page 115. he saith That the reason why Eternal death is inflicted after the separation of the soul from the body is partly because of the inability of the nature of man in this present state of mortality to indure the wrath of God without separation of the soul from the body namely to indure Gods penal wrath as hee doth presently after call it such as Christ bare And in Chap. 13. he saith There may be some doubt concerning the capacity of a meer creature to hold such a measure of Torment 1 Hence it follows from his own confession that no mortal man can suffer the penal wrath of God or the Essential Torments of hell in this life 2 Hence it follows that there is no such penal Hell for any other in this life but for Christ alone 3 That none but Christ can dye the second Death till they be first dead in sin 4 Neither dares Mr. Norton affirm that Christ suffered the Essential Torments of Hel in this penal Hell by Gods ordinary dispensation For in Page 120. he saith That according to the ordinary dispensation of God the full pains of hell are not suffered in this life But saith he according to the extraordinary dispensation of God Christ not onely could but did suffer the pains of Hell in this life And truly seeing this penal Hell hath need of miracles to support it it shall have my vote to be matched with Purgatory as a like fiction SECT 2. But Mr. Norton labours to confirm his said Distinction three wayes 1 By a compartive Argument 2 By the Testimony of the School-men 3 By Psal 16. 10. 1 His comparative Argument is this Christ might as well suffer the pains of Hell out of Hell as partake of the joyes of Heaven out of Heaven His words in page 119. are these As the Manhood of Christ was partaker of the joyes of Heaven out of the place of Heaven as Luke 9. 28. if not at other times yet after the Resurrection so might it suffer the pains of Hell out of the place of Hell Reply 2. HIs sense of Hell-torments must all along bee remembred to bee the Essential torments of Hell For according to his first Distinction in page 8. he saith That the essential part was that and onely that which Christ suffered Luke 9. 28. Who ever is paâ—tâ—ker of the essential joâ—es of heaven is confirmed against the suffering of death In like sort he must be understood that Christ did partake of the Essential joyes of Heaven out of Heaven by Luke 9. 28. and then I beleeve his body had been glorified and so consequently confirmed against the suffering of death for if his Man-hood had partaken of the essential joyes of Heaven then hee must bee cloathed with such essential glory as himself doth mention in Joh. 17. 5. Glorifie me with thy self and in vers 24. That they may behold my glory which thou hast given me or else he reasons imperâ—inently and not to the point in hand And thus hee hath abused the sense of Luke 9 28. If he had affirmed these suffâ—rings of Christ and these glorious Revelations in a metaphorical sense then hee might have aâ—corded with the Scripture sense for great joyes by an hyperbole may well bee called the joyes of Heaven but not the Essential joyes neither do I beleeve that the Man-hood of Christ did partake of the Essential joyes and glory of Heaven till he came there neither doth that place in Luke 9. 28. nor any other Scripture prove it 2 Mr. Norton doth labour to confirm his said Distinction by the School-men For in page 120. hee saith The sounder School-men teach that Christ was in such a penal Hell namely where he suffered the Essential torments of Hell before his death But in case the School-men did not teach so much then Mr. Norton doth wrong both them and the Reader to cite them to his sense But according to my learning they were far from Mr. Nortons Tenent But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The soul is understood by judicious Authors properly Hell metaphorically for pains equivalent to the pains of Hell it self Reply I confesse I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often use the word Equivalent seeing his fundamental principle is Mr. Norton flies from his foundation principle of essential torments to that which is equavalent That Christ suffered the very Essential Torments of Hell and yet ever and anon hee is glad to flye to the word Equivalent in the point of satisfaction and yet he doth oppose the use of it in the point of satisfaction in the Dialogue Hee said in page 8 That the Essential part of Hell torments was that and only that which Christ suffered But here he is forced to leave that Principle and to flye to that which is Equivalent sometimes he holds close to the very letter of the Law as if God could not alter one jot because Christ was in the same obligation with Adam but presently after hee doth admit of the word Equivalent such uncertainty there is in his foundation-principles 2 The metaphorical
Reply 2. If Mathew had known that such a Tenent would have been broached he would doubtlesse if the Spirit of God had permitted have shewed that he must not have suffered the wrath of God but it had been for Mr. Nortons honor if he could have shewed that Christ told his Disciples That bee must go to Jerusalem to suffer many things there from the immediate wrath of God as well as from Sathans instruments and then the Reader might have been satisfied The third Scripture cited by the Dialogue is in Luke 24 25 26 44. 46. Mr. Norton Answers Toese words saith he conclude that Christ was to suffer But the word All saith he in vers 26. includes the suffering of Divine Justice Reply 3. In the two former Scriptures he could not find any particle for the proving that Christ suffered divine Justice but now in Luke 24 26. he finds it in the word All and yet there is no All in that verse Mr. Norton will rather coyn Scripture-words than want a proof of Christs suffering from Gods immediate wrath The fourth Scripture cited by the Dialogue is Act. 13. 27 28. He Answers thus The word All in this text saith he is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fulfilled by the Romans and the Jews as the instruments thereof Reply 4. In this Answer he doth but repent the full and true sense of the Dialogue and in so doing he justifies the sense of the Dialogue Now let the Reader judge how well he hath confuted the Dialogues proofs for the stating of the case And whether this Answer of his be not rather a confused shuffling of an Answer than an Answer to satisfie any judicious Reader CHAP. X. The Examination of Mr. Nortons Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in page 21. For the true understanding whereof saith Mr. Norton consider these three things 1 What is here intended by Death 2 The Distribution of Death 3 The Application of that Distribution SECT I. Saith he The Commination Thou shalt surely dye is not particular concerning some kind of death but indefinite therefore equivalent to an universal comprehending all kinds of Death Reply 1. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. from two circumstances in this Text of Gen. 2. 17. that the death there threatned is limited to a spiritual death in sin only 2 In his Distribution And 3 In his Application of this Death he brings Christ within the compasse of it two wayes 1 By separation of his soul from his body which he makes to be a temporal and penal death in Christ 2 By the separation of his soul from the sense of the good things of the promise and the presence of the evill things in the commination which he calls Total Temporal and properly Penal in Christ Reply 2. I deny that the death of Christ namely the separation of his soul from his body was a proper penal death for The death of Christ could not be a penal death because Gods Law threatens none with a penal death but sinners themselves In his Common places part 2. p. 244. the Law of God threatens no man with a penal death nor yet with any other true curse but sinners themselves Sin and Death saith Peter Martyr is compared as cause and effect But saith he here we must exempt Christ only who notwithstanding he knew no sin yet for our sakes he dyed But saith he Death had no dominion over him because he of his own accord did suffer it for our salvation The like speech of his I have cited in page 54. Had not Christ dyed voluntarily saith Bernard ad milites Templi cap. 11. that death had not been meritorious how much more unworthily he dyed who deserved not death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wilt ask is this that an innocent should dye for a malefactor It is no justice it is mercy If it were justice then should he not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed he should dye but the other for whom he dyed should not live yet though it be not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not be both just and merciful These Testimonies of the Orthodox and more to this purpose I might bring do point-blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent that Christs death was inflicted on him from Gods penal justice through the meritorious cause of sin as our death is on us But it is no such matter Christs death is of another nature The true nature of Christs death was to be a sacrifice because he undertook it from the voluntary Cause and Covenant onely upon condition of meriting the destruction of Satans Head-plot and the redeeming of all the Elect thereby and in this respect his obedience in giving his life was covenanted to be accepted by the Father as a free gift and as the richest Present that the world could afford namely as a sacrifice of Attonement or Reconciliation smelling like a most sweet savor in the nostrils of God and in this respect his death is the ground of merit but had it been inflicted on him from Gods penal wrath as deserved through the imputation of sin it had merited nothing as Bernard speaks above When conditions are made by a voluntary Covenant for the winning or meriting of a rich prize he that will strive for the mastery with his opposite Champion for the winning of the said Prize must strive lawfully that is to say in obedience to those Laws and he must be willing to undergo all the hardships that he must meet withall from his opposite Champion it may be to the forcing of his body into an Agony it may be to the breaking of his body and to the shedding of much blood all this he must do from the voluntary cause from the voluntary Covenant for the Masters of the Game do not compel any man to undertake these difficult services neither do they out of anger and wrath inflict any of the said punishments though the opposite party may happily do what he can in anger to pervert the Combaters obedience and to provoke him to some miscarriage against the Laws of the prize that so he may not win the prize from him Even so Jesus Christ the author and finisher of our Faith for the joy that was set before him indured the cross despising the shame and is now set down as a Victor over Satan and all his potent Instruments at the right hand of God having first endured the cross and the contradiction of sinners and hath spoyled Principalities and Powers in it namely in his death on the cross which by Gods appointment did strive for the mastery with him and the Devil did in anger provoke him what he could to spoil his obedience and so to hinder him from destroying his head-plot and so from winning the prize namely from the salvation of the Elect and the Devil proceeded so far in
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 see further in Ch. 12. at Reply 17. It is appointed saith the Apostle unto men once to die Heb. 9. 27 28. This bodily death was not appointed till after Adams conversion Heb. 9. 27 28 for his conversion is set out in Gen. 3. 15. and his bodily death was not threatned till four verses after namely in verse 19. This appointment was for mankind that were guilty of original sin and therefore the Apostle saith it is appointed unto men once to die namely to men that were guilty of original sin but the Apostle doth not say in Heb. 9. 27. that it was appointed for Christ to die by that sentence but he varies that phrase when he comes to speak of the death of Christ and saith So Christ was offered to bear the sins of the many thereby shewing that the nature of his death was to be a sacrifice and so to be of a differing nature from our compulsory death and that the end of it was to bear away the sins of the many in procuring Gods free pardon and forgiveness by his death and sacrifice So then I may well conclude That as Christs begetting was not like our begetting so his death in the formality of it was not like our death for though he suffered as a malefactor in his combating with Satan and his Instruments from the voluntary Cause and Covenant so also in the point of separating his soul from his body he did it as a Mediator by his own Priestly power and not by Satans power as I shall shew God willing more at large hereafter in my Reply to Psal 22. 1. and to Matth. 27. 46. 2 I come now to speak to the second part of his distribution of death to the soul of Christ by separating it from the sense of the good things in the promise and by inflicting the evill things in the commination But this I have already denied and given my Reasons in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. 〈◊〉 and in Chap 4. And therefore now I will onely propound three Questions to the consideration of the learned for the further clearing of this point Q. 1. Whereas Mr. Norton in p. 21 makes death in sin and death for sin in their several branches together with the evil of affliction to flow from the commination in Gen. 2. 17. as an effect from the cause as the proper wages of Adams first sin Rom. 5. 21. and 6. 23. My first Question from hence is this Whether Mr. Norton be not all this while to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure namely of the due desert of sin Secondly Whereas he doth apply the several branches of his death to several sorts of persons some to the Reprobates and some to the Elect in differing respects Whether he be not to be understood as speaking of sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de facto namely in the event and as it fell out to be executed and that in a various manner namely one way on the Elect and another way on the Reprobate Quest 2. In judging what kind of death is essential to Adams sin as naturally flowing from the curse as an effect from the cause Whether is it more suitable to look at sin and the curse thereof as it is to be considered de jure or as it is to be considered de facto or as it is both ways to be considered seeing the curse de facto in relation to the Elect was altered by the Gospel interceding Quest 3. In considering the several branches of death which of them are essential and flowing naturally either from Adams first sin or from our Original sin as a proper Effect from the Cause and which of them are accidental not flowing from sin as sin as Mr. Nortons distribution speaketh but rather accidentally by means of some other thing If these Questions were rightly resolved and rightly applied to the points in agitation the difficulties of this Controversie would be much easier And I conceive my exposition of the nature of the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. as I have explained it in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. will give great light to the clearing of these â—hree Questions SECT 2. NOw I come to examine his Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. more particularly In p. 23. saith Mr. Norton the meaning of these words In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die Is this If man sin man shall die either in his own person as the Reprobate or in the person of the man Christ Jesus the Surety of the Elect according to the distribution above so is the Text a full and universal Truth Man sins and man dies Reply 3. The plain letter of the Text saith If thou sinnest thou shalt die and so the Text is a full and universal Truth Ezek 18. 4 20. for this Law was given as an universal Law to Adam namely as he was the head of all mankind in the first Covenant which was made with him touching mans nature in general and therefore it holds all his natural posterity whether Elect or Reprobate alike guilty of death namely of a spiritual death in sin though it pleased God afterwards to make a difference by the promised seed but this difference was not made in the first Covenant but in the second in Gen. 3. 15. Secondly Therefore I deny that this Text did intend dying in the person of the man Christ Jesus our Surety for then he must have died our death in sin But his death was wholly founded in another Covenant namely in the voluntary Covenant as I have often said before But saith Mr. Norton in the close of his Speech This Text is an universal and full Truth Man sins and man dyes Reply 4. In this speech he confounds himself for he takes the word Man ambiguously 1 Saith he man
Affliction that Christ suffered from the Devil and his Instruments was from the revenging Justice of God and therefore hence it follows that when the Devil stirred up Herod to seek the Childes life which also did occasion his Parents to carry him into Aegypt it was from Gods Vindicative wrath although to prevent it God in mercy warned Joseph to take the Child and to fly into Aegypt It seemeth by Mr. Nortons distribution of the Curse in Gen. 2. 17. that he holds this for a firm conclusion That all the outward afflictions of Christ were from Gods Vindicative wrath and therefore he calls them the outward penal Torments of Hell as I formerly noted in Chap. 11. But yet Mr. Norton in the same Page doth acknowledge That The true nature of all Christs greatest Sufferings was Chastisements therefore they cannot be called the Essential Torments of Hell from Gods vindicative wrath all the afflictions which God inflicteth upon the Elect from the same Curse are but Chastisements and not Vindicative punishments and so that affliction of their flight into Aegypt was but a Chastisement to Joseph and Mary but it was a Vindicative punishment to Christ But I would fain know a little more of Mr. Nortons skill how he can call the Afflictions and Punishments which Christ suffered Hell Torments from Gods Vindicative wrath seeing the Holy Ghost doth comprehend them all under the word Chastisement in this very fifth Verse for the Prophet speaks here of all the greatest Sufferings of Christ which he indured in that long action of his Passion from his Apprehension to his Death I say all these sufferings hee comprehends under the word Chastisements but it seems that Mr. Norton hath an Art beyond the Holy Ghost to distinguish them from Chastisements and to rank them under Gods Vindicative Justice let the Reader judge if he do not undertake to be learned above the Holy Ghost in the sense of the word Chastisement The Learned observe that the Hebrew word Musar derived from Jasar doth properly signifie the correction of a Father towards his Son as all these places do testifie Prov. 3. 11 12. Prov. 19. 18. Deut. 8. 5. Psal 94. 12. Jer. 31 18. and in Heb. 5. 6. Heb 5 6 the Apostle doth concur with the Prophet Isaiah That the true nature of all Christs Sufferings were but Chastisements for he saith thus Though he were the Son yet learned he obedience by the things he suffered his learning of obedience is the subjection of a Son to his Fathers chastisement and therefore it follows necessarily That seeing all his Sufferings were but Chastisements they were not inflicted on him from Gods Vindicative wrath and I beleeve that this is a sound truth that will hold water if the Scripture hold Secondly It is further evident that the Sufferings of Christ are farre from being inflicted on him from Gods Vindicative wrath because all his sufferings and all the sufferings of the Saints are founded alike in Gods fatherly love and in that respect there is a reciprocal communion between Christ the Head and all his members in all their sufferings 1 The Elect do partake with Christ in all his sufferings I mean in respect of the kinde of them as these Scriptures do testifie Phil. 3. 10 11. 2 Tim. 2. 11. Col. 1. 24. 1 Pet. 4. 13. 1 Pet. 2. 21. Rom. 6. 2 Cor. 1. 5. Mar. 10. 39. Luk. 22. 28. and therefore hence it follows necessarily that if the sufferings of Christ were from Gods Vindicative wrath that then all the sufferings of the Elect must likewise be from Gods Vindicative wrath seeing they do communicate with Christ in the kinde of his sufferings Secondly These Scriptures do testifie that Christ the Head doth communicate with all his Members in all their sufferings Heb. 2. 18. Heb. 4. 15. Es 63. 1 2. And hence it doth necessarily follow that if all the Sufferings of the Members of Christ bee but Chastisements then the Sufferings of Christ must not be ranked in any other form of Justice but where Gods Chastisements are Thirdly It is evident that all the Sufferings of Christ are called but temptations of Trial Heb. 2. 18. Heb. 4. 15. and Christ himself at the upshot of his life doth call all his former Afflictions but such temptations of Trial wherein his Apostles had been sharers with him Luk. 22. 28. and therefore it doth hence follow that they were not inflicted on him from Gods Vindicative wrath unlesse M. Norton wil prove that the Apostles also did suffer Gods Vindicative wrath which in another place he seems to deny SECT III. But it may be some will here object That though Christs Sufferings were but Chastisements yet they were inflicted on him from Gods Wrath for even Gods Fatherly Chastisements are inflicted from his wrath 2 Sam. 24. 1. therefore if Christ did partake with his people but in their kinde of punishments his suffering must also be from Gods wrath Reply 5. IT doth not follow for Christ might truly partake with them in their punishments in respect of sense Christs Sufferings may justly be called punishments such as the godly suâ—â—er and yet not from Gode wrath as theirs is and feeling and yet from a differing cause and for a differing end as for example The godly may suffer wounds in their body for sin inherent in a judicial way both from God and Superiours and Christ also may suffer such like wounds and yet not in a judicial way from sin imputed but as a voluntary Combater with Sathan and his Instruments for the winning of the Prize even for the Redemption of the Elect and all this without any wrath from the voluntary Covenanters and Masters of the Prize and in this sense only Christ did suffer wounds and bruises namely as a voluntary Combater for in Gen. 3. 15. God declared his Decree that he would put an utter enmity between Sathan and the Seed of the deceived Woman and that the Devil should have full liberty to wound Christ and to bruise him and to peirce him as a Malefactor in the foot-soals and to do what he could to disturbe his patience and so to hinder his death from being a Sacrifice but because Christ continued obedient to the death even to the ignominious and painful death of the Crosse and at last made his Soul a Sacrifice he overcame Principalities and Powers in it namely in the manner of his death on the Crosse so that the cause of Christs Wounds was not from Gods judicial imputation of our sin and guilt nor from Gods judicial wrath but from his undertaking to be a voluntary Combater with Sathan for the breaking of his Head-plot by his constant obedience even to the death of the Crosse for mans Redemption so that the sufferings of Christ do arise from a differing cause and are for a differing end from the sufferings of the Saints and so consequently not from Gods wrath as theirs is But I shall inlarge this point
witnesse in 2 Tim. 2. 5. and peruse also Dr. Hammonds Annotations on 1 Cor. 9. 24. and on Heb. 12. 1 2. Imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize and on 2 Tim. 4 8. and take notice that the Greek in 2 Tim. 4. 7. is the same by which the Seventy translate Gen. 30. 8. With excellent wrastlings have I wrastled namely for the mastery and victory and so also our larger Annotations on 2 Tim. 4. 8. 2 Hence it follows That the said wounds bruises and blood shed ought not to bee accounted as any vindicative Punishments may be suffered without the imputation of sin punishments from the Masters of the prize but as voluntary trials of their man-hood of their patience and obedience to their Laws 3 Hence it follows That the wounds and bruises mentioned in Isa 53. 5. 10. c. which Christ suffered were no other but the very same that God had declared hee should suffer from Sathan God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as hâ—e gave Sathan leave to do his worst unto Christ in Gen. 3. 15. I consess that the Hebrew word for bruised or peâ—rced in Gen. 3. 15. is different from the Hebrew word in Isa 59. 5. 10. but yet in both places it is plainly spoken of the bruising of Christ by Sathan and his instruments Isaiaâ— saith He was wounded and bruised for our transgiessions namely by Sathan at Gods appointment and because Christ did voluntarily undertake this combate with Sathan therefore God did also covenant that his bruises should bee for the chastisement of our peace and for our healing And so in verse 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise hiâ— and to put him to grief namely according to Gods prediction in Gen. 3. 15. but God did not bruise him by his immediate wrath hee was not pressed under the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton affirms for to bee pressed under the sense of Gods wrath is to bee forced to suffer by violence Job did acknowledge when the Devil destroyed his cattel and children that it was the Lord that took these things from him Job 1. 21. and saith when the Devil smote him full of boyls The band of the Lord hath touched me Job 19. 1. and yet it was Sathan that did smite him with boyls Job 2. 7. So God is said by Isaiah To delight to bruise Christ and to put him to grief because God delivered Christ into the hands of the Devils Instruments to combate for the victory Act. 2. 23. and so it is said That God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all namely to Sathan and his Instruments to combate with him Rom. 8. 32. And so in like sort God is said To give power to Pilate to condemn Christ Joh. 19. 11. And so God delivered him into the hands of sinners Matth. 27. 45. to do unto him whatsoever the council of God had determined Act. 4. 28. And his Father gave him the cup of all these afflictions Job 18. 11. because hee declared that Sathan should have this liberty and power Gen. 3. 15. Yea Christ delivered himself into the hands of sinners Job 18. 4. 8. And Christ did often foretel his sufferings to his Disciples saying Behold wee go up to Jerusalem and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief Priests and unto the Scribes and they shall condemn him unto death and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles and they shall mock him and scourge him and spit upon him and shall kill him Mat. 16. 21. Mar. 10. 33 34. Luke 18. 31 32 33. Luke 24. 7. 25 26 44 46. Act. 13. 27 28 29. And all this Christ did undergo from the voluntary Cause and Covenant as it was declared in Gen. 3. 15. and therefore not from Gods wrath 4 This doth cleerly exemplifie how and in what respect the obedience of Christ in all his sufferings was meritorious 5 This doth also cleerly exemplifie how all the sufferings of Christ may be called punishments without the judicial imputation of our sins to him by God 6 This also doth exemplifie how God is said to bee just to sinners in 1 Ioh. 1. 9. Rom. 3. 26. namely because hee had from all eternity covenanted with Christ the Mediator that upon the performance of his combate with Sathan according to the Laws of the combate that then hee should thereby obtain his reconciliation to beleeving sinners As soon therefore as Christ had performed this combate and made his soul a sacrifice according to the eternal Covenant God is said to declare his righteousness in remitting their sins that so he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Iesus Rom. 3. 26. But still Mr. Norton objecteth in page 41. thus Had Christ suffered death without sin imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 13. In the former description of punishment suffered from the voluntary Cause and Covenant hee may see an instance to the contrary But Mr. Norton saith in page 140. Though the notions of a Mediator and a Male factor are cleerly distinct in themselves yet your distinguishing between Christs dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor is unfound Reply 14. Though it bee unsound in Mr. Nortons sense yet it is not unsound in the Scripture sense let the former Scripture in Gen. 3. 15. be judge in the case 1 He must dye as a Malefactor for God had armed Sathan with authority to use him as a vild Malefactor and to crucifie him in the Foot-soals And yet 2 As soon as Christ had finished all those sufferings in obedience to the Laws of the combate he must make his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation taught by the death of some Lamb by his Priestly power even by the joynt concurrence of both his natures or else he could not have been the Mediator of the New Testament through death if hee had not as soon as hee had finished all his sufferings offered his vital soul for a sacrifice by his eternal Spirit both his natures did concur to make his death a sacrifice and in that respect only hee was the Mediator of the New Testament through that kind of death As the Apostles argument lyes in Heb 9. 14 15 16. And thus the Dialogue doth make the notions of a Malefactor and a Mediator to bee cleerly distinct 7 Hence it is evident that all the outward sufferings of Christ were from the voluntary Cause and Covenant in entring the Lists with Sathan not in the power of his God-head but in his humane nature which he received from the seed of the deceived woman and as it was accompanied with our infirmities And in this respect he is said by Isaiah to be wounded or tormiented for our transgressions and to bee bruised for our iniquities And thus Peter must bee understood when he saith He bare our sins in his body on the Tree that is to say Our punishments in his combate with
there is a differing sense hee that shall point to a Priest making a sacrifice for sin may say there is a sin and he that shall point to Cain killing Abel may also say there is a sin the word Sin therefore must bee taken in each place where it is used as the Context shall direct sometimes in a proper sense and sometimes in a metaphorical And for the want of this observation a man may make a contrary signification of Piaculum or else not The word Sin in Exod. 30. 10. is there put for the Sin-offering and that sin is by the Seventy called the purgation of sin and in 2 Chron. 29. 24. they render it the expiation of sin and in Exod. 29. 36. the cleansing of sin and in Ezek. 43. 22. the Propitiation or Reconciliation and in Ezek. 44. 27. the appeasing for sins and in Num. 19. 12 13 19. the Purification And the reason why sin is named by these several names is because the Sin-offering was ordained to appease Gods anger to expiate to purge and to cleanse the sinner from his sin yea the word sin is rendred by the Seventy the change or the exchange in Zach. 13. 1. and that most fitly because the sin namely the Sin-offering doth cause a true change in the sinner from unclean to clean and from enmity to Reconciliation These and such like phrases given to sin by the figure Metonymia shews the word to have a differing sense but not a contrary sense as Mr. Norton affirms to amuse his Reader the like happily may be said to his other Instances But for further light See what I have replied to the signification of Aâ—ab in Psal 22. 1. 4 I will now return to speak further of the Hebrew word Pagah take it without the conjugation Hiphil and then it signifies only to meet but the particular occasions of every meeting must bee sought out by the circumstances of each place where the word is used As for example 1 It signifies the meeting of the bounds of the Tribes in this or that place 2 It may signifie the meeting of time as when the Forenoon doth meet with the Afternoon or the meeting of words or the meeting of persons for this or that end either in mercy or in wrath 3 Pagah to meet is applied to Gods meeting with man or to mans meeting with God in his worship Moses and Aaron said unto Pharaoh The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us and commanded us to go into the wildernesse to offer sacrifices to him therefore wee pray thee let us go three dayes journey to sacrifice to the Lord our God lest hee meet us with Pestilence c. Exod. 3. 18. and Exod. 5. 3. So also in Numb 23. 3 4 5 15. 16. Balaam did mee the Lord with sacrifice and the Lord was pleased to meet him with words of advice what he should say to Balack In these places Pagah is put for Gods meeting with man and mans meeting with God And in Gen. 23. 8. Abraham said to the people of the land If it bee your mind that I should bury my dead meet with Ephron for mee namely meet him by way of intreaty the Seventy say Speak for mee And so Ruth said to Naomi Meet mee not to leave thee that is to say Meet me not by thy earnest intreaties to leave thee Ruth 1. 16. So Jacob met Esau namely with an acceptable present to cover his face that is to appease his anger Gen. 32. 20. as we see it did in Gen. 33. 8 10. These Instances shew that Pagah is used for a meeting in divers respects And after this manner God ordained Christ to bee our High Priest to meet the Lord with that most acceptable gift of himself Christ attoned his Fathers wrath with the Sacrifice of his body blood in a Sacrifice for it is of necessity that every Priest that meets with God to mediate his reconciliation to sinners must have such an excellent thing to offer unto God as hee will accept and therefore it must bee that which is constituted by a mutual Covenant Heb. 8. 3. and the thing appointed was the â—est thing that Christ had to meet God withal and that was his vital soul with his body and blood offered in perfect obedience to Gods will notwithstanding Sathan endeavoured to disturb his obedience with this present Christ did meet his offended Father that was most justly provoked by Adams sin and by our sins and so according to Covenant God accepted this Priest and Sacrifice for the attoning and the appeasing of his wrath as the word Attonement doth signifie Of which word see more in Chap. 14. pag. 142 143. In this sense I say the Father made or caused the Mediator to meet him for the iniquities of us all 1 He met his Father in his eternal Council and Contract And 2 In the execution of it Pagnin renders this verse two wayes indifferently 1 Occurrere fecit ei poenam 2 Vel rogere fecit eum pro iniquitate And both these readings may well agree to the same sense 1 He made the iniquities of us all to meet upon him namely hee made him to undertake our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice to make Attonement for them and in this sense the Dialogue hath expounded this verse 2 The Lord made him to meet for the iniquities of us all or caused him to meet him as our Priestly Mediator with the Sacrifice of his body for the iniquities of us all And thus both readings do agree to the same sense but because the last is more exact according to the Hebrew therefore now I follow that The Chaldy Paraphrase of this verse speaks thus And the So Mr. Clendon in Justification justified p. 11. Eternal is well pleased to remit the sins of us all for his sake And Tindal translates it thus But through him the Lord pardoneth all our sins From these Translations and Expositions it follows 1 That the Doctrine of Gods imputing our sins to Christ in Mr. Nortons sense was not held forth by these Translators neither can it be proved from this verse nor from any other when the right interpretation is given and Mr. Norton himself consesseth thus much in general That the guilt of ouâ— sins could not bee imputed to Christ unlesse unlesse he did first become our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam in Gen. 2. 17. But I have shewed in Chap. 2. and elsewhere with the concurrence of sundry eminent Divines that Christ was not our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam and therefore by his own consession untill hee prove that Christ was Adams Surety Gen. 2. 17. his Doctrine of Imputation is without a foundation and thence it follows that it must needs bee an unsound Assertion to hold that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his death and sufferings But yet though I deny Christ to bee our legal Surety I do
and so onely was Christ of all mankind in the sight of God and of his Law Mark this last sentence in the sight of God and of his Law this is point blank against Mr. Nortons Tenent as by the places cited out of him in Chapter 6. may bee soon seen 2 John Frith and Dr. Barns whose works are joyned to Tindal have no other imputation of sin to Christ but his voluntary taking of our punishments according to Mr. Wotton and the Ancient Fathers 3 Frith cites Fulgentius de side thus In those carnal sacritices in the time of the Law was a signification of the flesh of Christ which hee without sin should offer for our sins 4 Marbeck in his Common places saith that Austin did well say sed nostra delict a sua delict a fecit ut suam justitiam nostram justitiam saceret that is saith hee by way of Paraphrase he was counted and deemed as a sinner because that in his unjust suffering In his Com. pl. p 1026. hee might justly save sinners that beleeve in him And saith he the most part of the learned Expositors bee of this mind and he doth not parsphrase on Austins words as some do in relation to Mr. Nortons Tenent but in relation to the sense of the ancient Divines 5 Jerom in 2 Cor. 5. saith The Father made Christ who knew no sin to bee sin for us that is as the sacrifice for sin is called sin in the Law as it is written in Leviticus He shall lay his hand upon the head of his sin so Christ being offered for our sins took the name of sin 6 Primasius gives the same exposition on 2 Cor. 5. 21. that Jerom and divers others of the Fathers do and that exposition is the right exposition of 2 Cor. 5. 21. But others both of the ancient and latter Divines say He was made sin by suffering our punishments as Chrysostome and Theophilact before cited by Mr. Wotton on 2 Cor. 5. 21. but if this exposition had been placed to 1 Pet. 2. 24. it had been fitter there yet there is the lesse fault to be found in placing it to 2 Cor. 5. 21. because the Doctrine is sound and good These two wayes do the Ancient Divines say That Christ was made sin First as he was made a sacrifice for sin And secondly as hee suffered our punishments in his body on the Tree but they do no where make him guilty of our sins by Gods judicial imputation but by the Devils cunning sin was imputed to him for he was counted among transgressors Mar. 15. 28. De verbis Apo. Ser. 14. 7 Saith Austin Christ had the similitude of sinful flesh because his flesh was mortal but utterly without any sin that by sin for similitude hee might condemn the sin which is in our flesh through our iniquity true iniquity in Christ there was none mortality there was Christ took not our sin unto him he took the punishment of our sin and taking the punishment without our fault or guilt hee healed both the punishment and the fault See also in Austin cited in Chap. 15. 8 Saith Cyril Him that knew no sin God the Father made to In his Epist ad Acatium de capto Emisario be sin for us We do not say saith hee that Christ was made a sinner God forbid Mark that hee puts a God forbid upon such a speech 9 Saith Dr. Williams Christ took all our blamelesse infi In his seven Candlesticks p. 352. mities and not our sinful infirmities but Luther saith hee makes him the greatest Theef c. It is better saith hee to cover his nakednesse as Sent and Japhet did Noabs then disclose it in Gath c. But Mr. Norton is of a contrary judgement for in page 92. hee doth publish Luthers broad expressions of imputing our personal sins to Christ with high commendations because it suits so well to his Tenent and so doth Dr. Crispses Sermons on 2 Cor. 5. 21. agree well to Mr. Nortons imputation for saith hee the Apostles meaning is that no transgressor in the world was such a transgressor as Christ was Hast thou been saith he an Idolater a Blasphemer a Murderer an Adulterer a Theef a Liar a Drunkard c. if thou hast part in Christ all these transgressions of thine are become actually the transgressions of Christ and so cease to be thine Also another book of great esteem called The Sum of Divinity set forth by Iohn Downame in page 317. doth distinguish between sin and guilt and yet at last hee concludes as Mr. Norton doth That God did impute both these to Christ First Our sins And secondly Our guilt And for the proof of this he cites 2 Cor. 5. 21. Do not these things speak aloud to all that love the truth in sincerity to look better to the exposition of this and other Scriptures It is recorded that one Augustinus de Roma Archbishop of Nazaret was censured in the Council of Basil and that justly as I conceive for affirming that Christ was peccatorum maximus the greatest of sinners 10 Let Peter Martyr shew his judgement how Christ was in the similitude of sinful flesh in Rom. 8. 3. It means nothing else saith he but that hee was subject unto heat cold hunger thirst contumelies and death for these saith he are the effects of sin and therefore saith hee the flesh of Christ might well bee called the flesh of sin and the next sentence runs thus Christ condemned sin in the flesh of sin that is saith he by that oblation which was for sin * Sin in Rom. 8. 3. is expounded a sacrifice for sin by Origen Melancthoe Bucer Calvin Percrius and Vatablus Sin saith hee after the Hebrew manner of speaking is a sacrifice fot sin and saith he that exposition which we brought of the sacrifice for sin is agreeable to other Testimonies of Scripture for Isaiah writing of Christ saith If hee shall put his soul sin that is for sin Isa 53. 10. and so he which knew no sin was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. Thus far Peter Martyr And as yet I can find no other imputation in Peter Martyr but such as the ancient Fathers held namely that Christ took our sins upon him meaning our punishments in his body on the Tree according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. 11 Gregory saith The Lord coming in flesh neither took on In meralium l. 24. c. 2. him our fault by any infection nor our punishment by any coaction for being defiled with no stain of sin he could not bee held by any condition of our guiltinesse therefore treading all necessity under his feet of his own accord when hee would hee admitted our death In these words hee saith plainly that Christ was no way guilty of our sins as the obligation to his death and sufferings but that hee admitted death from the voluntary cause only He doth point blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent Ibidem We all dye against our
sight 4 From the said righteousness of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-Sacrifice it follows That as by one mans disobedience to Gods mâ—er positive Law in eating Rom. 5. 19. the forbidden fruit the many as well as the Reprobates are made sinners by the meritorious cause of his disobedience So by the obedience of one namely of Christ to a meer positive Law in undertaking to combate with Satan and to continue obedient to the death of the cross and at last to make his Soul a Sacrifice the many are made righteous Rom. 5. 19. for by this obedience of his to the said positive Law and Covenant he hath merited not onely their conversion by the Holy Ghost but also the Fathers reconciliation for their justification by not imputing their sins to them So then the comparison that is made between the first Adam and the second lies in the meritorious cause for as the first Adam merited the death of sin to all his posterity by his disobedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant so the second Adam merited the life of Gods Spirit and of Gods forgiveness by his obedience to Gods positive Law in making his soul a sacrifice 5 Hence it also follows that the obedience of Christ to the moral Law is not here spoken of namely not in Rom. 5. 18 19. and accordingly Mr. Wotton Mr. Forbs and divers other eminent Divines do expound ver 18 and 19. to relate onely to his positive righteousness in his death and sacrifice and not to his moral obedience no otherwise but as it made him to be a Lamb without spot or blemish fit for sacrifice And therefore Mr. Nortons proof of Heresie from Rom. 5. 19. in p 268. doth fail him as well as all his other proofs 6 My former Exposition of Gods righteousness to be his reconciliation in not imputing sin is further evident by the Rom. 3. 25. words of the Apostles in terminis in Rom. 3. 25. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past For the better understanding of the sense of these words I will propound these three Questions and Answers First Whose righteousness doth the Apostle say is here declared but God the Fathers Secondly Wherein is God the Fathers righteousness declared but by the remission of sins that are past Thirdly How else doth God declare this righteousness of his by remission but by setting forth Christ to be his propitiatory or his Mercy-Seat through faith in his blood And thus you see that this Text doth in terminis make Gods righteâ—eousness consist in remission of sins as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5. 21. 7 Daniel doth make Gods righteousness whereby he makes sinners righteous to consist in his reconciliation by not imputing sin in Dan. 9. 24. he saith that Christ by his death was to Dan 9 24. finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in an everlasting righteousness Mark this his death and sacrifice was to procure Gods reconciliation for iniquity and this reconciliation he calls an everlasting righteousness to sinners And thus you see that Daniel doth make Gods reconciliation to be an everlasting righteousness to beleeving sinners as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5 21. 8 David doth also confirm this exposition of Gods righteousness in Psal 51. 14. Deliver me from blood guiltiness O God Psal 51. 14. then my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness First How else doth he mean that God should deliver him from his bloodguiltiness but by his reconciliation in not imputing that sin to his condemnation according to that desire and prayer in Deut. 21. 8. Secondly What righteousness of God doth he else mean that his tongue should sing aloud of but Gods Attonement in not imputing his blood-guiltiness to him for the sake of Christs Sin-Sacrifice Thus you see that the Exposition given of Gods righteousness in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and so consequently of the same term in Rom. 3. 21 22 25 26. and in Rom. 10. 3. and in Phil. 3. 9. is confirmed and strengthened by an eight-fold cord which I beleeve Mr. Norton will not be able to break But Mr. Norton in p. 260. stumbles at the Dialogue because it follows Mr. Wotton in making Justification and Adoption to be the two parts of Gods Attonement or Reconciliation And at last in p. 162. he opens himself thus But whether Justification precisely considered be a part of or a necessary antecedent or means of reconciliation it is freely left to the judgement of the Reader But saith he the Leiden Divines say it is rather a consequent and effect of Justification And then he concludes that the Analogy of Faith may as well bear an interpretation agreeable hereunto as any other thus God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself How By not imputing their trespasses to them so as the not imputation of sin saith he may seem to be an antecedent and means rather than a part of Aâ—tonement or Reconciliation Reply 1. It is now apparent why Mr. Norton did stumble at the Dialogue for giving two parts to Reconciliation according to Mr. Wotton It was to introduce his conjectures quite contrary to Mr. Wotton namely that Gods non-imputation of sin is an antecedent and means rather than a part of attonement or reconciliation But because he expresseth himself to be somewhat uncertain in his notions in this point therefore he cannot be thought to be a fit Judge to censure the Dialogue nor to determine this controversie But the Scriptures are most plain in this point if they be not intricated by such uncertain conjectures 1 The Scripture speaks plainly that when the Bullock for sin was offered by the Priest to make attonement for sins of ignorance then the promise annexed saith It shall be forgiven him Levit 4. 20. Any man from hence may see plainly that Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent but a true part of his attonement if it be not the whole The like is said of the Rulers sin in v. 26. and the like is said of the sins of any of the people in ver 31 35. namely that when Gods attonement is procured by their said Sin-Sacrifice then thereupon their sin is said to be forgiven them 2 The Burnt-offerings And Thirdly The Trespass-offerings were ordained to procure Gods gracious forgiveness as a part of his attonement as in Levit. 5. 10 13 16 18. and in Lev. 6. 7. and in Lev. 19. 22. and in Numb 15. 25 26 28. In all these places Gods promise of his forgiveness by his attonement did openly proclaim in the ears of all Israel and in the ears of all others that have ears to hear that when Gods attonement is obtained by sacrifice then and not till then sin is forgiven and then and not till then that person is actually justified either he is ceremonially justified as a person fit to stand before Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary
as soon as hee had finished his combate with Sathan according to his Covenant with his Father The â—ree gift namely the free gift of Gods gracious forgiveness of many offences as it is expressed in vers 16. came upon all men to righteousness or to the justification of life So called to distinguish it from the legal justification for our spiritual death in sin entred upon all men by Adams transgression of Gods positive Law verse 12. and here life from that death is procured by the obedence of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-sacrifice 8 This is also worth our observation that this word Dicaioma is used by the Apostle to express both the meritorious cause of our justification in verse 18. by the righteousness of Christ in his death and the formal cause of our justification in verse 16. by Gods Attonement or forgiveness procured thereby just according to the types in the Law For first there was the meritorious cause of their legal justification by washing by sprinkling and by the blood of Buls and Goats and then followed the formal cause of their legal justification by Gods attonement procured thereby And this is worthy of all due observation That the platform of our moral justification in the meritorious and formal causes was exemplified by Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances and therefore the Holy Ghost doth most fitly express it by this peculiar term Dicaioma And 9 Daniel doth in this order compare the true justificition with the ceremonial in Chap. 9. 24. Seventy weeks Dan. 9. 24. saith hee are determined for the death of the Messiah to finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make Reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in or procure an Everlasting Righteousness instead of the ceremonial here you see that the death of Christ is put for the end and perfection of all Trespass and Sin-offerings to make an eternal Reconciliation for iniquity instead of the legal and so to bring in or procure an eternal Righteousness by Gods eternal Reconciliation instead of the legal and in this very order of causes doth Paul argue in 2 Cor. 5. 21. 10 This word Dicaiomata is by our Translators rendred the Rom. 2. 26. righteousness of the Law in Rom. 2. 26. namely the Righteousness of the ceremonial Law If saith he the uncircumcised keep the Dicaiomata the righteousnesses of the Law in the plural number namely if the uncircumcision do instead of the outward observation of the Righteousnesses of the ceremonial Law by the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean which procured Gods attonement for their legal sins do by faith look to the end of these things namely to the death of Christ as the true procuring cause of Gods eternal Attonement and Absolution for the purging of their conscience from the condemning power of their moral sins shall not their un circumcision in this case bee counted or imputed to them for true circumcision and so consequently for true justification for he that doth thus keep the Law shall live thereby as I have expounded Lev. 18. 5. But the heathen spiritual Christians do thus keep the law by faith for it is Prophesied of them That in the dayes of the Messiah they shall offer sacrifices of a greater quantity than those that were offered by the Jews under the Law of Moses Ezek. 46. 5 11. and this they must do by faith by looking from the carnal types to the spiritual things that are typified thereby And in this respect it is the prayer of all the godly in all Nations that they may be sound in Gods Statutes Psal 119. 80 112. which cannot bee till they have faith to look to the end of those things which is typified by the righteousness of those Ordinances and Statutes 11 Dr. Hammond doth also fully concur with Mr. Ainsworths exposition in Rom. 8. 4. as I have formerly noted it in Chap. 8. though it is fit also to bee here again remembred 12 As the word Righteousness so the word Law in Rom. 8. 4. and the word Law in Rom. 10. 4. which I have expounded chiefly of the Law of Rites is made good and strenthened by Rom. 10 4. these considerations and by these learned Expositors namely That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness 1 I beleeve that I have already sufficiently put the matter out of controversie that the Jews legal justifications by their washings and sacrifices did relate to his Death and Sacrifice as the end of them all as I shewed from Dan. 9. 24. and it is further evident by Tit. 2. 14. there redeeming us from iniquity and purifying by Gods Attonement is put together as cause and effect and thus Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness And I find that the word Law in the New Testament as well as the Old is to be understood chiefly of the Ceremonial Laws it is used thirteen times in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in all those places except once it must bee understood of the Ceremonial Laws and so it is often used in the Epistle to the Galathians and most for the Law of Rites or for the whole Oeconomy of Moses having respect wholly to the Law of Rites 13 It is also worthy of all due observation that none of their legal justifications did justifie them by any actual kind of purity put upon their flesh that so it might bee imputed to them for their justification but their righteousness was conveyed to them by Gods positive Ordinance even by a passive purity only by washing and purging away their Ceremonial sins and so by the blood of Buls procuring Gods attonement thereby for their Ceremonial sins for blood doth not cleanse otherwise but by procuring Gods attonement and forgiveness Blood materially considered doth not wash but defile the flesh but formally considered as it was ordained by Gods positive Law to be a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Reconciliation so only it hath a cleansing quality and accordingly it pleased God by his voluntary positive Law and Covenant to ordain that the blood of Christ should much more cleanse our conscience from dead works because it was ordained to be the meritoriouâ— procuring cause of Gods Attonement and Absolution for it is Gods Attonement as I have often said to have it the better marked that doth formally cleanse purge and purifie our conscience from dead works And this is that righteousness of sinners that is so much spoken of and typified in the Law and therefore this kind of language touching a sinners righteousness though it may seem strange to some yet it needs not seem strange to any that are but meanly acquainted with the language of the Ceremonial Types whcih is our School-master to Christ But saith Mr. Norton in page 225. Most vain is the shift of the Dialogue endeavouring to avoid the strength of this place of Rom. 10. 4. by interpreting against Text
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 Moses in his exhortation to the Judges not to defile the land by pretermitting the execution of exemplary justice on such notorious Malefactors but also it is further evident by comparing his exhortation here with the like exhortations to the Judges to cleanse the land from moral defilements by executing of exact justice against such moral sinners which else would defile the whole land yea or any other land as well as the land of Canaan in case the Magistrates thereof did neglect to execute impartial justice and to tollerate moral sinners See Lev. 18 24 25 27 28. Num. 35. 31 32 33. Psal 106. 38. Ezra 9. 11. Jer. 3. 1 2 9. Jer. 16. 18. Ezek. 36. 17. Psal 24. 5. c. But it came to pass that when Phineas by his extraordinary zeal did execute justice upon some of the most notorious Malefactors in Num. 25. that the plague was stayed and then the land was cleansed for by this act of justice though he was no Magistrate yet being stirred up of God in an extraordinary way to execute the office of a Magistrate hee is said to make Attonement or to reconcile God to the whole land Num. 25. 23. See Ainsworth also in Num. 35. 33 39. These and such like instances do evidence that the Judges as they were the Representatives of the whole land might defile the whole land and make them guilty of Gods curse due to such notorious moral sinners in case they did connive at them and not execute impartial justice upon them And this is the scope of Moses exhortation to the Judges not to defile the land and not as Mr. Norton makes the exhortation to bee to bury the body before Sun-set that the land bee not defiled On the contrary when the Judges were careful to execute exemplary justice on such notorious Malefactors they are said to cleanse the land from the objects of Gods wrath and to make Attonement for the Land O that this Exhortation of Moses might fit fast in the conscience of all Magistrates both supreme and inferiour to execute impartial justice against moral sinners that so they may cleanse the land of the Objects of Gods wrath and that the land by their neglect might not be defiled And O that people would rightly use their liberty when they have any hand in the choice of Magistrates to chuse such as fear God and hate sin 7 It is most evident that the whole Land was never defiled by any one transgression against the Ceremonial Law I wonder The whole land was never defiled by any one ceremonial sin therefore at Mr. Nortons unadvisedness in making the person hanged on a tree to defile the whole Land in case hee was not buried before Sun-set I grant that he or any other might bee deceived in their judgement by following the translation of Deut. 21. 23. according to the corrupt Edition as I have shewed before but the right translation as it was in the first Editions will not afford any such Tenent if the Context be well weighed 2 I grant that a great part of the people might bee ceremonially defiled yea at sometime the greatest part but not by any one transgression of the Ceremonial Law but by sundry kinds of Ceremonial sins as Ains sheweth in Num. 9. 12. 3 Suppose it could be proved which cannot be that the whole land might be ceremonially defiled by some one person or by some one act then I hope it will also follow by a necessary consequence that God had ordained and provided some instituted way for the ceremonial cleansing of the whole land as well as for particular persons and places for doubtlesse God would not bee wanting in some instituted way of cleansing for all sorts of ceremonial defilements But I cannot find any such instituted Ordinance for the cleansing of the whole land for any one ceremonial defilement neither can I find any one ceremonial defilement greater than that which happened by the touch of a dead person for hee that touched a dead person though hee dyed in his bed yea though hee were truly godly in his life time was as much defiled by the ceremonial Law as he that touched the most notorious Malefactor after he was hanged on a tree and he that touched any dead person in the day time was as much defiled by the sentence of the Ceremonial Law as hee that touched a dead Malefactor in the night time after Sun-set and hee that touched but the limb of a dead child was as much defiled as he that touched a whole dead child all that touched the dead though never so many were all alike defiled in the highest degree of ceremonial uncleanness untill they had cleamed themselves according to the instituted way of cleansing in Num. 19. 11 15 16 c. It is a vain conceit to think that the whole land might be defiled ceremonially by permitting the person hanged to hang on the tree after Sun-set the whole land could not be defiled therby unless every person in the land did come one by one to touch his dead carkass which is absurd to think they would do and yet it must be done in case Mr. Norton do prove that the whole land was defiled by the Malefactors carkass unburied after Sun-set And by this it appears that his knowledge in the Ceremonial Laws is very short of what it ought to be or else he would never have broached this fiction 8 It is evident that the hanging of a Malefactor on a tree after Sun-set did not defile the land ceremonially see also n. 2. for David according to the desire of the Gibeonites which was ordered doubtless according to Gods special positive direction commanded that seven of Sauls sons should be given to them to be hanged on a tree and to continue hanging so long as until
have resisted his pursuers 6. Austin speaks very much to this sense That Christ overcame the Devil by justice namely by combating justly according to the Laws of the voluntary Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. and not by force namely not by the power of his God-head any man may see that his discourse sounds to this sense His discourse is long but Mr. Worton hath abbreviated his method De Reconciliatione peccatords part 2. lib. 1. c. 21. and there he cites Bernard also to the same sense and thither I refer the Reader 7. Saith Dr. Willet on Dan. 9. 26. the justice of Christ is meritorious of eternal life for us because by it he overcame death and subdued the Devil none of all which Adams righteousness could do And it was one great part of the righteousness of Christ to agonize himself with the dread of that ignominious usage which his Combater was to inflict upon him And thus you see that the ancient Divines do agree That Christs greatest sufferings were from Satans malice by Gods permission and I perceive by conference with such as have been well read in the ancient Divines that they did not hold as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was a guilty sinner by Gods legal imputation nor that hee was pressed under the wrath of God but on the contrary they affirm that there was no sign of sin in him and that the Devil held him by no law of sin and that he was no way guilty of sin 8 Those few Hebrew Doctors that speak of the death of the Messiah do speak of his sufferings with his Combater Satan as I have noted their speeches in the Epistle to the Reader 9 The Apostle makes a like kind of reasoning in Heb. 2. 14. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood hee Heb. 2. 14. also himself took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the Devil Here two Questions may bee propounded and answered 1 How came the Devil to get the power of death 2 How came his power to be destroyed Adams first sin caused by the Devil was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death by original sin and that was the meritorious cause of Gods justice in appointing a bodily death and judgement To the first Question the Geneva Note doth answer because he was the author of sin none but the Devil was the author of Adams first sin in causing him by his deceitful reasoning to eat the forbiden fruit which sin brought in the spiritual death of original sin And then secondly The spiritual death of original sin was the meriting cause of Gods justice in denouncing a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. bodily death therefore was not the immediate effect of Adams first sin as most Expositors do carry it though I think they miss it for if bodily death had been the immediate effect of Adams first sin then the Pelagians cannot The Pelagians cannot be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granted that bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for they may say as most Expositors say That bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin and then the Pelagians may still hold that the death of Infants is not the punishment of original sin traduced from their Parents But the Apostle doth make the death of Infants to bee the immediate effect of original sin in Rom. 5. 12. and the Devil was the author of original sin because it was the immediate punishment of Adams first sin whereof the Devil was the author and so consequently it occasioned God in justice to denounce not only a bodily death to all the fallen sons of Adam but also to denounce eternal death by necessary consequence to so many of the fallen sons of Adam as did not beleeve their Redemption by the promised Seed for when God did first denounce a bodily death he did at the same time implicitly denounce a judgement as the Apostle shews in Heb. 9. 27. and to this sense of death doth Austin speak There is a first death Heb 9. 27. See Austin in Ser. 129. and a second death Of the first death saith hee there are two parts One when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator The other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods justice And the second death saith hee is the everlasting torment of body and soul And thus the Devil got the power of death The second Question is this How came this power of the Devil to bee destroyed The Answer is by the second Person in taking upon him the Seed of the woman in the fulness of time and by entring the Lists according to his Covenant in that nature as it was accompanied with our natural infirmities of fear sorrow c. and so by his constancy in obedience through all Satans conflicts he compleated his victory and it last hee made his vital soul a propitiatory sacrifice which was agreed and covenanted between the Trinity to be accounted for full satisfaction for the redemption of all the Elect And thus hee destroyed him that had the power of death The Devils plot was by some stratagem or other to make Christ a Transgressor as he had made Adam but because this Seed of the deceived sinful woman continued obedient to the death through all Satans malicious stratagems even to the death of the Cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice therefore hee got the victory and won the prize even the salvation of all the Elect. And thus through this kind of death he hath destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil But saith Mr. Norton in page 70. Christ in his Agony was pressed under the sence of the wrath of God and conflicted with eternal death Reply 23. This compulsary term of being pressed under the wrath of God is no way sutable to the voluntary obedience of a voluntary Covenanter I have shewed in Chap. 9. that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsary power When grapes or any other thing is pressed it is therefore pressed to force some thing from it Is this a fit speech to be applied to the voluntary Covenanters and to the voluntary undertaker of obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenanters Satan indeed did labour to oppress him to force him to impatiency but not God by his immediate wrath And the like strange expression I find also in the Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. By reason of the Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath guilt of our sins saith hee there fell upon him sorrow trouble of mind astonishment and heaviness to death Matth. 26. 38. when hee was to enter the Lists
Priest in his death and sacrifice which is quite contrary to his own established order for he hath established Christ to bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice by his oath which is an unalterable thing for his oath doth witness that he established Christ by his eternal Decree and Covenant to be the only Priest in his own death and sacrifice I beleeve it will make Mr. Norton sweat to get handsomely out of this Dilemma which hee hath brought himself into by his own contradictory principles But saith Mr. Norton in page 85 167 168. Wee read in Joh. 10. 18. that Christ laid down his life but not that he took it away by violence The same word that is used here concerning Christ Peter hath concerning himself I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13. 37. and John hath the same concerning Christ and the Saints because he laid down his life for us we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren 1 Joh. 3. 16. Reply 25. I grant that all the godly ought to say to Christ There is a transcendent difference between the manner of Peters laying down his life for Christ and Christs laying down his life as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Elect. Joh 10. 11. as Peter said to him I will lay down my life for thy sake Joh. 13 37. and they ought also to say as John said in 1 Job 3. 16. For it is the duty of all the godly to venture their lives as Martyrs for the defence of the truth and for the defence of the godly that stand for the truth if they be called thereto rather than to deny it But the death of Christ must be considered not only as hee was a Martyr from his Combater Satan but it must also bee considered as it was ordained to be a Sacrifice of satisfaction to Gods Justice for mans Redemption in the formality of it In the first sense Christ saith in Joh. 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd the good Shepherd giveth his life for his sheep that is to say Hee spares not to venture his life to incounter as a voluntary Combater with the proclaimed Enemy of his elect Sheep The old Serpent according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. to rescue as the good Shepherd David did the prey or the Lamb which was taken for a spoyl from the Lion and the Bear 1 Sam. 17. 35. Job 29. 17. And thus Christ gave his life as a Martyr 2 But in the second sense his death must be considered as it was to be made a sacrifice of Reconciliation in the formality of it and so it must be considered as it was effected by his own Priestly power and in that respect his death is set forth in divers other words in Joh. 10. 17 18. to be of a Joh. 10. 17 18. transcendent nature beyond that voluntary suffering that is expressed by Peter or by any other Martyr as it appears by these particulars First Saith Christ in v. 11. 15 I lay down my life for my sheep I am the good Shepherd I will not play the Coward to flye when the Wolf cometh to devour my sheep but I will readily and voluntarily undertake to combate with the Wolf for the redemption of my sheep I am ready to venture my life in the Combate with the old proclaimed Serpent for the rescuing of my sheep from Satans spoyl for though I know before hand by Gen. 3. 15. that Satan hath an unlimited power given him to do his worst against me and to use me as a sinful Malefactor for a time which time is truly called the hour and power of darkness in Luke 22. 53. yet like a good Shepherd I will readily enter the Lists with Satan and will so exactly manage the Combate by my humane nature for the trial of the Mastery according to the Laws of the Combate that my death at last shall not only bee a death of Martyrdome such as Peter speaks of but over and above I will make my death in the formality of it to bee a sacrifice of Reconciliation according to the eternal Covenant for the full redemption of all my captivated sheep I will divide the spoyl with the strong enemy Satan I will redeem the Elect though he keep the refuse and therefore Secondly Christ doth still amplifie the most excellent nature of his death saying in verse 18. I lay down my life of my self namely by my own will desire and power according to my voluntary Covenant for I am a voluntary and equal reciprocal Covenanter and therefore I must never bee over-ruled by any supreme power for that would destroy the nature of such a voluntary Covenant as mine is Thirdly Christ doth still amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying None takes my life from me and if none saith Chrysostome then surely not death that sentence of death that was denounced to sinful Adam in Gen. 3. 19. was denounced as a death to be co-acted by the justice of God for original sin this kind of death could not take away Christs life from him therefore the death of Christ must be considered as a death of Covenant only it was founded in the voluntary Cause and Covenant to be performed by himself as a Priest and to bee accepted as a sacrifice of Reconciliation as the full price of mans Redemption But on the contrary if Christ had been our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam then God might in justice have taken away his life from him volence nolence then God might in justice have said to death Let death seize upon him as upon a guilty Sinner or as on a guilty Surety and so death might have exacted his life from him as a true debtor to death by Gods justice and then his death had been no more but a co-acted natural death as Mr. Norton makes it to be But the blessed Scriptures do testifie that Christ in his death did overcome him that had the power of death Heb. 2. 14. and that he triumphed over Principalities and Powers in it Col. Heb. 2 14. Col. 2. 15. 2. 15. The Devil therefore could not put Christ to death formally by his tortures as he doth other men that are sinners by Gods legal imputation and therefore Christ said None takes my life from me Fourthly Christ doth still proceed to amplifie the transcendent nature of his death saying I have power to lay it down namely of my self as he had expressed his meaning in the former sentence other men sometimes have a great desire to dye and to lay down their lives formally and yet they cannot dye according to their earnest desire because they want a power to effect it Jonah had a great desire to dye and yet he had not power to dye and therefore hee prayed unto the Lord saying O Lord take away my vital soul from me Jonah 4. 3. I have a great desire to dye but
him mastery according to the Rules of the said voluntary Law I beleeve that he should by experience find that he must bear many a sour stroak and brush and it may be shed much blood which I think would be accounted a true punishment though it be not a vindictive punishment from the sense of an angry Judge and yet all this without any imputation of sin from the Superiors in the voluntary Covenant unless he should disobey their Laws in the manner of trial in like sort God told the Decree in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put enmity between Christ Gen 3. 15. and the Devil and that the Devil should drive hard at him all the time that he executed his Office and that at last the Devil should prevail so far as to pierce him in the foot-soals as a sinful Malefactor and it pleased the Lord thus to bruise him and put him to grief Is 53. 10. even at the same time when he should make his soul a sin The Lord took much delight and pleasure to behold the knowledge and skil the valor and wisdom of this his righteous servant in this conflict continuing obedient to the death according to all the Articles of the Covenant untill he had triumphed over all Principalities and Powers on his cross and so he won the prize namely the salvation of all the Elect. According to this way of punishment Christ suffered our punishments no punishment was due to him from the imputation of sin and therefore no punishment was inflicted on him from Gods anger as our punishments are We indeed do justly suffer according to that Court-language which Mr. Norton hath expressed but Christs punishments though they were as true punishments in sense and feeling as ours are and more sensible to his nature than to us yet they were not inflicted on him from the same compulsory ground and Law as ours are on us but all his were from the voluntary Law and Covenant as I have before declared And in chap. 12. at Conclus 1. I have shewed that any imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 96. Christ is expresly said to be made a curse Gal. 3. 13. It will thence unavoydably follow saith he that sin was some way judicially upon Christ for we read of no curso inflicted according to the determinate and revealed way of proceeding with the reasonable creature but it presupposeth sin wherefore he could neither have been made a curse nor die since the onely cause of the curse and death is sin from which he was free but because he had taken upon him our sins Reply 9. Sin saith Mr. Norton was some way judicially upon Christ Why then is it not proved and made manifest by Scripture I find no other proof of it but Scripture mis-interpreted as I have shewed already and as for Gal. 3. 13. it doth clearly faile him as the Reader may see in my examination of his Conclusions from the Text. But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 55. God charged Christ with sin as the supreme Law-giver and Judge Christ accepts the charge as a Surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of Justice which is the part of a Surety And in the said page God cannot be just without a judicial imputation of the guilt and punishment of sin unto the Surety And in pag. 34 28 and 136. he saith It was requisite that Christ should be made sin i. e. that the guilt of sin should be legally imputed to him 2 Cor. 5. 21. Reply 10. These speeches and others do imply that God could not impute our sins to Christ unless he had been first a legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam but that hath been all along denied and disproved and therefore now except Mr. Norton can more clearly prove than hitherto that Christ was a true legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam All that he hath said hitherto about Gods imputing our sins to Christ will come to nothing As for his great proof that Christ was such a legal Surety from Heb. 7. 22. it shall have a full examination and reply in my Reply to his third Argument and touching his many proofs of imputation from 2 Cor. 5. 21. See more there But saith Mr. Norton pag. 70. Through anguish of soul he had clods rather than drops of blood streaming down his blessed body a thing which was neither seen nor heard before nor since The true reason thereof is Christ died as a sinner imputatively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Reply 11. Touching his sweating clods of blood I have replyed in Luk. 22. 44. if it were clods of blood doubtless it was miraculous and if it were miraculous how is that a proof that it was caused from the pressure of the sense of Gods wrath But I beleeve his Agony was from natural causes namely because his pure nature did so much abhor that ignominious and painful death which he did grapple withall in the garden and I beleeve if Mr. Norton had made his Agony to proceed from the voluntary cause conflicting in his earnest prayers with Satans temptations and with the natural fear of death untill he had overcome that natural fear that so he might perform his oblation in all exact obedience according to Gods positive Covenant he had come far nearer to the true cause of Christs Agony than by making his Agony to proceed from the compulsory cause Being pressed under the wrath of God it seems his word pressing doth allude to that violent constraint that is used to press out the blood of grapes but yet it is also beyond it because he makes the wrath of God to press out clods of blood in Christ it makes me tremble at such expressions of violence from Gods immediate wrath against Christ But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 219. As Christ was guilty of our sin so also he was sensible of an accusing conscience and alittle after saith he the question is not whether Christ be polluted with our sin inherently but whether he may not be said to be polluted with our sin imputatively Reply 12. In words Mr. Norton saith Christ was not guilty of our sins inherently but his arguing doth prove him a sinner inherently for his whole drift is to prove that Christ suffered the essential torments of hell and the second death and none can possible suffer the second death until they be first inherently guilty of the first death of sin 2 If he was polluted with our sin by Gods imputation as Mr. Norton holds then his death and sacrifice must needs be abominable in the sight of God But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 123. The Divine Nature was angry not onely with the Humane Nature but with the person of the Mediator becausâ— of sin imputed to him Reply 13. Mark the dangerousness of this Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ for here Mr. Norton makes God
of the greatest value can be called a satisfactory price until it be muâ—ually agreed on between the person offended and the person offering to make satisfaction Aâ—ab was a person of dignity and he offered a valuable consideration to Naboth for his Vineyard for he offered as much 1 King 21 〈…〉 for it 〈◊〉 it was worth or as good a Vineyard in the place of it but neither this eminent person nor this valuable consideration could be a sufficient price to purchase Naboths Vineyard because Naboth did not nor by the Law could not consent to make it a price as I have shewed in Chap. 8. Sect. 1. Even so had not the Father Covenanted to accept of the person and of the death and sacrifice of Christ for our redemption it had not been a price but because God did voluntarily Covenant to accept it therefore it is now the onely full price of satisfaction to Gods Justice But it seems the difference lies in the conditions of the Covenant The difference in stating the voluntary Covenant betwixt Mr. Norton and my self for Mr. Norton holds that Christ Covenanted to do according to the will of his Father and that his Father willed he should obey the Law of Works and suffer the Essential punishment of the Curse for the exact fulfilling of the first Covenant as our Surety as his first Proposition speaks and hence he makes all Christs sufferings to be inflicted upon him from Gods vindicative Justice as from the supreme Law-giver and Judge because Christ was our Surety and so a sinner by Gods imputation and so he makes the Rule of Gods proceedings in justice against Christ to be legal according to the natural order of Courts of Justice against Delinquents and therefore he makes all Christs obedience both in his incarnation life and death to be all legal and to be all grounded on the moral Law But in Cap. 2. I have shewed not only sufficient Reasons but also the concurrence of eminent Orthodox Divines that I beleeve will sufficiently satisfie a judicious Reader that the whole order of Christs satisfaction is from the voluntary cause and from other conditions in the voluntary cause and that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsory power as I have here and there expressed in sundry parts of my Reply It is true saith a learned Divine That Christ merited as well as satisfied for us but saith he that by which he merited was not his never sinning or perfect obedience for that was due to the Law under which he was born but his free and voluntary giving up himself to death without any obligation to that duty lying upon him as man so to do according to that of Heb. 10. 7. and Phil. 2. 6. Being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto the death even the death of the Cross which obedience is there set as the foundation of his merit wherefore God that highly exalted him But all this you see is quite another matter from his active obedience or fulfilling the Law as being so imputed to us But touching the difference of his mediatorial obedience from his humane legal obedience See more in chap. 3. I have also I think sufficiently shewed that nothing though never so excellent in it self can be called a price till it be made a price by a mutual covenant and contract and therefore when the blood death of Christ is called the price of our redemption even before the foundation of the world 1 Pet. 1. 19 20. it is a sure and certain proof to our conscience that it was formally made to be the ful price of our redemption by a mutual Covenant and Contract between the Trinity before ever the foundation of the world was laid 3 His Minor is also faulty as it is to be understood in his sense but let others of a differing judgement take this sentence of his in point of Iustice in their sense and then such persons will not stumble at the minor But take it as Mr. Norton doth expound the Justice of the first Covenant in Gen. 2. 17. and then the minor must be denied and the Scriptures produced by him to prove it must be shewed to be corruptly cited And therefore for the better clearing of the truth I will search into the clear sense of those Scriptures First That of Rom. 3. 31. hath already been tried in the ballance of the Sanctuary and found too light in his sense in the eighth Argument of the former Chapter Secondly As for that in 1 Ioh. 1. 9. If we consess our sins he is 1 Joh. 1. 9. just to forgive us our sins Reply 1. No man will deny that God is just in forgiving sins to such as do truly confess them because the Text in terminis doth affirm it But the great matter of the dispute is in what sense is God said to be just in forgiving sins to such as do confess them Mr. Norton saith That God is just in forgiving because he had the satisfaction from Christ by suffering the same Essential torments of Hell that were threatned to Adam in the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. But I have made a sufficient Reply to this in Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Reply 5. namely that full satisfaction in kind and free forgiveness cannot possibly stand together because they are contrary to each other But because the blessed Trinity in their voluntary Covenant did agree that such a performance by Christ should be accepted of God for the procuring of his Attonement or Reconciliation to such sinners the Holy Ghost for Christs satisfaction sake did undertake to unite to Christ by faith as the conditoinal promises in the New Covenant do testifie Therefore God cannot but shew himself to be just according to his said Covenant with Christ by forgiving the sins of such sinners and so cleansing them from all unrighteousness And thus God is just both according to his Covenant with Christ and also according to his new Covenant to beleeving sinners revealed to them from his Covenant with Christ And this was clearly typified in the Law by the practice of confession of sin and by laying their hand on the head of the sin-offerings for the procuring of their Attonements in Lev. 1. 4. and 4. 29. c. as I have rightly explained the matter in the Dialogue p. 32 33 35 36 and 155 and in this Reply also in Chap. 13. So then the ground of Gods Justice wherby he hath made himself a Debtor to forgive the sins of beleevers is his voluntary Covenant with Christ namely that upon his undertaking to perform the Combate with Satan without any disobedience to the Laws of the Combate and at last to make his soul a Sacrifice then he would be reconciled and forgive the sins of such sinners as did beleeve their Attonement thus procured through Christs death and sacrifice as I have formerly hinted it in my Reply to his fourth Proposition in
Chap. 2. And this forgivenesse both as it relates to his Covenant with Christ and to his new Covenant with the Elect is called God Righteousnesse in Rom. 3. and in 2 Cor. 5. 21. for God must needs be as just and righteous when he performs his Covenant of Forgivenesse made first to Christ in reference to his satisfaction and so made also to all the members of his new Covenant As when he doth execute his vindicative threatnings upon the impenitent and therefore such poor humble sinners may by faith call upon God to make them partakers of his Righteousnesse namely of his gracious forgivenesse This Exposition How God is just hath a more firm foundation in this Text of 1 Ioh. 1. 9. than Mr. Nortons Exposition hath The Examination of Rom. 3. 26. To declare at this time his Righteousnesse or his Iustice That hee might be just and the Iustifier of him which beleeveth in Rom. 3 26. Iesus This Text Mr. Norton doth put both in the Frontispiece and also in the conclusion of his book and he doth repeat it sundry other times also in his book as the mirror of his Tenent as in page 4. 17. 40. 55. 213. 246. c. and hee thinks that the very words of the Text do plainly confirm his sense because he hath bestowed but little pains in his Exposition Mr. Norton makes God to be just in this Text because he exacted such a full satisfaction from Christ our Surety materially as he hath threatned to sinners in the moral Law and therefore he makes the incarnation and the Death of Christ and all his sufferings to be in obedience to the moral Law which hee calls the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice Reply I on the contrary do therefore make God to be called Just in this Text because he declared his Righteousnesse in forgiving beleeving sinners for the satisfaction sake of Christ which he performed according to the voluntary positive Law and Covenant as it was determined in Gods secret will and revealed only in his voluntary positive Laws and not in his moral Law for his positive Laws do often differ yea they are often contrary to his moral Law And in my Reply to his fifth and sixth Propositions in Chap. 2. and elsewhere I have shewed that Gods secret will declared only in his positive Laws and not in his moral Law is the inviolable Rule of his Relative Justice 2 It is acknowledged by many judicious that there passed a voluntary Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity for mans Redemption and that God did first declare this counsel of his Will in Gen. 3. 15. namely that he would put an utter Gen. 3. 15. enmity between the Devil in the Serpent and the seed of the deceived Woman and that the Devil should have ful liberty to deceive this seed of the woman and to pervert his obedience if he could by fraud as he had done Adam or by force in putting him to an ignominious violent death on the Crosse by piercing him in the Foot-soals but God declared also that this seed of the Woman should not be deceived but that he should break the Devils Head-plot by continuing constant in his obedience to the death and that he should make his soul a sacrifice in the midst of his Tortures on the Crosse which doubtlesse was exemplified The ground of full and just satisfaction to Gods justice is not by paying our full debt materially but formally that God doth accept for full and just satisfaction which was constituted so to be by the conditions of the voluntary Covenant to Adam by the death and sacrifice of a Lamb as I have shewed elsewhere as full satisfaction to Gods Justice and as the procuring cause of Gods Reconciliation to all that should beleeve in this Promised seed for what else can bee called full satisfaction but that only that is so made by the voluntary Covenant for the half shekels in Exod. 30 12. was called the price of the Redemption of their lives but any man may see by Psal 49. 8. that materially it was not a full price until it was made to bee the full price formally only by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant Of this see more in Chap. 14. Sect. at Reply 8. 3 The performance of the said Combate and Sacrifice on Christs part is in Scripture phrase called The Righteousnesse of Christ and the meritorious nature of it was to bind God the Father to perform his Covenant on his part which was that he should be attoned and reconciled to beleeving sinners by forgiving their sins and receiving them into favour and the performance of this on God the Fathers part is often in Scripture-phrase called the Righteousnesse of God as I have shewed in 2 Cor. 5. 21. That so he might be just and the Justifier of him which beleeveth in Jesus But for the better understanding of this 26. verse I will propound and answer these two Queries 1 How God declared his Justice at this time 2 Why at this time 1 Touching the manner how God declared his Justice that must be fetched from its coherence with verse 25. and there it Rom. 3. 25. is said that God declared his justice in setting forth Christ to be a propitiatory through faith in his blood for the remission of sins 1 Hence it is evident that God had covenanted to and with Christ that if he would undertake to be the seed of the Woman and in that humane nature to combate with the Enemy Sathan to the shedding of his blood and would still continue obedient to the death and at last make his soul a sacrifice then he should be his Mercy-seat and then he would be reconciled to all beleevers and forgive them their sins through faith in his blood and therefore as soon as sinners are united to Christ by faith It is Gods Justice or his Righteousnesse to remit their sins that are past as I shewed before in 1 Joh. 1. 9. and more fully in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Heb. 8. 12. 2 This very name His Propitiatory whence God declares Christ is Gods Mercy-seat in point of satisfaction Heb. 4. 16. his Justice in remitting sins doth plainly tell us but that we are dull of hearing that Christs satisfaction was not Solutio ejusdem but tantidem by vertue of the voluntary Covenant or else what need is there that God should declare his justice from his Propitiatory or from his Mercy-seat or from his Throne of grace as Christ by his Satisfaction is called in Heb. 4. 16. if Christs satisfaction had been solutio ejusdem as Mr. Norton holds then it should have been more fitly said that God declared his justice from his Justice-seat and not from his Mercy-seat but because Christs death and sacrifice was by the voluntary positive Law and Covenant made to be the Tantidem for beleevers as it is evident by the former instance of the half shekels which was made to be the full
his natural infirmities should not appear and therefore he said to Peter Shall I not drink it 4 I have shewed from Mr. Rutherfurd in Chap. 2. that Christs desire that the cup might pass from him was no sin because the command of God to lay down his life was not a moral command as Mr. Norton unadvisedly doth affirm for if his death had been required by a moral command then his desire that the cup might pass from him had been a sin and then his natural fear of death had been a sin also but Gods command was a meer positive command and that kind of command saith Mr. Rutherfurd did never root out his natural desire to preserve his own life seeing hee submitted his desire to Gods will The like instance hee gives of Abrahams desire when God commanded him to kill his only Son for a sacrifice And though Mr. Rutherfurd holds that Christ suffered Hell-torments Heb. 5. 7. yet he denies as the Dialogue doth that the word Fear in Heb. 5. 7. is to be understood of his fear of Hell-torments hee expounds it as the Dialogue doth on the Covenant page 362. But still I rather think as I said before that Christ did not desire simply at any time to be freed from death for that had been to desire to be freed from the performance of his Covenant but only from the cup of his natural fear from his present natural distrust of his ignominious usage by his ignominious and painful death and in this prayer and supplication of his he was heard and delivered Heb. 5. 7. and this request was of necessity to be obtained or else he could not have fulfilled his Covenant which was that he would lay down his life by his own free will desire and power even by the active power and joynt concurrence of both his natures Joh. 10. 17. 18. and this command he could not fulfil until he had obtained a confirmation by his earnest prayers in the Garden against his natural fear of death And hence it follows that seeing Christ could not prevent his decreed death he was bound by his Covenant to be troubled at least for a time with the fear of it and that in a transcendent manner as much as his humane tender natural constitution could bear without fin namely until he had by his earnest prayers obtained a confirmation 5 Saith Zanchy as touching Christs divine nature there was De Tribus Eloâ—im part 2. l. 3. c. 9. And see Weams in his Portraiture p. 191 192. alwayes one and the same will of the Father and the Son concerning his death and Possion yea as Christ was man hee was alwayes obedient to his Father and therefore hee said I alwayes do the things that please him What meaning then saith he hath this That he prayed to be freed from death and from the cup He answers Naturally as man Christ feared abhorred and shunned death and his natural horror of death he called his Will when he said Not my will be done to wit this natural Will which I have as man yet neither doth this Will of Christ resist his Fathers Will for the Father would have Christ to bee like us in all things except sin and to that end would have him made man Therefore when Christ did naturally shun and desire to escape death hee did not contradict his Fathers will because the Father would have this natural fear and horror to bee in Christ as a * So Weams in his Portraiture of the Image of God in man p. 1 48. saith Christs Passions were a punishment but not a sâ—n And saith Weams in p. 220. Christ had natural fear actually which the first Adam had not because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before Christ punishment of our sins wherefore it is altogether salse that Christs will in this was divers from his Fathers will But saith he if in respect of the same end the Father had been willing that Christ should dye and Christ had been unwilling or had never so little refused then their Wills indeed had been repugnant but in reference to the same end namely our salvation Christ alwayes had the same will that his Father had In these words Zanchy doth shew that it was absolutely necessary for Christ in regard of his true humane nature to bee inwardly touched with the natural fear of his bodily death and to evidence it out wardly but he makes no mention that Christ feared his spiritual and eternal death as Mr. Norton doth most unsoundly from the same Text. But saith Mr. Norton still in page 57. It hath oftentimes been the case of Martyrs to give up their lives with joy Reply 7. Hence he thinks it was not beseeming for Christ to bee so troubled as he was with the fear of his bodily death If there be any Martyrs to whom it is pleasant to die that they have from other where and not from the nature of death But saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 12. All the godly do affirm that in death there is a feeling of the wrath of God and therefore of its own nature it driveth men into a certain pain and horror which thing saith he both Christ himself when he prayed in the Garden and many other holy men have declared And saith he if there chance to be any to whom it is pleasant and delectable to dye and to be rid of their life that they have elsewhere and not from the nature of death In these words observe that P. Martyr doth make the bodily death of Christ to be the material cause of his pain and horror in the Garden quite contrary to Mr. Norton he doth never mention the Second death and Hell-torments to bee the cause of his horror in the Garden as Mr. Norton doth 2 Saith hee If there be any whether Martyrs or Christ to whom it is pleasant and delectable to dye and to be rid of their life that they have elsewhere and not from the nature of death 3 The Dialogue gives good reasons in page 52. why Christ should shew more fear of death then any Martyrs namely First For the cleerer manifestation of the truth of his humane nature And secondly For the accomplishment of the Predictions of his sufferings and therefore that mercy of his that made him to take our humane nature of the seed of the woman made him to take our natural infirmities and to manifest them to the uttermost in seasonable times as objects did present the occasion But saith Mr. Norton in page 69. You make Christ not only more afraid of natural death than many Martyrs but to shew more fear of death than any man And saith hee Your reasons are but deceptions Reply 8. If Christ had shewed no more natural fear of death than some men do it might well have been doubted whether hee had been true man or no seeing sundry Hereticks have called it into question notwithstanding hee gave such large
himself These things are so plain in the Text that he that runs may read them and these soul-passions with his outward sufferings were also ordained to consecrate Christ to his Priestly Office before he could make his soul a sacrifice Thirdly Therefore the formality of Christs obedience in his death and sacrifice must needs be the period of all satisfaction and this is the last victorious act of the Mediators obedience that gives the fatal blow to the Devils head-plot and breaks it all to peeces so that the Elect are thereby delivered from his power as a bird from the Fowler when the snare is broken and all the positive ceremonial Laws touching Priest and sacrifice are but a typical exemplification of this Priest and sacrifice Fourthly Hence we may learn how to interpret all those God did all the external sufferings of Christ by Satan and his instruments and Christ did all his internal soul-sufferings Scriptures that ascribe all Christs sufferings both inward and outward to God God is often said to be a doer of them all but this first Declaration of Gods counsel to Adam tells us that God did all by appointing Satan to do all the external sufferings and that God did appoint Christ as he was the seed of the woman to do all his internal sufferings and thus God may be said to do all his soul-sufferings because he was first in the order of that Covenant where it was agreed on what Christ should suffer for mans redemption He first expounded to the second person that he should take mans nature of the seed of the woman and mans infirmities affections and passions that so he might be touched with the feeling of our infirmities as our merciful High-Priest when the objects of fear sorrow and heaviness should present In this sense God may be said to do all his soul-sufferings Fifthly God is said to do all because he delivered him into the hands of Satan that Satan might do his worst in his combate with him Him being delivered saith Peter by the determinate counsel and sort-knowledge of God Act. 2. 23 24. who delivered him but Act. 2. 23 24. God to whom did he deliver him but to Satan to combate with him according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. ye have taken him and by wicked hands have crucified and slain whom God hath raised up loosing the pains of death namely loosing or healing the soars and wounds that were inflicted on his body by Satan and his instruments to put him to death But no soars were inflicted on him by Gods immediate wrath no other soars were put upon him but such as God permitted the Devil and his instruments to inflict out of a design to provoke his patience as he did to Job that so he might pervert him in his obedience and spoil his death from being a sacrifice and so might prevent the breaking of his first head-plot which was to subdue Adam and all his posterity under the body of sin So in Rom. 4. 25. He was delivered for our offences namely God delivered him into the hands of Satan according to Gen. 3. 15. Rom. 4. 25. to try masteries with Satan and in case Satan could disturb his patience then he should save his head-plot but in case Christ did continue through all the combate obedient to the positive Laws of the combate to the death of the Cross and at last in that perfect obedience make his soul a sacrifice then he should redeem us from all our offences And in this sense it was that Christ was delivered for our offences and God raised him up again on the third day to witness our Justification that his death was accepted of God as a Sacrifice for full satisfaction And in this sense it is said that God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all Rom. 8. 32. And thus I have shewed how Christ drunk the cup of martyrdom for his Priestly consceration to his sacrifice And secondly That the cup of satisfaction by vertue of the free Covenant lies both in his Combate and Sacrifice but chiefly in Sacrifice as the finishing act and formal price of all satisfaction But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 63. The sufferings of Christs soul were not by way of sympathy his soul suffered properly and immediately Isa 53. 10. Matth. 26. 37. The cause of his sufferings required that his soul should suffer as well as his body We sinned in soul properly therefore our surety must suffer in soul properly the greatest of the sufferings of Christ were spiritual and such as immediately seized on his soul Reply 13. To deny that Christs soul suffered by way of sympathy I suppose is to deny a truth for the immortal soul is There is a sympathy between the soul and body in sufferings united personally to the body by the sensitive soul and by vertue of this conjunction there is a communion by which means the soul may partake of the sufferings of the body by way of sympathy There are three things saith Irenaeus of which the intire See Dr. Hammons Annot. in 1 Thes 5. 23. perfect man consisteth Flesh Soul and Spirit The Soul saith he is betwixt the Flesh and Spirit and sometimes following the Spirit is elevated by it and sometimes consenting to the Flesh falls into earthly concupiscences And saith Jerom The Soul consisting between the Flesh and And Jerom. in Gal. 5. Spirit when it yeeldeth to the Flesh it is called flesh By this it appears there is a communion by sympathy But now because Christs humane nature was conceived by the Holy Ghost after the image of God we must say that his rational Will did cause his sensitive Will to follow it and therefore by his strong crying and prayers and tears in the Garden he obtained that his sensitive will which naturally abhorred and feared death was at last made like unto his rational will altogether fearless of death and therefore as soon as he had done praying he said to his Disciples Let us go meet them and then without any fear he went to meet all his sufferings and so by the perfection of his patience under them he did evidence the perfection of his obedience and in that perfection of obedience he finished all that was written of him and then he made his death a sacrifice by the joynt concurrence of both his natures and so at last without the least fear or striving in his sensitive will he breathed out his immortal soul But Mr. Norton confounds Christs sacrifice with his sufferings and hee confounds his sufferings from Satan with his sufferings from Gods immediate wrath in pag. 153. 213 c. But saith Mr. Norton in the former place of p. 63. His soul suffered properly and immediately Reply 14. First I have shewed in Chap. 12. at Sect. 4. that The sufferings of Christs soul in Mat. 26. 38. and Isa 53. 10. must chiefly be understood Christs vital soul and nor
affections either of joy or sorrow as in Psal 25. 1. it is put for cheerful affections See Ainsworth there and in Psal 86. 4. It is also put for the affections of compassion in Isa 58. 10. It is also put for the affections of sorrow and sadness 1 Sam. 1. 15. Psal 42. 5. Psal 62. 9. Lam. 2. 12. It is also put for vexation of mind Deut. 28. 65. It is also put for the grief and pain which they sustained in captivity as it is expounded in vers 64. 66. and 2 King 4. 27. Job 7. 11. Job 10. 1. Psal 13. 2. It is also put for the inward powers Job 21. 23. Psal 107. 26. Prov. 14. 1. Likewise in the New Testament Psyche the vital soul is put 1 For a willing heart Eph. 6 6. Col. 3. 23. 2 For one mind Act. 4. 31. Phi. 1. 27. 3 For the heart soul and mind Matth. 22. 37. Toto tuo sensitivo as Lyra interpreteth with all thy wisdome diligence and cogitation as Chrysostome with all thy life and with all thy mind as Austin with all thy will and mind as Glossa ordinaria with all thy life which thou oughtest to yeeld up for him as Origen See also Deut. 6. 5. Luke 10. 27. Mark 10. 45. Rev. 18. 14. 4 Psyche in the New Testament doth signifie for the most part the same that Nephes doth in the Old But saith Carlile in three places it signifies the immortal soul as in Mat. 10. 27 28. Jam. 1. 21. 1 Pet. 1. 9. And saith hee This kind of soul was that soul of Christ that was so exceeding sorrowful in Mat. 26. 38. By nature saith Carlile in page 155. All the parts of my body wherein there is any life do fear death my will is unwilling my mind vexed my affections moved my heart is A true description of the natural fear of death wounded my members shake my breast panteth my legs faint my hands tremble and my senses are amazed And saith hee The flesh of Christ was so troubled that hee desired if it were possible that he might escape death Mat. 26. 38 Mar. 14 34. Joh. 12. 27. 2 Mr. Wilmot renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matth. 26. 38. Mat. 26. 38. which we translate exceeding sorrowful by rounded about with sorrow for fear of his approaching ignominious death hee was rounded about in every part of his body according to the description above from Carlile and so David saith of his fear The sorrows of death compassed me about Psal 18. 5. And by this expression it appears that hee was in every part of his sensitive Psal 18. 5. soul blood and flesh in a quaking fear Mr. Ainsworth doth render it the pangs of death or the pains throws and sorrows as of a woman in child-birth and so doth the original signifie in Hos 13. 13 Isa 13. 8. Isa 66. 7. And so doth the Chaldee explain it Anguish compassed mee as of a woman which sitteth in the birth and hath no strength to bring forth being in danger of death Methinks these emphatical expressions of the fear of a bodily death should check such as sleight them that expound the fear of Christ of his exceeding natural fear of his bodily death 3 When our Saviour at Supper told his Disciples that one of them should betray him they were exceedâ—ng sorrowful Mat 26. 21 22. namely they were in evâ—ry pâ—â—â— of their body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 surrounded about with sorâ—ow 〈…〉 Châ—â—st doth compare their sorrows for his death 〈…〉 gs of a woman in travel Joh. 16. 20 21 22. The 〈…〉 2. and in verse 38. is the same and the Syriak doth translate them alike and Tremelius doth translate the Syriack in both places with the same Latine word So that the natural fear of an ignominious violent death doth extend it self to every part of the vital soul and body SECT IV. But saith Mr. Norton in page 87. His sorrow was lethal and deadly both extensively and intensively continuing unto the last gaspe intensively killing of it self in time had there been no other causes resolving and melting the soul gradually as wax is melted with the heat Psal 22. 14. Reply 15. In these words Mr. Norton doth make Christs body to be subject to death by natural causes not only externally Christs soul-sorrows could not be lethal and deadly because they were governed by right reason but also internally from his soul-sorrows as if he might now lose the rectitude of his own pure humane affections His heart indeed according to his voluntary Covenant to undertake our nature and passions did melt for fear of his ignominious and painful death in the midst of his bowels in his preparation to incounter it in the Garden but after a while by his strong crying and tears hee did overcome that fear and obtained a confirmation of his nature against his natural fear But I wonder how Mr. Norton can say as hee doth often that Christs sorrows were lethal and deadly and continuing to the last gasp seeing all his affections were regular and conformed to right reason can regular affections admit of such a kind of sorrow without sin I think not and yet I conceive that the measure of regular sorrow may bee so great that it cannot well be expressed by us otherwise than in the Scripture phrases which must not bee stretched by the conceptions of men beyond the context But to affirm that the kind of his sorrow was lethal and deadly of it self is as much as to say it was excessive and beyond the rule of right reason which must needs be sinful and it is worse to say that his lethal sorrows continued to the last And therefore Mr. Nortons kind of reasoning is most dangerous All Christs affections saith Martyr were in him voluntary they did rise in him when he pleased to shew them and they appeared not when he pleased to suppress them but in us saith he they are often involuntary and rise in us whether we will or no. But saith Mr. Norton in page 88. Christ was amazed He began to be sore amazed Mark 14. 33. which signifieth an universal cessation of all the saculties of the Mar. 14. 33. soul from their several functions Physicians call it a Horripilation wee usually a Consternation like a Clock in kiltor yet stopped for the while from going by some hand laid upon it That such intermission of the operations of his soul the effect of this formidable Concussion might be without sin is evident to him that remembers Christ slept sleep ordinarily implying cessation of the exercise of the intellectual faculties Reply 16. The word translated Amazed saith hee signifies an universal cessation of all the faculties of the soul from Christ was not fully amazed their several functions I acknowledge that the signification of the original is of necessary use for the right expounding of the blessed Scriptures provided the original word be not stretched to a sense
that from the pitching of the field of old Gen. 3. 15. thou shalt pierce him in the heel so that it was not so much for any pangs of hell that Christ felt within him as for the assaults of hell that he saw inlarged against him that he was so full of sorrow and anguish This testimony to the truth of Gods Declaration in Gen. 3. 15. doth fully accord with the Dialogue 2 Mr. Robert Wilmot in his manuscript on Haides saith thus on the word Alwaies in Act. 2. 25. Always saith he even in his forest agonies 1 Before the sweaty Agony his soul was troubled yet then he called God Father Joh. 12. 27. 2 When he was in the Agony he could still call God Father Luk. 22. 44. and in Joh. 11. 42. he saith he knew God heard him alwaies and therefore even then he must needs have comfort 3 When he began to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most grievously tormented and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abundantly sorrowful or rounded about with sorrow yet then he could still call God Father Matth. 26. 37 38 39 42. 4 When the betrayer was come and the Band had seized on him yet then also he uttered words of sure comfort and confidence Mat. 26. 53. Thinkest thou said he to Peter that I cannot pray to my Father and he shall set before mee more than twelve legions of Angels 5 When he was upon the cross and cryed My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Doth not the very fore-front of that speech ascertain us that he had even then comfort in his God Mat. â—7 46. 6 Had he not strong comfort in God his Father at the giving up of the Ghost when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. If then through all his sufferings he could pray to his Father as we see and knew his father heard him ever then surely he had comfort in his Father ever yea if through all his sufferings he called him by the fiducial and cordial name Father we cannot imagine but that he conceived and applied the comfort contained in the name when ever he did mention the name else how conceive we that his heart and mouth did go together These observations of Mr. Wilmots do evidence that Christs mind was not wholly taken up with the dreadfull sense of the righteous wrath of God when he began to be amazed and to be very heavy as Mr. Norton doth affirm SECT 5. Christs Agony and Luk. 22. 44. Examined MR. Norton in pag. 63. doth thus abbreviate the Dialogues words If the circumstances of this Agony be well weighed saith the Dialogue it will appear that it did not proceed from his Fathers wrath but from his natural fear of death onely because he must be stricken with the fear of death as much as his true humane nature could bear he must be touched with the fear of death in a very great measure as the Prophets did foretel Add to these pains of his mind his earnest prayers to be delivered from his natural fear of death the fear of death doth often cause men to sweat and earnest prayer doth often cause men to sweat As he was man he must be touched with the fear of death for a time and as he was Mediator he must fully and wholly overcome his natural fear of death by his prayers therefore there was a necessity for him to strive in prayer until he had overcome it Mr. Norton doth thus answer in p. 64. There can no reason be given why the fear of death should be as much as the humane nature of Christ could bear without sin because the object of that fear may be and is exceeded penal spiritual death is a greater object of fear incomparably Reply 19. I have already replyed to this very answer in substance in the first Section of this Chapter But yet I reply further with the Dialogue That the law of Mediatorship did require that he should take our nature together with our true natural but yet sinless infirmities Gen. 3. 15. Heb. 4. 15. and seeing he was conceived of the seed of the woman by the power of the Holy Ghost our nature and natural affections were transcendent in him and therefore according to those transscendent natural passions he could not chuse but abhor death more than any sinful man and therefore he did often trouble himself with the thought of it as he made it evident by his speeches often itterated to his Disciples about his ignominious death and sufferings at Jerusalem but at his last Supper and in the Garden when his death was nigh at hand he did more pathetically express his natural dread and abhorrence of it first to his Disciples and then to God in his prayers Matth. 26. 37 38. for he knew by Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. that God had armed the Devil with power to apprehend him to condemn him and to put him to that ignominious torturing death of the cross as a sinful malefactor I say the consideration of this usage could not chuse but work a greater dread and abhorring in the humane nature of Christ than the like can do to us because of the pure constitution of his nature as I have noted it in Sect. 1. Our nature by reason of original sin is become the slave of death Heb. 2. 14. and therefore we cannot abhor it with so much true natural detestation as the pure nature of Christ might do and did and therefore his natural fear of death was transcendent to ours But saith he Penal spiritual death is a greater object incomparably he takes it for granted that Christ suffered a penal spiritual death which is denied But in case such a Tenent were iâ—deed held forth in the book of God then methinks the blessed Scriptures should insist most upon iâ— seeing it is held to be the main matter of full and just satisfaction but the contrary is evident to me namely that the Scriptures do insist most upon his ignominious torturing bodily death from Satan and upon his sacrifice as soon as ever he had finished all his sufferings and had evidenced his obedience to be perfect through sufferings The Dialogue saith thus in p. 49. It is no marvel then that our Savior fell into such an Agony the night before his death seeing it was not an easie thing to alter the property of nature from a desire to live to a desire to die and that not for his own end and benefit but for the sake of the Elect onely and all this must he perform in exact obedience to his Fathers will he must observe the due time of every action and so on as it follows in Mr. Nortons citation in page 64 65. Mr. Norton doth answer thus in page 63. Your mentioning other causes though false of Christs fear besides his natural death only is a secret acknowledgement that his fear of a natural death only was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows before
his death Reply 20. The Dialogue shews plainly that the approach of his ignominious and painful death by his Combater Satan was the main cause of his exceeding natural fear and so consequently of his Agony But Secondly in order to overcome that fear the Dialogue doth make his godly fear in his rational soul by putting up strong prayers with cryes and tears for the overcoming of his natural fear to be another ground that did increase his violent sweat in his Agony And thirdly I makes his pious care to perform all the sufferings that were written of him in exact obedience in all circumstances to the Laws of the Combate without any diversion by Satans provocations to bee another circumstance that did aggravate his zeal in his prayers and so it was a helping cause to increase his sweat in his Agony But mark this the Dialogue doth still make his natural fear of death to be the foundation of all this and therefore I know no just cause given why Mr. Norton should say That my words are a secret acknowledgement that his fear of a natural death was not a sufficient cause of his exceeding sorrows before his death Natural death is the punishment of original sin but Christs humane nature was not by that justice subjected to death 2 I cannot chuse but wonder that Mr. Norton doth so often charge the Dialogue to speak of Christs natural death only seeing the Dialogue doth shun that word as altogether unfit to express the formality of his death as I have shewed at Reply 5. This is a plain evidence That Mr. Norton doth not understand the drift of the Dialogue about the true nature of Christs death natural death is that bodily death which was by Gods positive justice inflicted on fallen Adam as the punishment of original sin in Gen. 3. 19. which is now natural to us this is a true description of natural death But Christs humane nature was not made subject to death by the curse of that supreme positive Law because he was free from orginal sin and so free from the curse of that Law for sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. But by another positive Law and Covenant wherein hee was an equal and reciprocal Covenanter Mr. Norton having gone astray in his first foundation-proposition he strayes further and further from the true nature of Christs death and sacrifice first he saith That all the curses of the Law are heaped together and laid upon Christ And then in page 83. and in divers other places hee strayes further and further till hee make the death of Christ in the formality of it to be his subjection to that cursed bodily death that was inflicted on fallen Adam for their original sin in Gen. 3. 19. But I hope I have sufficiently shewed in Reply 3. and 5. a little before and elsewhere That the death of Christ was not a natural death but a death of Covenant only or else it could not have been a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement to the Elect which no other mans natural death in the world is besides And therefore the Dialogue doth rightly argue in page 6. that the death of Christ is not included in that cursed death that was threatned to fallen Adam in Gen. 3. 19. But it was declared to be of another nature and exemplified to Adam by the death of some Lamb offered in sacrifice for the breaking of the Devils Head-plot four verses before namely in Gen. 3. 15. 3 It is evident to all men that his earnest prayers did increase Ains doth make the earnest prayeâ—s of Christ to be a part of his Aâ—ony his sweat in his Agony by the very words of the Text in Luke 22. 44. And saith Ainsworth upon the word Incense beaten small in Lev. 16. 12. It figured the Agony of Christ in his prayers before his deaâ—h which hee offered up with strong crying and tears Luke 22. 44 Heb. 5. 7. And saith Trap in Mat. 26. 36. our Saviour prayed himself into an Agony to teach us to strive in prayer even to an Agony as the word signifieth in Col. 4. 12. for earnest prayer is an earnest striving or wrastling it out with God Rom. 15. 30. And so Jacob wrastled both bodily and spiritually with Christ for a blessing Gen. 32. 24. Heb. 12. 3 4. Rom. 15. 30. Deut. 9. 14. Ex. 32. 10. And saith Ains in Gen. 32. 24. Jacob wrestled or combated with Christ and so Rachel wrastled or combated with Leah Gen. 30. 8. And so Christ with excellent wrastling wrastled it out with Satan He fought the good fight and kept to the Rule of obedience in his fears and prayers and such kind of prayers do often cause men to sweat though they have the Spirit but by measure how much more fervent then was Christ in his prayers in his Agony in the Garden which had the Spirit above measure as the Dialogue doth argue it is no marvel then that his prayers which were uttered with strong cryes and tears did increase his sweat in his Agony until it trickled down like as it were great drops of blood Nature it self without the gracious actings of Gods Spirit may strive it self into a sweaty Agony as the Physician that wrote the book de utilitate Respirationis among Gallens Works Attribut Tom. 7. saith It sometimes happeneth that servent spirits do so dilate the pores of the body that blood passeth by them and so the sweat may be bloody Hence I reason thus If a natural man may bee thus fervent in spirits till his sweat may bee bloody then why might not Christ that had his natural fervency increased Also in Reply 24. you may see an example of a bloody sweat caused through the sudden fear of an ignominious death in his prayers by the Spirit above measure provoke a bloody sweat from his body and therefore the reasoning of the Dialogue is sound and good which runs If the natural fear of death and the striving of the Spirit in prayer may cause men to sweat then it might cause our Saviours pure humane nature to sweat much more c. as it follows in the Dialogue 4 Consider how terrible to nature death is at sometimes but at sometimes again not terrible After our Saviour had finished his prayers in the Garden hee said to his Disciples in Matth. Mat. 26. 46. 26. 46. Arise let us be going namely to meet that ignominious death that a little before was so dreadful to my humane nature that it put me into an Agony but now I have obtained a confirmation to my nature against those fears and therefore See Dr. Hall in his Select Thoughts p. 139. now I say unto you Arise let us go meet it Which till he had prayed saith Trap he greatly feared And saith Dr. Hall the fear of death is natural and so far from being evil that it was incident to the Son of God who was heard in
descended as it were a Dove Matth. 3. 16. somewhat resembling a Dove So the Manna was like Coriander-seed in shape and quantity but not in colour 9 Christopher Carlile in his Descent page 46. saith Was not Christ extreamly afflicted when he for fear of death sweat drops in quantity as thick as drops of blood 10 So John Frith the Martyr saith thus to Sir Thomas Moore See his Ans to Sir Tho. 〈◊〉 p. 34. as it is printed with Tindals works Christ did not only weep but feared so sore that he sweat like drops of blood running down upon the earth which was more than to weep Now saith he If I should ask you why Christ feared and sweat so sore what would you answer me That it was for the fear of the pains of Purgatory Forsooth he that should so answer would bee laughed to scorn of all the world as hee were well worthy Wherefore was it then Vetily even for the fear of death as it plainly appeareth after for he prayed unto his Father saying My Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me Mat. 26. 38 39. So fearful a thing is death even to the purest flesh And saith he the same cause will I assign in Hezekiah that hee wept for fear of Death and not of Purgatory In these words you see that Friths judgement was That Christs Agony was for fear not of a spiritual but of a corporal death 11 Tindal translates Luke 22. 44. thus His sweat was like drops of blood trickling down to the ground and speaking of Christs last Supper hee saith thus The fear of death was the same hour upon him neither slept hee any more after but went immediately after he had comforted his Disciples into the place where he was taken to abide his Persecuters where also he sweat water and blood of very agony conceived of his Passion so nigh at hand 12 In Reply 18. I have cited Dr. Lightfoot saying In his Agony he sweat drops like blood These five last Authors you see are not for sweating of perfect blood though Tindal say hee sweat water and blood yet that is far from pure blood and farther from clods of blood 2 This is farther remarkable that Tindal and Frith do make the fear of his bodily death in the words cited to bee the cause of his Agony 3. This is still farther remarkable that neither of these two have a word in all their writings that hee suffered any other death but a bodily death though Mr. Norton is so bold as to condemn their judgement therein to be heresie 4 Saith Mr. Norton in page 67. These Authors I not having by mee cannot examine the Quotations their words therefore rather better bearing the sense of the Orthodox than the sense of the Dialogue Reply 25. The Reader may please to take notice of Mr. Nortons unjust prejudice of the Dialogue for the Author of the Dialogue cites their sense to his sense which is so clear and manifest that it stares him in the face and yet their words cited in the sense of the Dialogue he saith is orthodox and that the sense of the Dialogue is heresie Is not this plain partiality to favour the same doctrine in one as orthodox and to condemn it in another for heresie And saith hee Friths other writings call to have it so namely to mean it according to Mr. Norton Reply 26. It is an open wrong to Mr. Frith and to the Reader to make Frith of his judgement the words of Frith which I have truly cited him do cry shame upon him for saying so and in all his writings hee makes the death of Christ to bee no other but a true bodily death 12 I have cited Cyprian in Reply 8. to the sense of Frith namely to bee sorrowful unto death and for the exceeding grief thereof to powre forth a bloody sweat 13 Damasen saith thus Christ took unto him all blameless and natural passions for he assumed the whole man and all that pertained to man except sin Natural and blameless passions are those which are not in our power and whatsoever entred into mans life through the condemnation of sin namely of Adams sin as hunger thirst weakness labour weeping corruption shunning of death fear agony whence sweat and drops of blood These things saith he are in all men by nature Christ therefore took all these unto him that he might sanctifie them all Howbeit our natural passions were in Christ according to nature and above nature According to nature they were stirred up in Christ when hee permitted his flesh to indure that which was proper to it Above nature because nature in him did never go before his will for there was nothing forced in him but all things voluntary when hee would hee hungred when he would hee thirsted when hee would hee feared and when hee would hee dyed From this speech of Damasen touching Christs Passion and Agony in the Garden we see he held 1 That shunning of Death Fear Agony whence sweat and drops of blood which are in all men by nature and therefore saith he Christ took all these unto him that hee might sanctifie them all 2 That these were in Christ not only according to nature but above nature because nature in him did never go before his will 3 That nothing in him was forced therefore hee was far from holding as Mr. Norton doth in page 70. that he was pressed under the sense of the wrath of God Conclusion When the fulness of time was come that the seed of the woman Christ Jesus was to be bruised and peirced in the foot-soals with an ignominious torturing death by Satan and his instruments according to Gods declared permission in Gen. 3. 15. The divine nature might not protect the humane but must leave the humane nature to its self to manage this conflict in which conflict he was to manifest his true humane infirmities and therefore when the Devil and his Arch-instruments were to seise upon him he began to be sore amazed and to be very heavy and then he said unto Peter James and John My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto the death or it is surrounded with sorrow that is to say Every part of my body wherein I have my vital soul is in a quaking fear of such an ignominious death by such a malignant enemy as is armed with power and authority from God to execute it on me and I do here manifest my true humane nature and the infirmities of it that you may record it to all posterity that I have took part with them that for fear of death are all their life time subject to bondage that they may be assured I am a merciful High-priest and that I am truly touched with the feeling of their infirmities not in a small degree for then it might be doubted whether I am so sensible of their condition as I am but in the highest degree according to the most excellent temper and tender constitution
his secret disposition he would not use any manifest power he that came to destroy death and the author of death how should he have saved sinners if he would have resisted his pursuers Ibidem Christ saith he cried with a loud voyce Why hast thou forsaken me that he might make it manifest to all for what cause he ought not to be delivered nor defended but to be left into the hands of his persecutors which was to be made the Saviour of the world and the redeemer of all men not by any miserable necessity but of mercy not for lack of help but of purpose to die for us Ibidem And saith he Let us leave this to the Jews to think that Christ was forsaken of God on whom they could execute their rage with such wickedness who most sacrilegiously deriding him said He saved others himself he cannot save These last words of Leo do most fitly agree to the Prophecy of Isay in chap. 53. 4. there Isay foretold the Jews that though Christ did manifest the power of his God-head in healing sicknesses and carrying away their manifold infirmities from them yet out of Satans malice they would esteem him stricken smitten of God and afflicted namely in Gods anger for his own sins and thus the Prophet doth blame their gross mistake by imputing his sufferings to be from Gods wrath for his own desert And thus much I think is sufficient to demonstrate the reason why the Divine nature did forsake the Humane and why the Humane nature propounded this Query with a loud voyce My God my God why hast thou forsaken me it was that so the humane nature might suffer all that was written of him from his Combater Satan according to Gods declared Decree in Gen. 3. 15. SECT 3. Question III. How did God not forsake Christ on the Cross Reply 12. IN two respects God did not forsake Christ on the Cross 1 He did not forsake his soul in respect of the comfortable fruition of the sense of the good of the promises 2 He did not forsake him in the formality of his death namely he did not suffer Satan and his Instruments to put him to death formally by the power of their tortures First I say that God did not forsake Christs soul in respect of the sense of the good of the Promises And for the better understanding of the word Forsaken in Matth. 27. 46. Consider these six sorts of Dereliction 1 By dis-union of person 2 By loss of Grace 3 By diminution or weakening of Grace 4 In respect of assurance of future deliverance 5 By withdrawing protection 6 By depriving his soul of the sense of the good of the promises Divines do generally account it a most impious thing to affirm that Christ was forsaken of God any of the four first waies 1 They affirm that God did not forsake Christ in respect of union they affirm that the personal union of the two natures was never dissolved 2 They affirm that he was never forsaken in respect of the loss of Grace 3 They do generally affirm That he was not forsaken in respect of diminishing or weakening of any grace in him But yet some there are that do affirm that he was forsaken The Geneva note on the word Forsaken in Psa 22. 1. doth make Christ a sinner inherently by diminishing or weakening of the Grace of Faith in him The Geneva note on the word forsaken Psa 22. 1. saith thus Here appeareth that horrible conflict that he suffered between faith and desparation Is not this a blasphemous note to say that Christ was in a conflict with desparation through the weakness of faith is not this an imputation of inherent sin to Christ Mr. Norton tels me in p. 215. that the Geneva note which I there cited with approbation to the sense of the Dialogue must not be understood in the Dialogues sense but it must be interpreted according to the Doctrine of Geneva I would fain see how he by the Doctrine of Geneva can make a good exposition of this note affixed to Psal 22. 1. if he mean by the Doctrine of Geneva the Doctrine of Calvin then I find in Marlorat on Mat. 27. 46. where he cites Calvins words on the word forsaken thus He fought with desparation yet was he not overcome thereby this Doctrine of Calvin and the Geneva note agree together and therefore in likelihood that Geneva note was taken from Calvin at first though his latter Editions are now somewhat reformed and Mr. Norton himself doth censure Calvin to be unsound in this point for in pag. 61. he blames Calvin for saying that Christ suffered the pains of the damned and forsaken men Now if Christ was in a horrible conflict between faith and desparation as the Geneva note speaks then it follows that he was a sinner inherently for if there be any conflict with doubting which is less than desparation it is a sin Mark 14. 31. Jam. 1. 6. 7. Matth. 21. 21. Truly it is a lamentable thing that this note hath been printed and dispersed in so many thousand Bibles to corrupt mens minds so that now many can hardly have patience to hear any reasons to the contrary but I must needs acknowledge that our larger Annotation on Psal 22. 1. hath made a good Reformation 4 Divines confess that it was not possible that Christ should be forsaken in respect of assurance of future deliverance and present support because he had faith in the full Sea without any ebb 5 That Christ was forsaken by Gods withdrawing of outward protection and not delivering of him from the rage of Satan and his Instruments untill they had executed on him all their rage is acknowledged by the Dialogue and by many Orthodox lately cited 6 The last sort of forsaking is that which is affirmed by Mr. Norton namely That God forsook Christs soul in anger as concerning the fruition and sense of the good of the promises But in Chap. 4. I have shewed that he doth oftentimes leave out the word sense and makes Christ to be forsaken concerning the fruition of the good of the promise And this last kind of forsaking is suitable to his main Tenent laid down in his foundation-Proposition Reply 13. This last kind of forsaking as it is asserted by Mr. Norton is opposed by sundry eminent Divines 1 By Mr. Robert Wilmot whom I have cited before in this Chapter at Reply 9. 2 Our large Annotation on Psal 22. 1. which I have cited at Reply 4. 3 I cited Mr. Robert Smith and divers others at Reply 9. 4 I will now examine the word forsaken once more with the Christ was not so forsaken in his soul but that he stil had the sweet sence of the good of the promises on the Cross context for doubtless that is a sure Rule of a right interpretation 1 Christ doth interrogate in Psal 22. 1. Why hast thou forsaken me Is there not good reason that the Divine nature should forsake the Humane
therefore his death was not co-acted by Gods Justice as other mens is But his death was a death of Covenant onely and that Contract and Covenant made it to be the meritorious price of mans redemption And to this sense I have cited divers Orthodox Divines in chap. 2. and in chap. 3. and in chap. 16. at Reply 3 10 12. But Mr. Nortons foundation-Tenent taken from Court Justice namely that God did legally impute our sins to Christ hath so beguiled the eyes of his understanding that he cannot see the difference which the Scripture makes between the formality of Christs death and the death of other men that are inherent sinners More easie it is saith Origen for a man to put off any other customs how much so ever he is affixed to them than to lay aside his accustomed opinion But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. Mr. Ainsworth whom the Dialogue often cites seemeth to understand death to be laid upon Christ according to the sense of Gen 3. 19. Gen. 3. 19. Reply 17. Mr. Ainsworth doth not explain himself touching the manner of Christs death by this verse But in Numb 19. 2. he doth thus explain himself Christ saith he was without yoke as being free from the bondage of sin and corruption and as doing voluntarily the things appertaining to our redemption From these words of his I reason thus If Christ was free from the yoke of sin and corruption and did all things voluntarily that appertained to our redemption then his death was not co-acted by Gods Justice like to the death of all other men that are sinners his death therefore must be considered as a voluntary act from the voluntary Covenant for as he was an absolute Lord in Trinity so he was a reciprocal Covenanter 1 To take our nature and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan and to suffer him to do his worst to provoke his patience and so to spoil his obedience as he did Adams if he could 2 He covenanted that as soon as he had fulfilled his utmost sufferings from his Combater Satan hee would send forth his Spirit as the onely Priest in the formality of his own death that so he might make his death to be a sacrifice of reconciliation for mans Redemption from Satans Head-plot both these acts of his voluntary obedience he performed exactly according to the Articles of the voluntary and eternal Covenant for the meriting of a great reward namely for the meriting of the Spirit for Regeneration and for the meriting of his Fathers Reconciliation and eternal Redemption of all the Elect. But saith the Dialogue I will distinguish upon the death of Christ for God appointed him to die a double kind of death 1. As a Malefactor 2. As a Mediator and all this at one and the same time 1 He died as a Malefactor by Gods determinate Council and Covenant and to this end God gave the Devil leave to enter into Judas to betray him and into the Scribes and Pharisees and Pontius Pilat to condemn him and to do what they could to put him to death as a cursed Malefactor and in that respect God may be truly said to bring him into the dust of death Gen. 3. 19. as the Dialogue doth open the phrase in Psa 22. 15. 2 Notwithstanding all this Christ died as a Mediator and therefore his death was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor for it was his Covenant to be our Mediator in his death Heb. 9. 15 16. and therefore he must separate his soul from his body by the power of his God-head namely after his Manhood had performed his conflict with Satan all the Tyrants in the world could not separate his soul from his body Job 19. 11. no not by all the torments they could devise till himself was pleased to actuate his own death by the joynt concurrence of both his natures Mr. Morton in p. 84. doth thus Answer The plain meaning of the Author in this distinction is this Christ died as a Malefactor onely though unjustly in the Jews account but not as a Mediator as Mediator onely in Gods account but not as a Malefactor This distinction saith he in name but in truth a Sophisme is used as a crutch to support the halting of the non-imputation of the sin to Christ Reply 18. This distinction it seems doth somewhat trouble Mr. Nortons patience because it agrees not to his legal court way of making satisfaction from Gods judicial imputing our sincs to Christ and from his inflicting Hell torments upon him from his immediate vindicative wrath and therefore in contempt he calls it a Sophisme namely a false kind of arguing 2 To the same purpose Mr. Norton doth thus repeat another speech of the Dialogue Christs death as Mediator saith the distinction was not really finished by those Torments which he suffered as a Malefactor the Jews are said to put Christ to death because they indeavored to put him to death but did not separate his soul from his body in that sense they did not put him to death So saith he is the distinction expresly interpreted in the Dialogue p. 100. Mr. Norton in p. 84. doth thus Answer If Christs death was a suffering then the formal cause thereof was not that active separation of his soul from his body so often mentioned in the Dialogue otherwise Christ should have been his own afflicter Reply 19. I have often warned that the death of Christ is more largely or more strictly taken 1 The pains of death are often called death in Scripture though they prove not in the issue to be death formally 2 The Dialogue doth all along affirm that Christs death was a suffering and that he was active in his compliance with all his sufferings for he delivered himself into the hands of Satan and his Instruments that they might use their best skill to try if by any means they could disturb his patience and so spoil his obedience as he did Adams that so hee might put him to death formally as he did the other Malefactors 3 It is also evident that Christ was more intirely active in all his soul-sufferings than in his outward sufferings for the Text saith He troubled himself at the death of Lazarus Joh. 11. 33. and he sighed deeply in spirit for their infidelity Mark 8. 12. and Christ was often his own aflicter with soul-sorrows so in Job 13. 21. and from hence I infer that he was his own afflicter very often as I have shewed more at large in chap. 16. at Reply 10. And to this purpose I lately cited Damasen for Christs voluntary soul-troubles in his Agony And unto him I will add Beda Jesus hungred saith he it is true but because he would he slept it is true but because See Beda in Ioh. 11. he would he sorrowed it is true but because he would he died it is true but because he would Ibidem The affections of mans infirmity Christ
took unto him not by any bond of necessity but by the good pleasure of his mercy as he did flesh and death it self Wherefore his death was truly free and not forced because he had power to lay down his soul and to take it up again From these words of Beda which accord with Damasen and other ancient Divines we may see that they held it to be an evident truth that Christ was often his own afflicter with soul-sorrows and to that end he voluntarily took unto him our infirmities of fear sorrow c. they were not pressed from him from the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton holds And saith Beda his death was truly free and not forced therefore especially in the last act of his death he was the onely active Priest in breathing out or sending out his soul from his body But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. And in this case Christ was his own Executioner which last saith he the Dialogue it self expresly rejecteth Reply 20. There is good reason to reject it for though God commanded Christ in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our infirmities to enter the Lists with his envious Combater Satan and also permitted Satan to enter the Lists with Christ and to assault him with a Band of Souldiers Christ was not his own executioner or self-murderer though he was the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice with staves and swords yet he did not command Christ to take any of these weapons from them and run them into his own body on purpose to kill himself that so he might be his own executioner as Saul was to prevent the ignominious usage of his Adversaries this kind of killing is Diabolical and Christ might not be his own executioner in any such like manner therefore the Dialogue had good reason to reject that kind of Tenent The Dialogue saith thus in p. 102. Though he did not break his own body and pour out his own blood with nails and spear as the Roman Souldiers did yet he brake his own body in peeces by separating his own soul from his body by his own Priestly power And thus Beza makes Christ to break his hody actively as well as passively But it is a prophane expression to compare the act of a Priest in killing a sacrifice to the act of an executioner that puts a malefactor to death and it is a like prophane expression to call such a death Self-murder or Homicide If Abraham had formally killed Isaack as he intended yet he had not been Isaacks murderer no nor yet his executioner according to the known use of the word neither was Isaack to be called a Self-murtherer or a Homicide being now thirty three years old and therfore able to have resisted his Father in submitting himself to be bound and to be laid on See Beza Annot on 1 Cor. 11. 24. And Haymo there also the Altar to be killed But in that act we see how God esteemed it for in that act Abraham should have been the Priest and Isaack the Sacrifice And so ought we to esteem of the act of Christ in his death in his Divine nature he was the Priest and in his humane nature he was the Sacrifice as the Dialogue saith or thus by the joynt concurrence of both his natures he was both Priest and Sacrifice But saith Mr. Norton in p. 84. Though Haman according to the true sense of the Text Ester 8. 7. be said to lay his hand upon the Jews yet are the Jews no where said to be slain by Haman Abraham is said to have offered up Isaack yet Isaack is said no where to be slain by Abraham as Abraham did sacrifice Isaack so was Isaack sacrificed that is to say interpretatively or vertually not actually Reply 21. Those instances in the Dialogue in p. 100. are more clearly expressed than they are related by Mr. Norton and the intent of those instances was no more but this namely to exemplifie that though the Jews are said to kill Christ yet that they did not formally separate his soul from his body though they did enough to make themselves true murderers of the Lord of life but the last act was done by himself as he was the Priest in his own death But saith Mr. Norton in p. 85. How oft do we read in Scripture that Christ was actually crucified and put to death by the Jews Act. 2. 37. and 4 10. 1 Cor. 2. 8. Reply 22. I grant the Scripture doth often say that the Jews did slay and murder the Lord of life but saith the Geneva note on Act. 2. 23. on the word you have slain The fact is said to be theirs by whose counsel and egging forward it was done By this note it appeareth that in their judgement Christ was not actually put to death by the Jews but vertually onely and so Isaack is said to have been offered up by Abraham in the Preter-tense so the new Translation in Jam. 2. 21. because he did really intend and endeavor to do it So then I hope the Dialogue saich true notwithstanding Mr. Nortons busling contradiction namely that the Jews did not put Christ to death formally But in case he was put to death formally by second causes then it follows that it was done by the Devil in the Roman powers for they had the power of life and death at this time and not the Jews as I have shewed at large in the Dialogue the Jews and Romans were true murtherers but not the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice This distinction of his death is contemned by Mr. Norton But it is a very harsh saying in mine ears to say That the Devil in the Roman powers was the Priest in the formality of Christs death and sacrifice as they must bee if they were the formal cause of Christs death and to me it is as hard a speech to say That the wrath of God the Father was the formal cause of Christs death as some say it was and as Mr. Norton saith also sometimes in true effect for in page 79 he saith That Christs death was joyned with the curse made up of the pain of sense and the pain of loss and in page 70 he saith It is a fiction to assert any divine prediction That Christ should only suffer a bodily death and presently after he saith Christ dyed as a sinner impuratively pressed under the sense of the wrath of God and conflicting with eternal death Hence I reason thus If the wrath of God the Father did put Christ to death formally then the Father was the Priest in the death and sacrifice of Christ which is quite contrary to Gods own established order for by his oath hee made Christ an unchangeable Priest that so hee might bee the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice Heb. 7. 21. Christ was not by nature obnoxious to death nor to any other misery but by Covenant
only and therefore second causes could not further work his misery and death than he gave way to according to his own voluntary Covenant he covenanted to take our nature and infirmities and in that nature to enter the Lists with Satan and that Satan should have full liberty to do to him all the mischief that he could even to the peircing of him in the foot-soals but he also covenanted that no man nor power of Satan should take his life from him formally but that himself would be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and according to this Covenant God commanded him to lay down his own life and to take it up again Joh. 10. 17 18. But the main Argument of the Dialogue M. Norton passeth over never speaks to it first or last which is this He that takes away the life of a Sacrifice must be a Priest but the death of Christ was a Sacrifice therefore he that takes away his life formally must be the Priest Hence the Dialogue infers that the Roman Souldiers did not take away his life formally because they were Executioners rather than Priests neither did his Fathers wrath take away his life formally because he was not the Priest and none was ordained to be the Priest but Christ himself and therefore none but he must take away his life formally Mr. Norton should have answered this Argument but he passeth by this and pleads that Christs suffering of the essential curse of Hell-torments was full satisfaction and thence he must also hold that Hell-torments did put Christ to death formally for there is no satisfaction without the formality of Christs death Heb. 9. 25. Rom. 5. 10. But saith Mr. Norton in page 169. It is a daring Assertion when there is not one Text nor I beleeve one Classical Author who assirmeth that Christ as the next and formal cause shed his blood but on the contrar plentiful Texts and Testimondes that he was put to death killed and slain and that by the Jews Luke 18. 33. 1 Pet. 3. 18. Mar. 12. 8. Act. 3. 15. 1 Thess 3. 15. Jam. 5. 6. Act. 2. 23. Rev. 5. 6. 9. 12. and 6 9. to contradict not only the godly whether learned or unlearned both of the present and all past Generations since the Passion of our Lord Jesus But also the Scriptures themselves in saying The Jews did not actually put Christ to death Reply 23. I have shewed immediately afore that though the Scriptures do charge the Jews with murthering the Lord of life yet that Christ was not actually put to death by their power and so saith the Geneva Note on Act. 2. 23. 2 I will now cite a Jury of Classical Authors some ancient and some later that concur with the Dialogue That Christ was the only Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice 1 Athanasius cont Arianos Orat. 4. saith To have power to lay down his soul when he would and to take it again this is not the property of men but it is the power of the Son of God for no man dyeth by his own power but by necessity of nature and that against his will but Christ being God had it in his own power to separate his soul from his body and to resume the same again when hee would 2 Origen in Joh. Tom. 9. saith Doth not the Lord affirm a thing that was singular to him above all that ever were in the flesh when he saith None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self and have power to lay it Joh. 10. 17 18. down and power to take it again Let us consider what he meaneth who left his body and departed from it without any way-leading to death This neither Moses nor any of the Patriarchs Prophets or Apostles did say besides Jesus for if Christ had dyed as the Theeves did that were crucified with him he could not have said That he laid down his soul of himself but after the manner of such as dye but now Jesus crying with a strong voyce gave up the ghost and as a King left his body his power greatly appeared in this that at his own free power and will leaving his body he dyed 3 Gregory Nyssenus de Resur Chr. Orat. 1. saith Remember the Lords words what he pronounceth of himself of whom dependeth all power how with full and sovereign power and not by necessity of nature he severed his soul from his body as he said None taketh my soul from me but I lay it down of my self I have power to lay it down and power to take it up again 4 Turtullian de Resur carnis cap. 48. saith thus The Lord though he carried about a soul fearing unto death yet not falling by death 5 Jerom in Mar. 15. saith With a faint voyce or rather speechless we dye that are of the earth but he which came from heaven breathed out his soul with a loud voyce Ibid. ad Hedibiam Q. 8. Wee must say it was a shew of his divine power to lay down his soul when he would and to take it again yea the Centurion hearing him say Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and streight way of his own accord to send forth his spirit moved with the greatness of his wonder said Truly this was the Son of God 6 Chrysostome in Mat. 27. Homil. 89. saith Therefore Christ cryed with a loud voyce that hee might shew this to be done by his own power Mark saith That Pilate marvelled if he were already dead and the Centurion also therefore chiefly beleeved because he saw Christ dye of his own accord and power 7 Victor of Antioch in Mar. 15. saith By so doing the Lord Jesus doth plainly declare that he had his whole life and death in his own free power wherefore Mark saith that Pilate not without admiration asked if Christ were already dead he addeth likewise that the Centurion chiefly for that reason beleeved because hee saw Christ give up the ghost with a loud cry and signification of great power 8 Leo in Ser. 17. de Passi Domini saith What intreaty for life shall wee think was there where the soul was both sent out with power and recalled with power 9 Fulgentius ad Transimund lib. 3. saith Where then the man Christ received so much power that he might lay down his soul when he would and take it again when he would how great power might the God-head of Christ have And therefore the manhood of Christ had power to lay down his soul because the divine power admitted him into the unity of person 10 Nonius in his Paraphrase on John on these words None taketh my soul from me saith No birth-Law taketh my soul from me no incroaching time that tameth all things nor necessity which is unchangeable counsel but ruler of my self I of my own accord yeeld up my willing soul 11 Beda on these words in Matth. 27. And Jesus crying with a loud voyce sent
do but he willingly yeelded up his life when he could have lived longer if he would Joh. 10. 18. 24 Dr. Ames in his Marrow on the death of Christ c. 22. comes near unto the former for in Sect. 27. he saith That Christs death was in a certain manner supernatural and miraculous because Christ did keep his life and strength as long as he would and when he would he laid it down Joh. 10. 18. And in Sect 2. he saith it was an act and not a meer suffering c. out of power and not out of infirmity onely 25 Calvin on Joh. 10. 18. saith These words may be expounded two manner of wayes First That either Christ putteth his life from him himself remaining perfect as if a man should put off his cloathes Or else secondly That he died of his own accord The first of these two ways is active and the similitude as if a man put off his cloaths I conceive is borrowed either from Austin or from Bernard for both of them use this similitude to set out the active separating of the soul of Christ from his body 26 John White of Dorchester in his Way to the Tree of Life page 186. saith at lastly When he was nailed to the Cross hee voluntarily breathed out his soul into the bosom of his Father as it is evident both in that he was dead a good space before the two Theeves that were crucified with him whereas by reason of the strength of the natural constitution of his body he might have subsisted under those torments longer than they and besides by yeelding up his life when it was yet whole in him as it evidently appeared by his loud cry which he uttered at the very instant of his death as it is testified by Mar. 15. 37 39 and by Luk. 23. 46. All which are undeniable evidences of our Saviors voluntary resigning up Luk. 23. 46. and laying down his life according to the will of his Father for his peoples sins And Mr. Perkins on the Creed p. 141. agreeth thus far That the state and condition of our Saviours body on the Cross was such that he might have lived longer yet saith he by the Council of God he must to die at that place at that time and at that hour where and when he died And saith the Dialogue in p. 97. The Angel Gabriel was sent to tell Daniel at the time of the Evening Oblation that from that very hour to the death of Christ should be 490 yeers exactly cut out Dan. 9. 24. 27 John Trap in Matth. 27. 46. saith thus Jesus cried with a loud voyce therefore saith he he laid down his life at his own pleasure for by his loud out-cry it appeared that he could have lived longer if he had listed for any decay of nature under those exquisite torments that he suffered in his body but much greater in his soul And saith Trap in Joh. 19. 33. He took his own time to die Joh. 19. 33. and therefore in vers 30. it is said He bowed his head and gave up the Ghost Whereas other men bow not the head until they have given up the Ghost And saith he he cried also with a loud voyce and dyed which shewes that hee wanted not strength of nature to have lived longer if it had pleased him 28 I might cite the words of Dr. Williams to this purpose in his Seven golden Candlesticks pag. 492. in Quarto And I could also cite divers others that speak to this effect But I hope the Judicious will think that these are sufficient to vindicate the Dialogue from Mr. Nortons over-bold and false charge But saith Mr. Norton in p. 171. Such as hold that Christ died of himself do also hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the essential curse the one opposeth not the other Reply 24. I grant that about four or five of the last cited Divines did hold so No full satisfaction was made by any thing that Christ suffered before his death was com But I say also that had they been put to answer this Question Whether did the formality of Christs satisfaction lie in his greatest sufferings before he gave up the Ghost or in the formality of his death by giving up the Ghost They would soon have answered That no formality of satisfaction was made by any thing that he suffered until he gave up the ghost in perfection of obedience by his own Priestly power and the reason is plain because his death must be made a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods attonement and there can bee no formality of a sacrifice but by giving up the ghost or in case any shall deny this Answer I beleeve they will intangle themselves in other inconveniences that they cannot escape as long as they deny the said Answer 2 I say further That the one doth most evidently oppose the other namely in the formality of satisfaction for in case Sometimes Mr. Norton doth place the formality of satisfaction in Christs spiritual death as it accompanied his bodily death and sometimes contradicts that and affirms that Christ made full satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell before he suffered his natural death Christ had made full and formal satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell before his death was compleated as Mr. Norton doth sometimes most unadvisedly affirm then the formality of his death and sacrifice was altogether needless as to the point of satisfaction which is high blasphemy to affirm Sometimes indeed Mr. Norton doth joyn his spiritual death and his bodily death together in the point of satisfaction as if his bodily death was caused by his spiritual death as in pag. 122 153 174 213 c. And thus he makes Christ to dye in a cloud for he makes the soul of Christ to depart out of his body under the cloud of Gods vindicative wrath when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit But in page 32. he doth contradict this for there he saith That Christ suffered the essential penal wrath of God which saith he doth answer the suffering of the second death before he suffered his natural death And saith he in page 150. Christ offered himself before his humane nature was dissolved by death In both these places you see that he doth hold That Christ made full satisfaction before he suffered his natural death for so he doth falsely call the death of Christ And hence it follows that he doth most dangerously affirm that his bodily death in the formality of it was altogether vain and needless as to the point of satisfaction as I have once before noted it in Chap. 4. page 79. And saith another learned Divine This reason drawn from the final cause of Christs sufferings is most derogatory to the infinit worth of Christs bloody sacrifice On the other hand when hee makes him to dye formally under the immediate vindictive wrath of God Hee makes the Father to be the
lay it down and power to take it up again This Commandement have I received of my Father Joh. 10. 17 18. Joh. 10. 17 18. And hence I reason thus If Christ received this Commandement from his Father then doubtless his Father had covenanted that he should be the only Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice and that he would accept it as the full price of mans Redemption 3 I have often shewed that Christs humane nature was so perfect that it was priviledged from our natural death and sufferings and that his death and sufferings was undertaken only by his voluntary Covenant and that Covenant made it upon performance according to the Articles to be the full price of mans Redemption These 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 ignominous 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 Manage 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. Psol 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 Job 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
it was of a transcendent nature and therefore with great admiration he said Truly this man was the Son of God Col. 1. 21 22. What other death can the Apostle mean did God ordain to reconcile us to God but the death of his flesh and not the spiritual death of his immortal soul as Mr. Norton saith Fifthly It is also evident by the New Testament that Gods Reconciliation or Attonement procured by the death of Christ doth make beleeving sinners holy and righteous as in Col. 1. 21 22. You that were enemies he hath now reconciled in the body of his flâ—sh through death to present you holy and without blemish and spotless in his sight as Bro. reads it Hence it is evident that Gods Reconciliation or his forgiveness by his Reconciliation doth make a beleeving sinner not onely without blemish and spotless but holy also And so the word sanctifie and cleanse in Ephes 5. 27. is synonimos with the word holy and without blemish in the same verse Sixthly I pray note this also That the holiness of Christs person cannot be imputed to us for our formal holiness as it is affirmed by some unless it could be proved that God doth first make us one with Christ in the personal unity of both his natures as the Dialogue doth reason the case in p. 146. And so Mr. Baxter doth reason with Molinaeus in p. 183. Christs Righteousness formally saith he is incommunicable to any other our union with Christ saith he makes us not the same person with him to be the same subject of the same accident Righteousness This Section I have added onely by way of Parenthesi Seventhly Seeing it is acknowledged that perfection doth consist in action and seeing it is also acknowledged that the perfection of all Christs obedience was to be evidenced not onely by his perfect patience in all his sufferings from his Combater Satan but especially in the formality of his death and sacrifice why should it not be formally done by his own priestly action And why then doth Mr. Norton detract so much from the perfection of his Priestly action in the formality of his death and sacrifice by ascribing the formality of it to physical causes onely as his words repeated a little before do testifie But saith Mr. Norton in p. 83. The Scripture mentioneth no other death than what is inflicted justly for sin c. Reply 28. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton should detract so much from the perfection of Christs Priestly action in making his death to be a sacrifice as to make it to be nothing else but a co-acted death according to Gods sentence denounced on fallen Adam as the punishment of his original sin in Gen. 3. 19. For as Lupset saith well In our death the body doth in a manner leave the soul before the soul leaveth the body For saith he it is the body by it self forsaking life that causeth the soul to depart Hence I infer What perfection of Christs Priestly active obedience can there be in such a kind of forced death as this is But on the other hand look upon the death of Christ as it was to be made a sacrifice in the formality of it by his own Priestly power and then we may see it to be a death of Covenant onely and so consequently to be an active mediatorial death and sacrifice because hee must bee our Mediator in his death But in Reply 16. I have spoken more fully to this objection Therefore for a conclusion I will yet once more distinguish upon the death of Christ 1 The long action of his bloody combate with Satan and his Instruments gave the name to his being killed and slain 2 His last short act in breathing our sending out or puting out his immortal spirit when he cried with a loud voyce Father into thy hands I commend my spirit gave the name of formality to his death and sacrifice by his own Priestly power When Christ said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. he did not breath out his soul through the decay of his natural spirits as the Saints do when they say the same words as in Psal 31. 5. Nor as Stephen did when he said Lord Jesus receive Psa 31. 5. my spirit Act. 7. 59. For their death is co-acted by Gods Justice on original sin Gen. 3. 19. But Christ made it evident that his death was not co-acted by weakness of Nature by his crying out with a loud voyce when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and at that instant gave up the Ghost by which loud out-cry he made it evident that he was in full strength of nature when he died as it is noted before by Mr. White of Dorchester and by Mr. Trap and others and this last act gave the formality 1 To his Obedience 2 To his Death and Sacrifice 3 To the price of full satisfaction For as I have formerly shewed from Exod. 30. 12. It was Gods voluntary Covenant that Exod. 30. 12 15 16. The death of Christ as it was made a sacrifice of reconciliation by the voluntary Covenant between the Trinity was the full price of mans redemption made the half shekels to be the full price for the redemption of the lives of the Israelites and this price was imployed or part of it at least to buy publick Sacrifices which were ordained to make an Attonement for their lives as I have opened it in the Dialogue p. 86. namely this price was accounted by God to be in the place and in the stead of their lives as vers 15 and 16. doth declare And thus their lives were redeemed with a price and yet materially it was not the full price of their lives but formally it was the full price of their lives by vertue of Gods free Covenant In like sort Gods voluntary Covenant and Decree made the obedience of Christ in his Combate of sufferings and in the formality of his death and sacrifice to be the full price of the redemption of all the elect Israel of God namely in their place and stead But saith Mr. Norton in page 143. No â—ice can dispence in case of the Antitype Reply 29. And why not Is God by necessity of nature bound to punish sin to the utmost extent of his Justice Is not he a Supreme to do with his own what he pleaseth The Lord in mercy open his eyes and all our eyes to see better into the force of Gods voluntary Covenant for it is his voluntary positive Law and Covenant that doth make any thing to bee a full formal price in his own sight and on the contrary that nothing that is never so valuable in our eyes can be made a ful price formally in his esteem without his voluntary positive Law and Covenant doth concur thereto Conclusions from my several Replyes to the said third Question 1 Hence it follows That God did not forsake Christ in the formality of
notwithstanding freely grant that he undertook our cause as our voluntary Surety according to the voluntary Covenant and that he took our sins on him thus far namely to make expiation for them and to enter the Lists with Sathan and to suffer the punishments of our sins before hee made his Sacrifice as I have instanced in the punishments that men do voluntarily undergo when they strive for the Mastery with their opposite Champion 2 Hence it follows by the right Translation and Exposition of Isa 53. 6. and Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant made between the Trinity for mans Redemption by the sufferings It is evident by Isa 53 6. by Jer. 30. 21. that there pâ—ssed a Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity for mans Redemption and by the death and sacrifice of Christ Mr. Rutherford of the Covenant proves by eleven Arguments in page 290. and by a twelfth Argument in page 307. and by a thirteenth Argument in page 316. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity The Dialogue saith thus in page 28. The true manner how the Lord laid all our sins upon Christ in Isa 53. 6. was after the same manner as the Lord laid the sins of Israel upon the Priest and Sacrifice and no otherwise as in Exod. 28. 38. and in Lev. 10. 17. Mr. Norton doth answer in page 43. Whatsoever your words are we presume your meaning is That the Types instanced in did not typically hold forth any imputation of sin to Christ the Antitype Reply 1. The meaning of the Dialogue is plain namely that Christ bare our sins as the typical Priest and Sacrifice did bear the sins of Israel And the Priests are said to bear all their sins because they offered publick sacrifices to procure a legal Attonement for the sins of all Israel and so Christ bare our sins because hee made his soul a Sacrifice by his Priestly power by which he procured his Fathers Attonement for all our sins formally 2 In the Dialogue in page 25. I have shewed how Christ may be said to bear our sins several other wayes and yet not as a guilty sinner by a formal legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds But saith Mr. Norton in page 44. Put case you produce a Type which holdeth not forth bearing of sin by imputation in the Antitype except it may appear that the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended you conclude nothing Reply 2. The Dialogues instances do make it appear plain enough to the willing to bee informed That the manner of Christs bearing sin was thereby fully intended but to a byassed spirit it is not easie to be done Let the Reader peruse the Dialogue and then judge But saith Mr. Norton in page 44. It is very true God laid our sins upon Christ as upon our Sacrifice Isa 53. 12. Therefore say we by Imputation Reply 3. He doth acknowledge it to bee a truth that God laid our sins upon Christ as upon our Sacrifice therefore say wee not by Mr. Nortons kind of imputation for his kind of imputation is not to be found in the typical sacrifices but the true manner of Christs bearing our sins as our Priestly Mediator may be found because it was typified by the Priests eating of the peoples Sin-offering as Mediators in the holy place as the Dialogue hath truly expounded Lev. 10. 17. for their eating signified such a communion as Mediators must have between both parties in the work of Attonement And secondly The Lord laid all our sins upon Christ as upon our sacrifice and this is elegantly expressed by Isaiah Hee poured out his soul to death and bare the sin of many and made intercession for transgressors Isa 53. 12. All these three terms saith the Dialogue are Synonima's But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. Synonima's are divers words signifying the same thing but death bearing sin and intercession are doubtlesse divers things though they concur as ingredients to the same Mediatorship Reply 4. I cannot find any thing in this answer to confute the Synonimas expressed by the Dialogue I think this answer is meerly intended to amuse the Reader The Dialogue shews plainly that all these three terms are metaphorical Synonimas being all joyned together in this Text to declare unto us the true manner how how the Lord made Christ to bear all our sins as our Sacrifice 1 His death is put for his sacrifice 2 His sacrifice bears all our sins from us because it procures Gods Attonement 3 By the eternal efficacy of his Death and Sacrifice he makes continual intercession for us and so hee doth still bear our sins by his continual interceding Gods Attonement And thus all these terms are Synonimas and to this I shall speak more fully in Reply 18. But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. The force of this Reason is that Christs sacrifice was effectual to procure Attonement therefore sin was not imputed to him A meer non sequitur Nay the contrary consequence is true Christ saith hee appeared that is Was manifested in the flesh to put away sin Heb. 9. 26. was once offered to bear the sins of the many verse 28. The Greek word here used by Paul and elsewhere by Peter 1 Pet. 2. 24. signifies to take carry or bear up on high and that so as to bear away and this is an allusion to the Rite of the whole Burnt-offering Reply 5. In this Answer Mr. Norton labors to prove that Christ bare our sins by Gods imputation by Heb. 9. 26. 28. Heb. 9. 26. 28 Christ appeared that is saith he was manifested in the flesh hee little minded the Context in saying that his appearing here did signifie his manifesting in the flesh for it is easie to bee discerned that his appearing here doth signifie his appearing before Dan. 9. 24. God with his sacrifice for sin and that was three and thirty yeers after his first appearing in the flesh as I noted Christ put away sin namely all Sin offerings by his being made the only true Sacrifice for sin from his approaching unto God in the beginning of this Chapter by which hee put away sin namely all Sin-offerings according to that in Dan. 9. 24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy City to finish Trespasse offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make reconciliation for iniquity as the meritorious cause and so to bring in an everlasting Righteousness instead of the ceremonial as our money brings in our cloathing and then it follows in Pauls next words That Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many this Greek word to bear here used by Paul and elsewhere by Peter saith Mr. Norton signifies to take carry or bear up on high and that so as to bear away now apply his Rule in page 44. to what he saith here and there hee answers himself to what hee reasons here Put case saith he you produce a Type which holdeth not
wills because we are tyed to the debt of induring punishment by the condition of our sin but he that was intangled with no fault could not bee bound to any penalty by necessity yet because he subdued our sin by reigning over it in mercy and pity to us hee undertook our punishment as himself saith I have power to lay down my soul no man taketh it from me I have power to lay it down of my self In these words hee contradicts Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as if he had purposely directed his speech against him 12 Of our two deaths saith Bernard whereof one was the Ad milites Templi c. 11. desert of sin namely our spiritual death in sin the other the due punishment namely bodily death as the punishment of original sin Christ taking our punishment but clear from sin whiles hee dyed willingly and only in body hee meriteth for us life and righteousnesse Hee writes against Mr. Nortons imputation of guilt as the obligation to Christs suffering Hell-torments as if hee had seen his book Ibidem Had not Christ dyed voluntarily his death saith he had not been meritorious how much more unworthily hee dyed that had not deserved death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wile ask is this That an Innocent should dye for a Malefactor It is no justice it is mercy if it were justice then should hee not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed hee should dye but the other for whom hee dyed should not live yet though it bee not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not bee both just and merciful If the Reader please but to review the several speeches of Mr. Norton about the imputation of our sins to Christ as I have set them down in the sixth Chapter and compare them with these words of Bernard he may see as direct an opposition as is possible Hence I conclude That the ancient Divines from Irenaeus to Bernard which is neer a thousand yeers space were unacquainted with Mr. Nortons kind of imputing our sins to Christ to make him guilty of his death and sufferings and therefore his kind of imputation is a doctrine but of late dayes SECT V. The second thing to bee examined in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is touching the word Righteousnesse which Mr. Norton in his comparative Argument doth make to be the Righteousnesse of Christ BUt I have already shewed that this word Righteousnesse is not meant of Christs Righteousnesse but of God the Fathers Righteousnesse for God the Father is righteous in keeping Covenant with Christ the Mediator for the reconciliation of sinners as well as Christ was righteous in performing the Covenant on his part which was to make his soul a sacrifice for their reconciliation The Covenant between the Trinity was to redeem the Elect from Sathans Head-plot Christ undertook the office of a Mediatorial Pâ—iest First to combaâ—e with Sathan Gods forgivenesse is the formal cause of a sinners righteousnesse And secondly to make his soul a sacrifice of reconciliation and the performance of this is called his Righteousnesse in Rom. 5. 18. And secondly God the Father covenanted to bee reconciled and so to pardon the sins of the Elect as soon as they are in Christ and his performance of this is here called The Righteousnesse of God the Father And thirdly The Holy Ghost covenanted to unite the Elect unto Christ that so they might bee the fit subjects of the said Righteousnesse 2 I grant that the righteousnesse of God may bee distinguished into many other senses as Mr. Wotton hath shewed de Reconcil pec part 2. l. 1. c. 20. n. 3. which several senses must bee considered according to the context in each place where it is used but in this place Gods reconciling the world to himself by not imputing their sins to them as it is expressed in verse 19. is called the righteousnesse of God in this 21. verse because it is the performance of his condition with the Mediator for the compleating of a sinners righeousnesse that is in Christ The Reconciliation mentioned saith Mr. Ball in 2 Cor. 5. 19. is explained by the non-imputation or remission of sins at Ball on the Covenant p. 219. least saith he it is one part or branch of Reconciliation which is a transient act conferred in time and inferreth a change of state and condition in the party justified or reconciled and of other reconciliation betwixt God and man the Scripture speaketh not In these words the Reader may please to take notice that Mr. Ball doth make the non-imputation of sin to be all one with justification in the party justified or reconciled and so hee makes justification to bee the first part or branch of reconciliation as Mr. Wotton doth And saith Mr. Ball in page 219. The Apostle in Rom. 5. 9 10. puts reconciliation by the death of the Son of God and justification Rom. 5. 9 10. by Christs blood for the same thing merited by Christs sacrifice These observations out of Mr. Ball may advise us that Gods righteousnesse procured by the Sin sacrifice of Christ in v. 21. is the same or at least a branch of the same reconciliation of God which the Apostle hath defined in verse 19. by his not imputing sin and the performance of that reconciliation or non-imputation of sin on Gods part for the sake of Christs Sin-sacrifice is called the righteousnesse of God the Father in this 21. verse and this exposition of the righteousnesse of God any indifferent Reader may see to be cleerly meant by the context though I should say no more But I will yet further evievidence that this exposition of Gods righteousnesse is no new upstart exposition but that it hath the concurrence and countenance of other eminent orthodox Divines 1 Peter Martyr in Rom. 10. 3. saith thus Now resteth to see what is the righteousnesse of God and it may thus be defined It is an Absolution from sins by faith through Christ And saith he that we may the better understand the nature of this Absolution we must on the other side weigh the nature of sin Sin is a defect or falling away from the Law and Will of God And to this defect is necessarily annexed an obligation to eternal death and damnation Wherefore when by the mercy of God this obligation and guiltinesse is taken away A man is absolved from his sins Ibidem Now by these things saith he it is manifest what Absolution is It is an action of God the Father whereby he delivereth and acquitteth us from sins that is from guiltinesse and obligation to eternal death But saith he in the second place that we should not think that so great benefit cometh through our desert therefore it is added through Christ And saith he in the third place that wee should not bee ignorant how the sacrifice and redemption of Christ is applyed to every one of us it is added