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
p. 211 No Scripture rightly interpreted doth make our sins to be formally imputed to Christ namely not by Gods legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds p. 212 Mans Law doth not allow Sureties for capital crimes p. 216 The imputation of our sins to Christ as it is asserted by Mr. Norton is a doctrine but of late daies p. 222 Christ did impute our sins to himself to make himself a guilty sinner as much as ever his father did ibid. SECT 4. Gods forgiveness is the formal cause of a sinners righteousness p. 228 * Add this Note to p. 231. at Rom. 3. 26. in line 15. And further saith P. Martyr on the Romans p. 318. as differentia maketh the nature or kind so the righteousuess of God maketh our Justification for when we are by him absolved from sin we are justified And saith he in p. 367. B. God justifieth in absolving us from our sins and ascribing and ascribing and imputing to us righteousness and saith he this word Hitsadik is a word taken of the Law and appertaineth to Judgements and so to justifie is by judgement And saith he forasmuch as there are two significations of this word Justifie namely either indeed or in account and estimation for God is the Author of either of them whether of these two shall we follow in the point of Justification proposed Forsooth saith he the latter namely that God doth justifie by account and estimation and this I suppose saith he is sufficient touching the declaration of this word Justification And saith he in answer to the Council of Trent in p. 388. b. The formal cause is the Justice of God not that Justice whereby himself is just but that which he communicateth to us whereby we are truly both counted just and also are so indeed For Paul affirmeth that Justification doth consist herein that our sins are forgiven us and that they are no more imputed to us And saith he in p. 410 The disputation is not about any Righteousness that cleaveth unto us but about Justification which is the forgiveness of sins But this Righteousness saith he hath no place or seat in our minds but in God onely by whose will onely our sins are forgiven us These speeches taken from him on the 10 and 11 chap. of the Romans must needs be his last and most refined expressions of the Formal cause and he doth also apply the imputation of Christs Righteousness to the meritorious cause as I apprehend by comparing his whole drift together or else he should cross his said definition of the Righteousness of God Reconciliation hath two parts namely Justification and Adoption or thus Gods gracious pardon is the whole of Reconciliation p. 233 in p. H hat 3. and in p. 253 Sacrifices of Attonement and washings from legal uncleanness were ordained for their outward ceremonial Justification from their ceremonial sins under the first Covenant and so it was a lively type of our true justification in Gods sight under the Now Covenants p. 235 * Add this Note to p. 239. at 5. Dicaioma was used by the Seventy for the Jews outward justiâ—â—cation in observing their judicial Laws as well as of their ceremonial Rites And so also this word Dicaioma is applyed to the Heathen Judicials in Rom. 1. 32. And saith Dr. Willet on that verse this word Dicaioma is not there meant of the moral Law as some Interpreters do expound it but of the judicial Laws of the Heathens and again it is sometimes applied as a proper word to denote either their judicial Laws or their religious though idolatrous Rites as in 1 Mac. 1. 14 51 and 2 Mac. 2. 21. The Jews after their Prophets ceased abused the use of their typical and ceremonial Justifications by the works of the first Covenant to claim thereby an eternal justification in Gods fight p. 245 The material cause of Justification disputed and explained p. 248 Reconciliation or Attonement described both in the meritorious and formal causes p. 251 252 255 137 191 * Add this Note to p. 252. Mr. Ainsworth in Lev. 8. 30. and in other places also doth agree with the Dialogue in making Attonement to be a term Synonima to justification in the formal cause of it and so doth Peter Martyr often as in Rom. p. 228. Herein saith he consisteth our justification to have our sins forgiven us and to bee reconciled to God And so Calvin speaks often as in Inst b. 3. c. 11. sect 11. They saith he be judged rightâ—ous that be reconciled to God the manner how is declared for that God justifieth by forgiving And saith he in c. 14. sect 17. to touch it by the way this righteousness standeth of reconciliation And saith Tindal in his Prologue to Rom. ult by justifying saith he understand no other thing then to be reconciled to God and to be restored into his favour and to have thy sins forgiven thâ—e c. These and sundry others do accord with the Dialogue that Reconciliation which is the same with Attonement is the formal part of justification Price That only ought to be called the full price of mans Redemption that was constituted to be accepted of grace as the full and formal price by Gods voluntary positive Covenant p. 256 221 267 77 202 * Add this Note to p. 259. at the word Caphar and also to p. 235. Gods Attonement procured is said to sanctifie the sinner because it did justifie him from the guilt of all his sins and so the word Sanctified must be understood in Act. 26. 18. of being made extrinsecally sanctified as it is in Heb. 10. 10 14. and so the word purified in Act. 15 9. must be understood of their being purified from the guilt of their sins or of their being made rightâ—ous by justification as Peter Martyr on the Rom. p. 392. and others do explain it for this Text is an answer to the question touching the necessity of Circumcision and of their other legal purifyings for the false Apostles esteemed the beleeving Gentiles to be unclean unless they did observe their legal purifyings Act. 10. 14. 15. 24 28. so likewise the word Cleansed in 1 Joh. 1. 7. and in Tit. 2. 14. is put for their being cleansed from the guilt of their sins by Gods Attonement or for their being justified and not for their inherent sanctity though it is also true that none are justified or made extrinsecally righteous and holy by Gods Attonement until they be first inherently sanctified Peter Martyr in Rom. 1. 6 7. on these words Called to be Saints saith If we will search out the strength of the signification of the word Sancti that is Saints or holy It cometh saith he as Austin teacheth of this word Sanctiom to Constitute for that saith he is called Holy which is constant and firm and appointed to abide but nothing saith he doth more let us to abide for ever than doth sin therefore it cometh to pass that holiness consisteth chiefly in the forgiveness and
continually charge us with the breach thereof and therefore the debt of punishment due to us for sin is not discharged in full in respect of temporal plagues though it bee discharged in full in respect of eternal condemnation to all that beleeve in the Promisea Seed I say that till the Resurrection all the godly do still suffer for sin both in their life in their death and in their putrifaction in their graves and therefore they do still stand in need of the daily intercession of Christ for the pardon of their sins by the satisfaction of Christ continually presented unto God and in this respect Christ doth stil bear away our sins in heaven by his Priestly intercession as much as ever hee did when he was here upon earth as I noted afore in Reply 4. And this doth plainly shew that the satisfaction of Christ was not Ejusdem but Tantidem If Christ had been our legal Surety to pay the uttermost farthing in kind at his death then our Redemption had been perfect at once but because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it was agreed that wee should have our Redemption but by degrees and therefore wee must still wait for the full redemption of our bodies till the time appointed as I have shewed in Chap. 4. 3 Hence it follows that this legal Court-way in making Christ a legal Surety so liable to suffer the eternal curse from Gods legal imputation c. is none of Gods way in point of satisfaction as I have often noted to have it the better marked and searched into but it was the Devils way to make Christ a legal sinner and to that purpose hee stirred up false witnesse to make a legal proof of his sinful imputations and then hee stirred up Pilate to proceed to a legal condemnation of him to the odious death of the Crosse and hence some infer to admiration that when Pilate sate on his Tribunal God sate on his Tribunal to sentence Christ with the eternal curse as if Pilates Court-proceedings were a type of God the Fathers Court-proceedings but I have oft noted that Gods way was to commissionate Sathan to bee Christs Combater and to afflict him to his utmost skill and that Christ was to win the victory by his constant practice and obedience Conclusion Hence it follows that neither the phrase The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all in Isa 53. 6. nor the phrase of imposing hands on the head of the Sin-offering with confession of sin in Lev. 1. 4. Ex. 29. 10. Lev. 4. 4. and 5. 5 6. and Lev. 16. 21. do prove that God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of any of his sufferings much lesse of suffering Hell-torments as Mr. Norton doth most boldly and groundlesly affirm for all his Scripture proofs are but Scriptures perverted CHAP. XIV 2 Cor. 5. 21. Examined Mr. Norton saith in page 53. That Christ was made sin for us as we were made Rightousnesse that is saith he by judicial imputation without the violation yea with the establishing of justice 2 That Christ was made sin as he was made a curse Gal. 3. 13. the Greek here used and there are the same But saith he he was made a curse by judicial imputation because he was the Sin-offering in truth therefore he was made sin by real imputation as the legal Sin-offering was made sin by typical imputation Reply 1. MR. Nortons first comparative Argument cannot hold firm for these Reasons 1 Because it is not framed to the words of the Text. 2 Because it is not framed to the sense of the Text. 1 It is not framed to the words of the Text because hee makes Christ to bee made sin for us by Gods imputation in the same manner as wee are made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ for hee means it of the righteousnesse of Christ and so hee opens his meaning in page 230. and in other places that we are made righteous by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed but any one that hath eyes in his head may see that the righteousnesse expressed in the Text is called the righteousnesse of God and not the righteousnesse of Christ therefore his Argument is not framed to the words of the Text. And secondly the righteousnesse expressed is not the righteousnesse of God essentially as Mr. Norton makes it to bee in page 230. but the righteousnesse of God the Father personally and yet this nothing hinders but that the justification of beleeving sinners is the work of the Trinity because they have an order of working in the several causes and this is most cleer and evident because the Apostle doth plainly distinguish between God and Christ from verse 19 to the end of verse 21. For saith the Apostle in verse 19. God was in Christ thereby plainly noting two distinct persons I grant that others have The mistaking of the righteousnesse of God for the righteousnesse of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is the cause of an erronious interpretation mistaken the word God for the word Christ before him but had he been well advised hee might have followed some eminent Divines that have more narrowly searched not only into the words but also into the sense of this Text and that have given their grounds for the differencing of the righteousnesse of God from the righteousnesse of Christ and then he might have been better advised then to confound the righteousnesse of God with the righteousnesse of Christ as hee doth without distinction in page 230. and elsewhere But thirdly in case the righteousnesse of God in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in other places had been meant of the righteousnesse of Christ as Mr. Norton doth make it then the Text should have run thus God made him to be sin for us which knew no sin that we might be made the righteousnesse of Christ in him that is to say That we might be made the righteousnesse of Christ in Christ and then according to this interpretation the word God must bee blotted out of the Text and the word Christ put into the place of it But I beleeve that Mr. Norton will abhor to say that the word God must be blotted out to put the word Christ into the place of it and therefore by the same reason hee should abhor to expound the righteousnesse of God to bee no other but the righteousnesse of Christ especially seeing there is as much difference between them in the point of a sinners righteousnesse or justification or reconciliation as there is between the meritorious and formal causes of a sinners justification or reconciliation I grant that Christ is our righteousnesse in the meritorious cause Rom. 5. 18. but I say also that it is God the Fathers righteousnesse that is the formal cause of our righteousnesse 4 Mr. Anthony Wotton doth judiciously demonstrate that the Apostle did not intend any comparison here and he doth also give two reasons why the
that Gretins held the obligation to legal punishments to arise from merit and that merit is personal Secondly It is further evident that Grotius did oppose Mr. Nortons kind of imputation because hee doth oppose the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the formal cause of our justification for thus hee saith The righteousnesse Grotius in his Appendix to God and his Providence p. 8â— 96. and in his War Peace part 1. ch 36. which they call imputative the meer devices of men are thrust upon us instead of divine Dictates And saith hee in his War and Peace The death of Christ was not determined by any Law but by a special Convenant But Mr. Norton holds that both the Incarnation and the Death of Christ was legal obedience quâ—te contrary to Grotius These things considered I cannot but stand and wonder what Mr. Norton will now say to Grotius surely if he will still hold to Grotius then hee must first renounce his own Tenents for Grotius doth fully overthrow both Mr. Nortons comparative Arguments cited in the beginning of this Chapter 7 Hence also it followeth that the imputation of our sins to Christ as it is asserted by Mr. Norton is a Doctrine out of late The imputation of our sinâ— to Châ—ist as is asserteâ— by Mr. Noâ—ton is a doctrine but of late dayes dayes though now it is grown some what common for as it is affirmed by Mr. Wotton it was not known in the dayes of the Ancient Fathers and the Discourse from Grotius formerly cited assirms as much But I will leave the Judicious to inquire further both into the antiquity and verity of it that so the truth may be preserved to succeeding generations 8 The Dialogue doth reason thus If you say that God made Christ to hee sin for us by imputing our sins to him Then from the same kind of phrase you must also say that Christ made himself sin by imputing the guilt of all our sins to himself for I saiah doth tell us that hee for made or put himself to bee Asham a Guilt or a Trespasse foâ— us so the Hebrew Text doth speak in Isa 53. 10. or as the Septuagint translate it He made himself to be sin for us and therefore it follows by the like consequence from this phrase that hee must in like sort in a judicial way inflict upon himself all the curses of the Law that are due to our sins and trespasses To this comparative Argument drawn from the likenesse of the phrase Mr. Norton doth thus answer in page 55. God charged Christ with sin as the supreme Lawgiver and judge Christ accepts the charge of a Surety and so subjects himself to the satisfaction of justice which is the part of a Surety but doth not execute that justice which is the part of a Judge Reply 7. And why doth not Christ execute that vindicative justice upon himself that is the part of a supreme Judge Christ did impute our sins to himself to make himself a guâ—lâ—y sinner as much as evâ—r hâ—s Father diâ— as well as his Father seeing hee doth impute our sins to himself by the same phrase cited as much as the Father doth But the judicious Reader may soon see that Mr. Nortons answer is but an evasion to the Dialogues Argument For the Dialogue in the margent saith thus Christ did impute all our sins and trespasses to himself as much as ever the Father did for Isaiah doth tell us That he set or put himself to be Ashem a Trespasse or a guilt for us or to be sin for us as the Septuagint render it and hence the Dialogue doth make this comparative Argument If God made Christ to bee sin for us by imputing all our sins and trespasses to him as the obligation to his suffering of our curse from Gods vindicative wrath then from the same kind of phrase it doth necessarily follow that Christ made himself to be Asham a Trespasse a guilt or sin by his legal imputing of our sins to himself and so by the same rule of Court-justice hee must likewise in a judicial way inflict the essential torments of Hell upon himself from his vindicative wrath Mr. Norton makes no answer to this Argument but instead thereof hee saith That Christ accepts the charge as a Surety but did not execute that justice which is the part of a Judge but any man may see that by the force of the Argument in the Dialogue that Christ must impute sin to himself and inflict the curse as much as his Father or in case an answer can bee found to excuse Christ from this vindicative act of justice then the same answer will excuse the Father from the said legal imputation of our sins and from his vindicative act of justice also But if this phrase God made him to be sin doth argue that God made Christ a guilty sinner by his imputation then this phrase Christ made himself to be sin will argue that Christ made himself to be a guilty sinner by his own imputation and then hee must execute as a supreme Judge his own vindicative wrath upon himself as well as the Father This absurd consequence saith the Dialogue you cannot avoid And thus saith the Dialogue by this kind of arguing you make Christ to be his own self Accuser and his own self Executioner But the truth is saith the Dialogue Christ did no otherwise make himself to be a Trespasse a a guilt or sin but as hee made himself to be a Trespasse-offering and a Sin-offering by which offering once for all he ended Trespasse offerings and finished Sin offerings and thereby made Reconciliation for iniquity or reconciled God to beleeving sianers and so brought in or proâ—uâ—â—d an eternal Righteousnesse instead of the Ceremonial sanctifications or justifications which served to the purifying of the flesh Dan. 9. 29. SECT IV. I Find also that other eminent Divines do agree with Mr. Wotton and with the Ancient Divines afore cited touching the manner how Christ was made sin for us 1 That blessed Martyr Tindal saith That in Exod. 29. and See Tindals Works in p. 449. and Frith in p. 131. in Lev. 8. and almost every where saith he The Beast offered for sin is called Sin which use of speaking saith hee Paul useth in Rom. 8 3. and in 2 Cor. 5. 21. he calleth Christ Sin when Christ is neither sin nor sinful but an acceptable sacrifice for sin and yet saith he he is called our sin because he bare our sins on his back and because our sins are consumed and made no sins through him If wee forsake our sins and beleeve in Christ for the remission thereof And saith he on Rom. 8. 3. Sin is taken for a Sin-offering after the use of the Hebrew tongue And saith hee in page 160. Christ is no sinner but a satisfaction and an offering for sin And saith hee in page 439. Consider and mark how the Kid or Lamb must bee without spot or blemish
by faith This definition saith he is a great help to the right understanding of justification and this righteousnesse Paul saith Is the righteousnesse of God Ibidem And saith he the Commentaries which are ascribed unto Jerom do herein very well agree They are not subject to the righteousnesse of God that is saith he the absolution of sins And lest wee should in our thoughtâ— mistake the true nature of this righteousnesse of God whereby he makes sinners that are in Christ righteous he gives this special caution to bee marked Ibidem By these things saith he let us gather that this righteousnesse of God is far distant from the righteousnesse that is known by nature for neither Reason nor Philosophy knoweth any other Righteousness but that which hath its abiding in the mind not that they were ignorant of absolution or of the pacifying of God for that thing did their Sacrifices testifie But this pacifying of God they did not call our righteousness neither ever understood they the true pacifying of God nor wherein it consisted Thus far P. Martyr in Rom. 10. 3. he had spoken of the Righteousness of God afore this in Rom. 1. 17. and in Rom. 3. 21. but not so clearly as here these meditations on Rom. 10. 3. were his last meditations on that phrase and therefore his best for by this time he had the advantage of more reading and meditation to clear up his full mind and meaning And see what he saith further of Gods Righteousness which I have cited in the Exposition of Rom. 3. 26. Secondly Mr. Norton de Reconc pec par 2. l. 1. c. 20. saith at Sect. 4. That 2 Cor. 5. 21 doth comprehend the same Righteousness which the Apostle may well say is the end or effect of the oblation of Christ The Righteousness of God And saith he it comprehends the righteousness which may be required to the justification of a sinner And in Sect. 5. saith he in the second place I answer That the righteousness of God in the places alleged may fitly rightly enough be expounded of remission of sins for it is plain enough saith he that in all thesâ— places is handled the formal cause of Justification which saith he I have taught is contained in Remâ—ssion of sins in par 1. l. 2. c. 17. But remission of sins may well be called the righteousness of God because it is a righteousness approved by God And indeed Calv. Insti l. 3. c. 11. n. 9. doth so interpret the righteousness of God to be a righteousness that is approved of God Thirdly Mr. Bale on the Covenant in p. 72. calls the righteousness of God in Phil 3. 9. and in 1 Cor. 5. 21. the remission of sins By the Righteousness of God saith he understand remission of sins and regeneration and consider what he saith in the place immediately cited Fourthly Sedulius in Rom. 3. 21. calls the Righteousness of God there the remission of sins Fifthly Tindal doth thus open the Righteousness of God in Rom. 10. 3. The Jews saith he were not obedient to the Justice or Righteousness that commeth of God which is the Rom. 10. 3. See Tindals works p. 381. forgiveness of sin in Christs blood to all that repent and beleeve And saith he in p. 30. By reason of which false righteousness they were disobedent to the Righteousnesse of God which saith he is the forgiveness of sin in Christs blood And Tindal in his Prologue to the Romans shews first How we are justified by the Righteousness of God the Father Secondly How we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ Thirdly How we are justified by Faith And in all these he speaks just according to the sense expressed in the Dialogue 1 Saith he When I say God justifieth us understand thereby that for Christ his sake merit and deservings onely he receiveth us unto his Mercy Favor and Grace and forgiveth us our sins 2 Saith he When I say Christ justifieth understand thereby that Christ onely hath redeemed us and brought and delivered us out of the wrath of God and damnation and with his works onely hath purchased us the favor of God and the forgiveness of sins 3 When I say that Faith justifieth understand thereby that faith and trust in the Truth of God and in the Mercy promised us for Christs sake and for his deservings onely doth quiet the conscience and certifie her that our sins are forgiven and we in full favor of God And in p. 187. he abreviates the speeches thus In his works p. 187. The faith saith he of true beleevers is First That God justifieth or forgiveth Secondly That Christ deserveth it Thirdly That Faith and trust in Christs blood receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof And in p. 225. he doth again repeat it thus God doth justifie actively that is to say forgiveth us for full righteous 2. Christs love deserveth it And 3. Faith in the Promises receiveth it and certifieth the conscience thereof Thus you see that Tindal doth fully express himself in the very sense of the Dialogue And this Doctrine hath been generally received of the godly in the days of King Henry the eighth and in the days of King Edward the Sixth by the generality of the learned and it hath been often printed not onely in his Books but also in his Bible in his Prologue to the Romans and it hath been transcribed and printed by Marbeck in his Common places though now this antient received Truth is by Mr. Norton and some few others counted both for novelty and heresie And thus have I shewed from five eminent Orthodox Divines that the Righteousness of God the Father to sinners it nothing else but his reconciliation as it is defined by the Apostle by not imputing sin in v. 19. which is also called the Righteousness of God in ver 21. And therefore it follows necessarily that the true sense of the one and twentieth verse according to the context is this 1 That God the Father from the voluntary cause and Covenant made or constituted Christ to be a Sin Sacrifice for us namely to procure Gods Reconciliation for us 2 That the performance of the said Sin-Sacrifice is in Rom. 5. 18. called Dicaioma not Dicaiosune the righteousness of Rom. 5. 18. Christ because it was his obedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant and not because it was his moral obedience as Mr. Norton doth mis-interpret it in p. 230. 3 That God the Father did Covenant on his part to and with Christ that for his Sin-Sacrifice sake he would be râ—conciled to sinners as soon as they are in Christ by Faith by not imputing their sins to them and this performed on God the Fathers part is by the Apostle called the righteousness of God because he performs according to his positive Law and Covenant and by this righteousness of God he is reconciled to all beleeving sinners and so by this means they are thereby made fully righteous in his
is forgiven doth cause an enmity between God and the sinner and till God is reconciled by the Sacrifice of Christ it continues the enmity but then and not till then sin is forgiven and then and not till then God is at rest and is pacified and quieted And for this cause all Sacrifices of Attonement were ordained to procure a savour of a rest unto Jehovah Exod. 22. 18 25 41. Levit. 1. 9. Numb 28. 6 8. Levit. 4. 31. Levit. 17. 6. Numb 15. 3. Ezek. 20. 40 41. But the Septuagint translate it A sweet savour of rest and their phrase the Apostle followeth saying Christ hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a smell of sweet savour Eph. 5. 2. But the smell of Sacrifices broyled in the fire materially considered was no sweet smell but formally considered as they were ordained by Gods positive Covenant to procure his Attonement and as they were types of Christs Sacrifice so only are they said to bee of a sweet-smelling savour because they procure his pardon and so they quiet Gods Spirit as sweet smels do quiet and rejoyce our senses therefore Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent or means of Attonement but a concurrent part of Attonement These Reasons besides what others may bee added do sufficiently prove That Gods gracious forgiveness for the sake of Christs sacrifice is not an antecedent but a true part if it bee not the whole of Gods Reconciliation And secondly These Reasons do prove That it is Gods righteousness to grant his reconciliation to all beleeving sinners for the sake of Christs sacrifice for their formal and eternal righteousness And thirdly Hence it follows that Mr. Nortons conjectures that reconciliation is but a consequent of justification is fallen to the ground 8 This Righteousness of God being thus explained It necessarily follows That such as hold Gods Righteousness in being reconciled to sinners for the satisfaction sake of Christs Sin-sacrifice to bee the formality of a sinners righteousness must needs deny the imputation of Christs moral righteousness to bee the formal cause of a sinners iustification SECT VI. BUt Mr. Norton in p. 268. Doth damn this formal cause for Heresie and to make good his charge he cites Rom. 5. 19. and Phil. 3. 9. intending thereby to prove that the active righteousnes of Christ to the moral Law is imputed to us for our formal righteousness and justification Reply 2. I have but a little before given the true sense of Rom. 5. 19. in a differing sense from the point that Mr. Norton would prove by it And secondly I will now examine his exposition of Phil. 3. 9. And truly I cannot but wonder that he Phil. 3. 9. should cite it to prove the righteousness of Christ as our Surety to the moral Law seeing there is no righteousness of Christ expressed in this Text but the righteousness expressed is plainly called the righteousness of God namely of God the Father just as I have opened the phrase in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and therefore this righteousness of God in Phil. 3. 9. must have the same sense as I have expounded it to have in 2 Cor. 5. 21. And thus you see that hitherto Mr. Norton proofs of Heresie have failed his expectation and on the contrary they do make directly against him But saith Mr. Norton in p. 211. To say that pardon of sin is righteousness it self is to confound the effect with the cause Reply 3. If a meer natural Philosopher had said so it had been the less wonder but that a learned Divine should say so especially after so much light both from German and English Divines that have taken pains to make it evident that Gods gracious pardon is a sinners righteousness is to my apprehensions somewhat strange This righteousness of God saith P. Martyr as I have noted him a little before is far distant from the righteousness that is known by nature for neither Reason nor Philosophy knoweth any other righteousness but that which hath its abiding in the mind not that they were ignorant of absolution or of the pacifying of God for that thing did their sacrifices testifie But saith he this pacifying of God they did not call our righteousness Hence I infer that if Mr. Norton will but sâ—bmit his reason to that peculiar way of justification which God hath constituted onely for beleeving sinners by his Covenant with Christ and by his positive Laws then he may soon see that God hath ordained a righteousness for beleeving sinnerâ— by his reconciliation onely and not by the righteousness of the moral Law as the principles of natural Reason is apt to judge for the principles of natural reason cannot think of a righteousnesse for sinners by positive Laws because it resteth in Gods will only to make such Laws effectual for that purpose Secondly This way of making sinners righteous is lively typified and exemplified to us by the Jews legal justifications as I have in part noted a little before and also in page 110 but because it is of concerument I will speak a little more fully to this point It pleased God of his good will and pleasure to covenant with Abraham that his seed should be his peculiar Chruch and people in the land of Canaan and in that respect he was pleased to set up the Tabernacle of his Divine presence among them and set Porters at the gates of the house of the Lord that none which was unclean in any thing should enter therein 2 Chron. 23. 19. And when the Jews were cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary they said to the Porters in Psal 118. 19. Open to me the gates of Righteousness called the gates of Justice saith Ainsworth bâ—cause onely the just and clear might enter therein and so ver 20. and in Jer. 50. 7. The Temple is called the Habitation of Justice because of their ceremonial Justice No unclean person on pain of death might enter therein Levit. 15. 21. and it was once a year cleansed with the blood of the Sin-offering Levit. 16. 16 20. Neither might any dare to have communion with God in feasting on the holy flesh in the holy City in their legal uncleannesse Levit. 7. 20. and 22. 3 9. And to make them and to keep them clean God gave them not onely his Moral Law with prohibitions of all that was contrary thereto but also he gave them divers other positive Laws and Ordinances for their legal justifications from all their ceremonial sins yea and from their moral sins also Levit. 5. 4 6. as to the outward man when they were to come before Gods presence in his Sanctuary or when they were to feast with God on the holy flesh and in case any did presume to come in their legal uncleannesse before they were qualified according to the preparation of the Sanctuary they were threatened to be cut off as some of Ephraim were 2 Chron. 30. 18 19. Exod. 12. 15 19. Levit. 7. 20
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
Gods Righteousness according to his Covenant with Christ not to impute their sins but to justifie them formally by his non-imputation I say it again to have it the better marked That this kind of righteousness God hath constituted to be a sinners righteousness from his voluntary Covenant with Christ where the rul◠in all natural causes positâ causâ sequitur effectus is not to be observed for all voluntary Causes have voluntary Effects according to the liberty of will that is in the Covenanters they by their positive Ordinance and Covenant have constituted a righteousness for sinners by the meritorious cause of Christs Sacrifice and by the formal cause of Gods reconciliation as soon as the Holy Ghost hath united them to Christ by Faith But saith Mr. Norton in p. 211. c. Pardon of sin cannot compleat Righteousness for Righteousness doth not consist in being sinless but also in being just the Heavens are sinless yet they are not just the unreasonable creature is sinless saith he in p. 209. but not righteous Reply 5. Every mean person knows that the Heavens and such like unreasonable Creatures are a subject that is not capable of forgiveness because they are not capable of sin in a proper sense and therefore also they are not capable of this kind of righteousness But the Dialogue speaks only of sinners that are reasonable creatures yea and of such sinners as are in Christ and therefore it speaks of such creatures as are capable of pardon and so they are fit subjects of being made righteous by pardon But Secondly Why cannot pardon compleat righteousness hath not God a supreme power by his voluntary Law and Covenant to make it a sinners formal righteousness as well as he had to constitute a fruit tree which he called the Tree of Life to confirm Adam in his created perfections if he had but once eaten thereof We must not look to what is a perfect righteousness to our senses but we must look to Gods positive Ordinance he could tell how to ordain such a righteousness as will best fit sinners Thirdly We see also that by his own voluntary Ordinance he made unreasonable creatures that are not guilty of moral sins to be guilty of ceremonial sins and to be capable also of ceremonial justification as I instanced afore of the Temple it was first polluted by Antiochus and it was afterwards justified by sanctified Priests in carrying out the filth thereof Dan. 8. 14. The like may be said of the defiled leprous house and of the cleansing of it in Levit. 14. And see more for this in Ainsw in Exod. 29. 36. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 212. If you inquire after the essential matter of justification among the The material cause of Justification causes enumerated by the Author behold the Dialogue is speechless and presents you with a form without matter such a being as is neither created nor increated And he takes delight in this Irony because he doth so often repeat it as in p. 212 217 225 237 c. Reply 6. Herein Mr. Norton doth mock at Gods Wisdom and Work in giving a form to the Angels without matter Mr. Ainsworth saith that the Angels have a form without matter and he cites Maymony to concur in that in Gen. 1. 1. Yea the matter of mans body and the form of Angels may be united to do service to man and yet not be but one person but may continue still to be both distinct matter without form and form without matter As for example when the Angels assumed bodies it was not to give that matter any natural form but it was a miraculous union onely for their present ministry to men And hence you see that the matter of mans body and the form of Angels may be united and yet remain two distinct things Secondly Mr. Norton doth not only mock at the Dialogue but at sundry other eminent Divines who make no other material cause than the Dialogue doth 1 The Dialogue saith that the subject matter of Justification is beleeving sinners and in this the Dialogue follows learned Mr. Wotton And 2. Mr. Wotton doth follow Peter Martyr who makes See P. Martyr in Rom. 3. 26. no other material cause in Justification but beleeving sinners And 3. Saith M. Ball It is to be observed that the Apostle saith And Ball on the Coven p. 219. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself where faith he the world is the subject or matter of reconciliation and by the same reason he makes it the matter of Justification for he makes Justification to be a branch at least of Reconciliation if not the whole as I noted before 4. Mr. John Goodwin doth learnedly dispute against that kind of material cause that Mr. Norton contends for and hee also See Vindiciae fidei par 2. follows Mr. Wotton for the subject matter 5. Mr. Baxter in his Aphorisms p. 213. enumerating the causes saith that a material cause properly it hath none If saith he you will improperly call Christs satisfaction the remote matter I contend not And in p. 217. he saith thus Christs righteousness cannot be the material cause of an act which hath no matter And in his Reply to Mr. Ayre p. 20. Sect. 4. He saith thus First As matter is proper to substance so Justification being an accident hath no matter are not you of the same mind Secondly As accidents do inhere in the subject so the subject is commonly called their matter In this sense also our righteousness or justification passive is not in Christs righteousness but in our selves and so our selves are the matter for I think it is we that are justified and saith he in another place if any please to make the blood of Christ the matter improperly I contend not And to this I do also give my consent But Mr. Norton makes Christs suffering of hell torments and the second death to be the matter and this matter I cannot consent to But saith Mr. Norton in p. 222. To speak after the stile of the Dialogue if righteousness for sinners be purchased and procured by Christs sacrifice of attonement neither then can attonement be a sinners righteousness that which procureth or purchaseth is the cause that which is procured is the effect the cause cannot be the effect Reply 7. 1 The stile of the Dialogue is borrowed very much from the types of the ceremonial Law which were ordained to be our School-master to Christ and I beleeve if more pains were taken to express the point of satisfaction and the point of justification in that stile it would be much for the clearing of the truth 2 It seems that Mr. Norton will have no other righteousness for a sinners formal righteousness but Christs moral righteousness imputed for he makes the Fathers righteousness in being attoned to sinners of no account in the formal cause But saith Mr. Boxter in his Apology to Mr. Blake p. 24. It must be known that
the righteousness given us is not the righteousness whereby Christs person was righteous for accidents perish being removed from their subject but it is a righteousness merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience for us And that can be no other say I but a passive righteousness by Gods merciful attonement in not imputing sin as I have exemplified it from the types of Gods positive Statutes and Ordinances 3. I have already shewed and I think it needful to repeat it again First That it was Christs satisfactory Righteousness to perform the Covenant on his part by his death and sacrifice And secondly That it was Gods Righteousness to perform the Covenant on his part which was to be reconciled to sinners by not imputing their sins to them as soon as they are in Christ by faith The meritorious righteousness of the death and sufferings of Christs combate with Satan performed on his part did bind God to perform his said Reconciliation on his part and both these Righteousnesses together with the performance of the Covenant on the part of the Holy Ghost which was to proceed from the Father and the Son to convert sinners and to unite them to Christs that so they might be fit subjects for the said righteousness I say this voluntary and reciprocial Covenant between the Trinity doth constitute all the causes of a sinners righteousness and in particular the Covenant on the Fathers part doth constitute the formal part of it This positive created Righteousness was unknown to natural Philosophers it is not framed from the moral Law of Nature but it is a Righteousness for sinners created on purpose by the voluntary positive Law and Covenant of the Trinity 4. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton should so much plead for the moral righteousness of Christ to be the matter and the imputation of it to be the form of our righteousness seeing it did not formally constitute Adams righteousness as Mr. Norton himself doth also acknowledge in p. 261. and Mr. Burges on Justification p. 8. and indeed the reason thereof is very plain because God required that Adam should first eate of the tree of life as the meritorious cause for procuring the formality of his moral perfections and this tree had this efficacy from Gods voluntary positive Covenant with Adam As I have shewed more large already chap. 2. The Dialogue saith that sinners in themselves namely as long as they continue to be sinners which is as long as they live in this body of sin can have no other righteousness than a passive righteousness proceeding from Gods merciful attonement pardon and forgiveness But Mr. Norton in p. 231. leaves out these words in themselves and then makes a false Argument of the Dialogues sense But I dare say no judicious Christian that will but make through search into all the types of legal Justification shall find any other way of making sinners righteous but by Attonement or Reconciliation in not imputing sin Reckon up the legal terms by which Attonement is expressed and that will justifie what I say as by expiating sin not imputing sin mercifully forgiving sin purging sin purifying washing cleansing sin to the sanctifying the flesh these and such like are abundantly used in the Law but never any for making righteous by imputing moral righteousness which doubtless would have been ordained to typifie the imputation of Christs moral righteousness in the formal cause of Justification if any such thing had been intended for the only formal cause 5. It seems to me that Mr. Norton doth wilfully stumble at the stile of the Dialogue because it makes a sinners righteousness to be procured by Christs sacrifice of Attonement but any one may see that this phrase the Sacrifice of Attonement at which he stumbles is a usual Scripture phrase for the publick yearly Sin-Offering is called the Sin of Attonements Ezâ—d 30. 10. and the Ram of Attonement Numb 5. 8. And all Sacrifices were ordained by Gods voluntary Covenant to procure Gods Attonement and Justification from all their legal sins even peace-Offerings were sometimes offered to procure peace by Gods attonement and in relation to their typical use the sacrifice of Christ may well be called a Sacrifice of Attonement Reconciliation or Attonement described both in the meritorious formal causes for the procuring of Gods attonement for all our moral sins and so consequently for our moral justification and this is most cleer because the Apostle doth define Gods reconciliation to sinners by his not imputing their sins to them 2 Cor. 5. 19. for as long as sin is imputed it makes a jar between God and the sinner but when God doth not impute sin then there is no more jar but reconciliation with God And therefore the sin of Attonement which was offered on Reconciliation-day is called by the Septuagint the Purgation of sins because it procured Gods Attonement by which only sin is purged away Exod. 30. 10. and this place the Apostle applies to the sacrifice of Christ Heb. 1. 3. namely as it is the meritorious cause of Gods reconciliation whereby our sins are fully purged The Hebrew word for Reconciliation doth signifie to cover pacifie or appease noting thereby the meritorious cause Gen. Gen. 32. 20. 32. 20. Prov. 16. 14. and to bee pacified doth note the formal cause It doth also signifie to satisfie or recompence noting thereby the meritorious cause 2 Sam. 21. 3. Exod. 21. 30. Psal 49. 8. Gen. 31. 29. and to bee satisfied doth note the formal cause of Reconciliation as in Mat. 3. 17. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased satisfied or reconciled and so in Psal 85. 1 2. Lord thou hast been favourable or well-pleased with thy land Thou hast forgiven the iniquities of thy people and covered all their sin These three several phrases are Synonimas and do set out the formal cause of Reconciliation or Justification but whether the Psalmist is to be understood of outward or inward Reconciliation needs not now to be disputed because the outward is but an exemplification of the inward And hence it follows that Christs sacrifice may well bee caled a Sacrifice of Attonement because it was exemplified by the legal sacrifices of Attonement and because it was ordained to procure Gods Attonement and in this respect also all Sacrifices of Attonement are called Sacrifices of Righteousness Deut. 33. 19. Psal 51. 19. Deut. 33. 19. Psal 4. 5. Psal 51. 19. not only because they were offered in faith as Mr. Norton doth too unadvisedly restrain the sense of the word Righteousness in p. 208. but they are also called Sacrifices of Righteousness because they did legally compleat a sinners righteousness in respect of his ceremonial sins and so also they did exemplifie how a sinners righteousness should be compleated by the meritorious and formal causes in respect of his moral sins sacrifices must be performed in righteousness that is to say without spot or wrinkle for then they were offered in
righteousness according to Gods Law and then God accepted them and granted his Attonement according to his Covenant and that was his righteousness and then when he was attoned to sinners it was their righteousness this is suitable to legal righteousness by which God did exemplisiâ— our moral righteousness Conclusion Gods Attonement or Reconciliation hath these two parts 1 His not imputing sin 2 His receiving into favour or both these may bee joyned into one namely Gods gracious pardon and all this is the effect of Christs sacrifice for it is for his sacrifice sake that God the Father doth absolve or acquit a beleeving sinner that is in Christ from the guilt of all his sins and so receives him into favour by adoption or thus Gods Attonement for the sake of Christs Sacrifice is not a bare legal forgiveness as when a Judge acquits a Malefactor and so leaves him but it is a gracious acquital as when a Father forgives his Son and receives him into favour And this truth the Dialogue doth fully express and therefore Mr. Norton doth argue sophistically and absurdly against the rules of Logick and his own conscience for hee knows that in his antecedent this phrase By Christs Sacrifice of Attonement is meant both of the cause and effect Christs sacrifice being the cause and Gods attonement the effect and therefore seeing the sacrifice of Christ is all along so plainly intended by the Dialogue to be the only meriting cause of the formal namely of Gods attonement for a sinners righteousness or justification It follows that the consequence which Mr. Norton draws from it viz. neither then can attonement bee a sinners righteousness is a senseless non sequitur And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whother Mr. Norton had any just cause to thunder out such reproachful censures against this kind of attonement in the Dialogue as he hath done in page 210 223 224 237. and saith hee in page 228. the attonement of the Dialogue is not Gods attonement but a pestilent fiction and abomination My heart trembles at this high blasphemy the Lord in mercy open his eyes to see better And saith Mr. Norton in page 210. Tâ—e Reader is desired to take full notice of the Dialogues corrupt sense being the Helena c. Reply 8. The Reader is also desired to examine throughly who hath the truth on his side and also to take full notice whether he can find such an active moral righteousness imputed as Mr. Norton doth substitute in page 210. for the formal cause of a sinners righteousness I have made search into the method of righteous-making by the typical sacrifices and cannot find any such righteous-making as Mr. Norton holds examine therefore whether I have not both in the Dialogue and in this Chapter rightly opened the types thereof both in the meritorious and formal causes But saith Mr. Norton page 209. The Hebrew translated Attonement properly signifieth to cover some thing yet not with a garment or the like which may bee taken off again but with some cleaving and tenacious matter as Pitch Lime Morter c. Reply 9. This exposition of the word Attonement may I conceive mis-lead the Reader as well as himself because hee restrains it to Pitch or such like tenacious matter that cannot be taken off again and therefore I will open the use of the word for the advantage of the Readers 1 I find by Kirkeroes Hebrew-Greek-Lexicon That the Hebrew Caphar doth signifie to cover This is the general sense of the word But what kind of covering is to bee understood by the word must bee fetched from the circumstances of each particular text where it is used As for example in Gen. 6. 14. it is used for such a covering as is made with Bitumen Pitch Tar Rosin and such like cleaving things because that kind of covering was onely fit to stop and cover the chinks and cracks that were in the Ark to preserve it from perishing in the waters a figure of Gods Attonement in our Baptism that covereth our sins and so saveth us but saith Ainsworth in Gen. 6. 14. there are two other Hebrew words in Exod. 2. 3. which are the proper words for Pitch and Plaister and therefore Caphar is used for Pitch in Gen. 6. 14. but in a metaphorical sense and in that respect Tindal in 1 Joh. 2. 2. doth apply it and that most fitly to mollifying Plaisters that are laid on angry fores to molifie and asswage their angry pain 2 This Hebrew word is also used for the Hoar-frost in Exâ— 16. â—4 because the Manna did lye upon or cover the ground after the dew was exhaled just like as the Hoar-frost doth cover the ground It is also put for the Hoar-frost in Job 38. 29. and in Psal 147. 16. but there the Septuagint do translate it Clouds and indeed it is not unfit because Clouds do cover the face of the Skie and do also scatter the Hoar-frost Hail and Snow which do often cover the face of the earth but these kind of coverings are soon taken off again therefore it doth not alwayes signifie such a covering as may not be taken off again and it is applied to Cypress trees because it is a pleasant shady cover against the scorching Sun Cant. 1. 13. 3 Caphar is applied to the covering of an angry countenance by some acceptable present And thus Jacob did cover Ejaâ—'s angry face I will said Jacob cover or appease his face with the present that gâ—eth before me and afterward I will see his face Gen. 32. 20. And in this sense a wise man will cover the Kings angry face Prov. 16. 14. 4 Caphar is put for a Bribe because a Bribe doth cover the eyes of the Judge and causeth him to pervert Justice Amos Exod. 30. 12. A further description of Gods Attonement in respect both of the meritorious formal causeâ— 5. 12. but said just Samuel to the people Of whose hand have I received any present namely by way of a Bribe to cover mine eyes therewith in the case of Justice 1 Sam. 12. 3. 5 Caphar is put for a price of Redemption because it doth cover the offended face of the Supreme and reconcile him Esa 43. 3. But jealousie saith Prov. 6. 35. is outragious it will not regard the presence of any cover or ransom See also in Numb 35. 31. and Psal 41. 81. and in Exod. 21. 30. and in Exod. 30. 12. They shall give every man the ransom of his soul or the cover of his soul namely half a shekel for every man to cover Gods angry face that there be no plague among them to take away their lives as he had done from the former Six hundred thousand But mark this price which God appointed them to give for the That onely is the full and formal price of our redemption that was constituted so to be by Gods voluntary positive Law and Covenant ransom or cover of their souls from death which else
these legal sanctifications and these bodily justifications by the blood of Bulls c. and according to Gods will he established his own Sacrifice in the place of them by which will saith the Apostle we are sanctified namely by Gods attonement and forgiveness Heb. 10. 10 14. that is to say we are justified from our moral sins through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all This exposition of the word Caphar which is used to set out Gods covering of sin by his attonement is by the Seventy translated sanctified and therefore it doth force us to take notice but that we are dull of hearing that a sinners righteousness in Gods sight doth stand in being sanctified or made sinless by Gods attonement and forgiveness This kind of sanctification is our onely justification in Gods sight For according to the understanding of the Seventy Interpreters Caphar the covering of sin by Gods attonement did denominate the Jews to be legally sanctified to the purifying of their flesh because by Gods attonement their impurity was removed without putting any active purity upon their flesh by any positive Ordinance This kind of sanctification therefore was a lively type of our moral justification both by the meritorious cause of Christs Sacrifice and by the formal cause of Gods Attonement 2. The Seventy do render Caphar to cleanse as in Exod. 29. 37. and in Exod. 30. 10. 3. They render it to purge in Deut. 32. 43. Exod. 30. 10. Isa 60. 7. and these three differing expressions do but explain the former word Attonement in our Translations for in Exod. 29. 33 36. it is in the same verses it is also explained by the word sanctified as Synonimas to Caphar By these and such like terms given by the Seventy to Caphar it is evident that they understood that when Gods angry face was attoned by sacrifice in relation to their ceremonial sins that they were thereby sanctified to the purifying of their flesh Heb. 9. 13. and that thereby their persons were justified in respect of their appearing before Gods presence in his Sanctuary or in regard of feasting with him on the holy flesh of the Passeover or Peace-offerings and in this respect they called such cleansings Heb. 9. 1 10. justifications of divine Service Heb. 9. 1. and carnal justifications in v. 10. viz. Ceremonial Ritual and Typical as Mr. Trap expounds it or the righteousness of the flesh as I have more largely opened the matter a little before and so also when the Temple was ceremonially purged from the pollutions of Antiochus it is said in the Seventy to be cleansed but in the Hebrew Text it is said to be justified Dan. 8. 14. Dan. 8. 14. Hence it follows by an unavoidable consequence that their legal Ordinances by which they obtained Gods attonement for their legal cleansings fanctifyings and justifyings and for their legal righteousness did typifie and exemplifie how sinners are cleansed washed sanctified and justified as it is expressed by these terms in 1 Corinth 6. 11. and how they are made righteous by the righteousness of the Law as it is in Rom. 2. 26. and in Rom. 8. 4. namely because the sacrifice of Christ is the fulfilling and end of all sacrifices and of all other legal cleansings and therefore it is the onely meritorious and procuring cause of Gods attonement and forgiveness for the formal cleansing washing sanctifying and justifying the conscience from the accusing and condemning power of all moral sins by which means we may stand before God as justified persons in his sight when we come to put up our requests unto him or to feast with him at the Lords Table for when we come to the Lords Table Gods forgiveness is the greatest and most precious dainty for which Christ shed his blood and therefore at his last Supper he said thus to his Disciples This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for the many for the remission of sins Mat. 26. 28. according as it was promised in Dan 9. 24. this dainty of Gods forgiveness is the great purchase of Christs blood which makes them blessed that have it Psa 32. 1. and makes them eternally righteous in Gods sight that have it Dan. 9. 24. This and a new heart are the two great legacies of the new Covenant Jer. 31. Heb. 8. These things thus opened me thinks should so enlighten the eyes of our understanding to see what the righteousness of God is and to imbrace it as a most blessed truth or at least not to resist it but to strive to understand it better but when Gods will is to darken the understanding of men with erroneous conceptions then the tongue of Angels cannot prevail with them to hold the contrary And thus have I in some measure opened this phrase The Righteousness of God by his Reconciliation or Attonement and I have opened the word Attonement both in the meritorious and in the formal causes namely that Sacrifices for sin did meritoriously cover Gods angry face attone pacifie reconcile expiate propitiate purge sanctifie cleanse and purifie or make righteous a sinner by procuring Gods attonement for his formal reconciliation righteousness and justification And now methinks Mr. Norton may do well to consider his unadvisedness in villifying this kind of attonement And 2. In restraining it only to a covering of pitch and such like tenacious matter whereby he confounds both his own understanding and his Readers also The second part of Mr. Nortons comparative Argument in pag. 53. is this Christ was made sin as he was made a curse but he was made a curse by judicial imputation therefore he was made sin by a real imputation Reply 10. In my examination of Gal. 3. 13. I have shewed how Christ was made a curse and in the beginning of this Chapter I have shewed how he was made sin therefore I shall not need to make any further reply here to these things but refer the reader to those places 2 The rest that he allegeth in p. 55. wherein he makes God to charge Christ with sin as a supreme Judge according to the judicial way of Court proceedings because it is no Scripture language in the point of Christs satisfaction but devised terms to express his own erronious conception therefore I shall not need to give any other answer to it here CHAP. XV. The Examination of Gal. 3. 13. with Deut. 21. 23. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law when hee was made a curse for us For it is written in Deut. 21. 23. Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a Tree THe Cusre of hanging upon a Tree which Christ suffered the Dialogue doth expound of the outward curse which he suffered in respect of the outward manner of his death by hanging on a Tree But Mr. Norton in page 93. Doth expound it Of the inward and eternal Curse which he suffered from Gods immediate wrath when hee hung upon the Tree SECT I. Mr. Norton
themselves p. 145 * Add this Note to p. 145. Rutherfurd on the Covenant p. 25. faith You cannot shew me in all the Old or New Testament any penal Law that was imposed on the Man Christ where it is written If the Man Christ sin he shall eternally dye I tremble saith he at such expressions and hence I infer That then Christ could not be Adams Surety in the same obligation to the Curse of the first Covenant The true nature of Christs death was to be made a sacrifice by the power of his own Priestly office p. 145 146 309 313 ch 17. ult * Add this Marginal Note to p. 147. at 1. 23. As Christ assumption of flesh and spirit was not like ours so his death in the formality of it was not to be like ours but of a far differing nature A deseription of Christs merit namely how he merited our Redemption p. 146 176 130 308 This speech of Mr. Nortons Man sins and the Man Christ dyes is but a Paralogism p. 150 Christ was not our surety in the same obligation with Adam p. 150 86 Though it is supposed by Mr. Norton that the first Covenant was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the 〈…〉 or all Law of Nature yet in that sense it is not a compleat rule of Gods relative Justice p. 151 Gen. 2. 〈◊〉 doth not comprehend Christ within the composs of it p. 152 * Add this marginal Note to p. 152. Adam before his fall might beleeve in the Trinity but yet faith Mr. Weams in his Portraiture p. 91. he could not beleeve the incarnation of the Second person for then he should have understood of his own fall and then consequently saith he he would have been in a perpetual fear before his fall But faith he in p. 220. The first Adam had not any naturall fear as the second Adam had because there was no hurtful object before his eyes as there was before the eyes of Christ And faith Vinditiae Legis in p. 129. he needed no Mediator nor comfort because his soul could not be terrified with any sin And so faith Austln in his Enchyrid to Lawrence chap. 32. When Adam was made a right man he needed no Mediator but when sin did separate him from God then he must be brought into favor again by a Mediator c. God doth often dispence with his peremptory threatnings p. 157 Gods voluntary positive Laws were not ingraven in Adams nature as his moral Laws were no more than the time of the last Judgement was ingraven in the Humane nature of Christ Mark 13. 32. p. 159. 11 God doth sometimes alter from the Rule of his moral Commands to the Rule of his secret Decrees p. 160 225 CHAP. XI CHrist bare our sicknesses and carried our sorrows from us not by bearing them upon his own body as a Porter bears a burden but he is said to bear them because he bare them from us by the power of his divine command p. 163 CHAP. XII MR. Norton doth most dangerously make all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be hell pains p. 165 169 Mr. Norton doth often wrong the sense of the Dialogue p. 167 296 The true nature of all Christs greatest bodily sufferings are described to be chastisements in Isa 53. 5. therefore they cannot be called the essential torments of Hell inflicted on him from Gods vindicative wrath as Mr. Norton calls them p. 169 178 266 311 344 Christs sufferings may justly be called punishments such as the godly suffer and yet not proceed from Gods wrath as their punishments do very often p. 171 None of Christs sufferings were inflicted on him from Gods immediate wrath as Mr. Norton holds most dangerously p. 172 Christs Humane nature was often purposely left of the Divine nature not onely in his natural and moral actions that so it might act according to physical causes but also in his Office because he was appointed to combate with Satan in his Humane nature that so he might be the more deeply touched with the sense of our infirmities p. 174 383 The true nature of merit described namely how Christ did merit our re-demption p. 176 130 146 308 256 The Judges imputation of any sin in the voluntary combate doth cause such a Combater to loose the prize p. 178 Punishments in the voluntary Combate may be suffered from the opposite Champion without any imputation of sin from Gods vindicative wrath p. 178 God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as he gave Satan leave to wound hi 〈…〉 nd to do his worst unto him p. 178 311 All Christs greatest punishments were suffered without any imputation of sin from God or else God could not have accepted his death as a propitiatory sacrifice to bring us to God p. 182 Christ was eminently voluntary and active in complying with all his sufferings from his Combater Satan or else they had not been meritorious p. 183 CHAP. XIII THe word Sin is often used in a metaphorical sense for a sin-sacrifice because it was offered to procure Gods Attonement for sin p. 190 Christ attoned his Fathers wrath with the sacrifice of his body and blood p. 191 It is evident by Isa 53. 6. and by Jer. 30. 21. that there passed a Covenant between the Trinity from eternity for mans Redemption p. 193 Christ put away sin as the phrase is in Heb. 9. 26. or condemned sin as the phrase is in Rom 8. 3. when he abolished the use of all sin offerings by his onely true sacrifice for our sins p. 196 The imposition of hands upon the head of the condemned person by the witnesses was to testifie their faith to the throwers of stones that the evidence they had given in against him was true p. 198 Christ doth still bear our sins in Heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them when he lived here upon earth p. 204 * Add this Note to p. 205. l. 20. All such as hold that Christ was our bounden Surety in the same obligation with Adam must hold as Mr. Norton doth in p. 239. that Christ was delivered from his act of Surety-ship at his death But all such as hold him to be no other Surety but as he is our voluntary Priest to intercede for the pardon of sin must hold him to be an eternal Surety as they hold him to be an eternal priest and that he was not discharged of his Suretiship at his death but that he doth still continue to be our Mediatorial Surety for the procuring of Gods daily pardon as long as we live in this world p. 205 89. CHAP. XIV MR. Nortons palpable mistaking of the Righteousness of God to mean nothing else but the Righteousness of Christ in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is one main cause of his erroneous Interpretation p. 208 It is the righteousness of each person in Trinity to perform their Covenants to each other for the orderly working out of a sinners Reconciliation and Justification
righteousnesse of God cannot bee meant of the righteousnesse of Christ in this Text to which I refer the Reader for further satisfaction de Reconc Peccatoris part 2. lib. 1. cap. 18. Sect. 16. cap. 20. Sect. 5 6. SECT II. 2 I Will now labour to shew the true sense of this Text by which it will appear that Mr. Nortons comparative Argument is not framed to the sense of this Text each clause in the Text lies thus 1 For This word For is a causal particle and implies for this cause 2 He namely God the Father 3 Made that is to say Ordained Constituted Appointed but this could not bee without a mutual consent and Covenant between the Trinity from Eternity and so he was ordained or constituted to bee made a curse by his combating with Sathan as it is declared in Gen. 3. 15. 4 Made Him that is to say Christ These two words He and 〈◊〉 in the former part of this verse and God and Him in the latter part of this verse must carefully bee marked as a cleer distinction between the persons as I have also noted above 5 To bee sin for us that is to say To bee a Sin-sacrifice for us as it is rightly and fully opened in the Dialogue this phrase He was to be made sin for us saith the Dialogue must not bee taken in a proper literal sense but in a metaphorical sense being borrowed from the Levitical Law where the sacrifices for sin are often called Sin in the Hebrew Text though our English Translations have added the word Sacrifice by way of exposition as for example in Exod. 29. 14 36. the Hebrew saith thus It is a sin but wee translate it thus It is a Sin-offering we adde the word Offering to the word Sin as the Hebrew text also sometimes doth though very rarely as in Lev. 6. 26. and Lev. 9. 15. the Priest that offereth it for sin this is very neer the word Sin-offering but almost every where the Hebrew doth call it a sin without any addition as in Ex. 29. 14 36. Ex. 30. 10. Lev. 4. 3. 8 14 20 21 24 25 26 29 32 33. Lev. 5. 6 7 8 9 11 12 Lev. 6. 17 25 30. Lev. 7. 7 27. Le. 8. 2 14. Lev. 9. 2 3 7 8 10 15 22. Lev. 10. 16 17 19. Lev. 12. 6 8. Lev. 14 13 19 22 31. Lev. 15. 15 30. Lev. 16 3 5 6 9 11 15 25 27. Lev. 23. 19. Num. 6. 11 14 16. Num. 7. 16 22 28 34 40 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 87. Num. 8. 8 12. Num. 18. 9. Num. 28. 15 22. Num. 29. 11 16 19 22 25 34 38. 2 Chron. 29. 21 23 24. Ezra 8. 35 Ezra 10. 33. Ezek 40. 39. Ezek. 42. 13. Ezek. 43. 21 22 25. Ezek. 44. 29. Ezek. 46. 20. Hos 4. 8. Hos 8. 11. In all these places the Sin-offering is called Sin in the Hebrew text and this Hebraism the Septuagint do follow and the Chaldy Paraphrase and the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and in Rom. 8. 3. and Heb. 10. 26. and the use was to expiate moral sins done in ignorance but chiefly it was to expiate their ceremonial sins as the places cited do witnesse These Scriptures do stare in the face of such as make Christ to bee sin for us by a judicial imputation as Judges do when they impute sin to Malefactors as the meritorious cause of inflicting legal punishments upon them 6 It is added which knew no sin namely no sin formally neither by inherent corruption nor by Gods legal imputation and yet notwithstanding though he was every way free God did let Sathan loose upon him as upon a Malefactor to combate with his humane nature to insnare him in some sin or other and to impute sin to him and so to peirce him in the Foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor on the Tree and in this sense it is said by Peter that God made him to bear our sins in his body on the Tree these punishments of sin Christ suffered not necessarily as we guilty sinners do from Gods formal imputation of sin but voluntarily as a Combater with Sathan without any formal guilt or desert on his part And secondly He bare our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice by procuring Reconciliation and therefore he is said in Isa 53. 10. to make himself Asham a Trespasse or Sin as the Septuagint translate it And thus you see that Christ made himself to bee sin as much as God made him to be sin namely to be a sacrifice for sin and no otherwise as I have shewed in the Dialogue in page 42. 7 The reason or the end why God made him to be sin is It is the righteousnesse of each person in Trinity to perform their Covenants to each other for the orderly reconciling and justifying of the Elect. Rom. 5. 18. added in the next clause That we might be made the righteousnesse of God and this doth call to our consideration the Covenant between the Trinity for mans Redemption for the Text saith That God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself vers 19. 1 Consider that Christ covenanted with his Father to combate with Sathan and at last to be made a sacrifice for sin as the meritorious cause for our reconciliation and justification And hence it follows that as soon as hee had performed the said Sin-sacrifice it is truly called His righteousnesse in Rom. 5. 18. and this is the true and full interpretation of the word Righteousnesse in that Text. 2 On the other hand the Stipulation or Covenant of the Father was that upon the performance of Christs sacrifice he would bee reconciled to beleeving sinners and the performance of this reconciliation on God the Fathers part is called the Righteousnesse of God in this Text and in this sense the Argument of the Apostle doth run from verse 19. to the end of this 21. vers 8 In Him that is to say in Christ for as soon as sinners are in Christ by the work of the Holy Ghost they are made partakers of Gods righteousnesse for according to his Covenant with Christ it is his righteousnesse to bee fully reconciled to sinners as soon as they are in Christ by faith by which means their fins are pardoned and so they are justified from sin or made formally righteous by this righteousnesse of God the Father And thus have I opened the true sense of this verse by which it doth appear that Mr. Nortons first comparative Argument is not framed neither to the words nor to the true sense of this verse SECT III. IN Chapter 6. I have made an examination of Mr. Nortons several expressions about Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ and I little question but what I have said in that No Scripture rightly interpreted makes our sins to be formally imputed to Christ by Gods legal imputation as Mr. Norton holds Chapter and in Chap. 13. and what I say in this 14. Chapter will satisfie the
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
obedience to the moral Law of nature whiles he stood in his created perfections and therefore Rom. 3. 27. doth not prove that the moral Law was ordained to be the Covenant of works for Adams justification much lesse was it ordained to that end for fallen man For saith Mr. Burges God did not since the fall of man ever transact with him in any other Covenant but that of Grace In Vindiciae â—lâ—gis â—ect 22. p. 113. 132. And Blake approves him See also Ball on the Covenant p. 102. 130 135 166 178. The safest way is to hold That God did never ordain the moral Law neither in Adams Innocency nor since his Fall to be a rule of justification by works See Wotton de Recon peccatoris part 2. l. 1. c. 6 7. Seventhly Hence it follows That sinners cannot be justified formally by Gods imputation of Christs obedience to the first Covenant of works unlesse it can be proved that Christ did 〈◊〉 make a voyage into the earthly Paradise of Eden there so not actually of the Tree of life as our Surety in our room and 〈◊〉 to the end that God might impute his fulfilling of the first Covenant to us for our formal justification Such absurd consequences as these will often necessarily follow from Mr. Nortons Doctrine of Gods imputing Christs obedience to the first Covenant of works for our justification Eighthly Hence we may learn how to understand Rom. 5. 19. namely as by one mans disobedience to a meer positive Law the Rom. 5 19 Many as well as the reprobate were made sinners So by the obedience of one to a meer positive Law in his death and sacrifice shall the Many be made righteous Ninthly Hence it follows That it is altogether untrue which Mr. Norton affirms in his first Proposition that Christ did covenant with his Father both to fulfill the Law of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that thereby he might exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction to Gods justice for mans justification Tenthly Suppose the first Covenant was made in relation to the moral Law which is not granted nor cannot be proved yet in that sense there is an answer ready in the words of Pareus That God did never require such a double fulfilling as Mr. Norton layes down in his first Proposition namely that Jesus Christ did enter into a covenant with his Father both to do the Command in a way of works and to suffer the essential punishment of the Curse that so he might thereby exactly fulfill the first Covenant in a way of satisfaction for our Righteousnesse It was never heard saith Pareus that the Law did oblige In his Epist to Wbitgenstenius at the end of vrsinus Catechisme p. 797. both to obedience and punishment at the same time but every Law obligeth dis-junctively and not copulatively either to obedience or to punishment for so long as obedience is performed the Law obligeth not to punishment that is it pronounceth no man guilty of punishment But when obedience is violated then the Law obligeth the sinner to punishment This is generally true saith he both of divine and humane Laws Therefore their Suppositions saith he which they do here assume are untrue and repugnant to Gods justice namely that man after his Fall and so the Mediator for man was obliged both to fulfill the Law and to suffer punishment When obedience indeed is violated the sinner is bound to make satisfaction by suffering punishment This being performed he is no more a sinner and he is tyed to obedience not to that for the violation of which he hath suffered punishment but to another new obedience or if again he violate this to a new punishment I have cited this of Pareus for the sake of such as hold the true nature of the first Covenant to consist in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law and so hold as Mr. Norton doth That no satisfaction can be made to Gods justice except Christ be our surety to fulfill the first Covenant by doing the Command in a way of works and by suffering the Essential punishment of the Curse in a way of Satisfaction But I have described the true nature of the first Covenant to lye in Adams obedience or disobedience to the positive Command only and shewed from the Orthodox that Christs obedience in his Incarnation and Death was not to the moral law but to a positive Law for satisfaction to Gods justice for our Redemption and Justification SECTION 2. The Examination of Lev. 18. 5. I Will now examine how Mr. Norton doth prove That the first Covenant was made in relation to Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of Nature and that is by Lev. 18. 5. and Gen. 2. 17. Reply First I will examine Lev. 18. 5. This do and thou shalt live whether it have his sense or no for he makes high account of this Scripture for his purpose because he doth often ciâ—â— as in page 14 140. 149 189 191 225. c. But I must needs say I cannot but wonder at his unadvised citing of this Text to prove the first Covenant of works to belong to the moral Law of nature seeing it is so clear a proof of the Covenant of Grace These words saith Mr. Ball Do this and live must not be interpreted as if they did promise life upon a condition of perfect Lev. 18. 5. See Bell on the Covenant p. 136. obedience and for works done in such exactnesse as is required But they must be expounded Evangelically describing the subject capable of life eternal not the cause why life and salvation is conferred And by doing is to be understood sincere uniform and unpartial obedience not exact fulfilling the Lawin every tittle Do this and live saith he what is it more then this If ye will obey my voyce and do my Commandements ye shall be to me a peculiar treasure Exod. 19. 5. and to this purpose he citeth Psal 119. 1 2. Psal 106. 3. Psal 112. 1. James 1. 25. Rom. 2. 7. Luke 1. 6. All these places saith he are to be understood of sincere and upright walking to shew who are justified and to whom the promises of life do appertain but not why they are justified In like manner saith he that speech of the Apostle The Doers of the Law are justified Rom. 2. 13. may be expounded Rom. 2. 13. Evangelically not of them that fulfill the Law to be justified by their works but of them that soundly obey who are justified of grace by faith And hence it appears what works the Apostle opposeth to faith in the matter of justification not only perfect works done by the strength of nature of which sort there be none at all but works commanded in the Law as it was given to Israel such as Abraham and David walked in after they were effectually called These works cannot be causes together with faith in justification 2 It
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
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
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
is evident that the Law was given to fallen man as a Covenant of grace And this Mr. Ball shews abundantly in page 102. 130 135 166 178. c. 3 Mr. Burges saith thus Paul describeth the righteousnesse In Vindiciae legis p. 233. Rom. 10. 5 6. of the Law in Rom. 10. 5 6. from these words Do this and live which are said to have reference to Lev. 18. 5. But saith he We find this in effect in Deut. 30. 16. yet from this very Chapter the Apostle describeth the Righteousnesse which is by faith and saith he Beza doth acknowledge that that which Moses speaks of the Law Paul doth apply it to the Gospel 4 Mr. Burges doth also abundantly shew that the Law was given as a Covenant of grace in page 229. c. and page 271. and there he doth most justly blame Beza and Perkins because they affirmed that we attain salvation by fulfilling the Law Do this and live 5 Mr. Baxter saith Do this and live is a Gospel condition In his Saints Rest p 9. 6 Dr. Barnes in his Answer to our Popish Bishops that held justification by works doth give the cleer sense of Lev. 18. 5. Dr. Barnes is joyned with Tinda's works p 218. 240. Rule 293 294. and of Rom. 2. 13. and of Rom. 3. 31. according to the sense of the former his words I omit because they are long 7 Mr. Wilson in his Theological Rules for the right understanding of the Scripture cites this Rule from Luther Precepts saith Luther presuppose faith as where it is written Keep the Commandements that is by Christ or by faith in Christ also Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. that is in Christ or by faith in Christ also Do this and thou shall live that is do it in Christ and so of the rest of this kind 8 Mr. Trap doth thus expound Lev. 18. 5. As the creature lives by his food so the spiritual life is maintained by an Evangelical keeping of Gods Commandements 9 The true sense of Lev. 18. 5. compared with the Context is this Do this and live is a general command and requires obedience to all the three sorts of Laws in Moses namely to the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws as well as to the Moral Law as the Context doth cleerly evidence by naming all the three sorts of Laws in these three termes Judgements Ordinances and Statutes wherein they were commanded to walk namely in sanctified obedience and then the promise is added Which if a man do he shall live in them Lev. 18. 4 5 26 30. The like Command and Promise is given for their obedience to the judicial Laws Deut. 17. 10 11 19. Deut. 21. 9. and to all their Laws in general Deut. 5. 1 10 31 32. Deut. 6. 1. Deut. 7. 11 12. Deut. 12. 1. 28. Deut. 30. 16. Luke 10. 28. And this Command in this form of words is often used to urge them to the observation of the Ceremonial Laws as Deu. 12. 14 32. Do the Feast of Weeks Exod. 34. 22. so it is in the Hebrew Do the Sabbath day Deut. 5. 15. Exod. 31. 16. compared with vers 13 14. Do the Passeover Deut. 16. 1. Mat. 26. 18. Do the Feast of Boothes Deut. 16. 13. Do Sacrifice Exod. 10. 25. 1 King 12. 27. Jer. 33. 18. Do thy Sin That is Do thy Sin-offerings Lev. 9. 7 22. Lev. 16. 9. Exod. 29. 36 41 42. But because the carnal Jews looked no further in the doing of all this but to an outward conformity their services were rejected whence it is evident that the Lord commanded the doing of all these things in the obedience of faith and so the Lord did expound his mind and meaning to Cain If thou do well shalt thou not be accepted intimating that well-doing did not consist in an outward form only nor only in the excellent quality of his offerings which he presented but in the qualification of his heart in the manner of his offering Heb. 11. 4. and because he wanted faith with his offering the Apostle concludes that his works were evill because his good sacrifices were done in an evill manner for lack of faith So that Gods Command Do this and live implies do it in faith and live as Christ faith in Matth. 7. 21. He that doth the will of my Father namely that doth it in faith and then the Promise is annexed This is the will of my Father that he which beleeveth in the Son should have life everlasting Joh. 6. 40. and said the Jews to him in vers 28. What shall we do that we may work the works of God Jesus answered This is the work of God that ye beleeve on him whom he hath sent vers 29. The like Question and Answer is in Act. 16. 30 31. and therefore beleeving is commanded in the Law as the chief work 1 Ioh. 3. 23. Act. 17. 30. 1 Thes 1. 3. unto which we must give obedience Rom. 1. 5. and there are no good works that can proceed from any that will be accepted of God for good works but from those that are created in Christ Jesus unto good works Eph. 2. 10. Thus far I have made it evident that Lev. 18. 5. is to be understood of such a doing of the Law as belongs to the Covenant of grace and therefore it is no proof that the moral Law of nature was the condition of the first Covenant But saith Mr. Norton in his fifth Proposition in page 3. Adams obedience to the moral Law was by Gods free Covenant ordained to merit life by 2 Reply If Mr. Norton had proved as well as affirmed that God had ordained the moral Law by his free Covenant to merit life Adams obedience to the moral Law of nature was con-natural to him and therfore it was not ordained to merit life by by then he had hit the nail upon the head but his proofs hitherto have failed and I beleeve it is past his skill to give any cleer proof of it True it is saith Mr. Ball page 133. that the promises run upon this condition If ye obey my Voyce and do my Commandements But saith he Conditions are of two sorts Antecedent or Consequent Antecedent when the condition is the cause of the thing promised or given as in all civill Contracts of justice where one thing is given for another The like may be said of the first Covenant made with Adam God by way of free Covenant did condition to confirm him in his created perfections for one act of obedience namely in case he had but first eaten of the Tree of life As I have shewed more at large in Sect. 1. 2 There is a Consequent condition when the condition is annexed to the promise as a qualification in the subject or an adjunct that must attend the thing promised And in this latter sense obedience to the Commandements was a condition to the promise not the cause why the thing promised