eternity is prevented This reason which Mr. Norton hath here given makes Eternity essential to Hell-torments The distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell-torments thâ—reby to make Eternâ—ty no more but a circumstance hath four inconveniences attending it This distinction of essential and circumstantial Hell-torments whereby hee labours to make Eternity to bee no more but a circumstance hath these four inconveniences attending it 1 It supposeth that Divine justice in the execution of the legal curse admits of a satisfaction contrary to Psal 49. 7 8 9. Job 36 18 19. 2 That Eternity of Hell-torments is not absolute without some Ifs or And 's but onely conditional in case the damned cannot give satisfaction sooner 3 To say that Eternity is not an essential part of Hell is to say that Hell may be Hell and yet not be Eternal 4 If this part of the curse viz. Eternity may bee taken away from Hell-torments then Mr. Norton may as well take away any other part from it It is safest therefore as I conceive to say and hold that eternity of punishment flowing from the Curse is from the voluntary cause or from the free constitution of Gods good pleasure as the due reward of sin Mr. Sam. Hieron saith That the extremity of Hell-terments are made known to us two wayes See Hierous works p. 294. 1 By the Universality of them in every part 2 In that they continue without intermission after they are once begun But Mr. Norton opposeth both these 1 Hee dispenseth with the Universality of the extremity of them in every part hee saith That Christ suffered the torments of Hell in his body but not in full extremity and therefore hee saith what he wanted in his body hee made it up in his soul-torments in page 121. 2 Hee dispenseth with the eternity of continuance and grants an intermission contrary to the Scripture that telleth us That the worm dyeth not and that the fire never goeth out The Torments of Hell saith Austin de Spiritu Anima lib. 3. c. 56. as I find him cited in Carlisle are perpetual terrible Terrors fear without faith pain without remission the Hang-man strangling the Hell-hounds scourging the worm gnawing the conscience accusing and the fire consuming or rather continuing without mercy end relaxation or ease See also at Reply 5. These and such like things propounded in the Dialogue Mr. Norton answers not but puffes them away with this breath They are circumstantial and not of the essence of Punishment SECT 3. The Essential Punishment of the Curse saith he in page 7. is the total temporal privation of all the sense of the good of the promise called by some The pain of Losse Reply 3. IN this point of the pain of Losse Mr. Norton is like to lose himself for hee delivers himself variously and contrariously as may bee seen by comparing his expression in this place with his various expressions in other places In page 31. line 5. Hee calls it the privation of the present fruition of the good of the promise Here the word sense is left Mr. Norton affirms that Christ suffered the pains of losse in respect of the fruition of the good of the promise but otherwhiles he saith it was in respect of the sense of the good of the promise by which wide differing expressions he leaves the Reader in the dark to grope out his meaning See Dr. Ames in Psal 22. cited also in Sect 4. out In page 68. Hee saith That Christ had a taste of consolation at present in the Garden But saith he his desertion was total in respect of Sense upon the Crosse In page 111. he saith That the pain of Losse is the not enjoying of ought of the good of the promises and in page 112. he calls it The privation of the good of the promises In both these places the word sense is left out Now seeing Mr. Norton delivers himself thus variously it may justly stumble any judicious Reader how to understand him whether hee bee to bee understood as leaving out the word sense or taking it in for that word left out or taken in doth much alter the sense In page 118. Hee tells us in the Margin of Separatio quo ad substantiam in respect of substance quo ad sensum in respect of sense and feeling Dr. Ames in Psal 22. saith Wee are not to understand that the desertion of Christ was real but only in respect of sense and feeling and so must the privation of the good of the promise bee understood either that Mr. Norton doth mean it is real or in respect of sense and feeling only The former is a total privation the latter is only partial The former is judgement without mercy Jam. 2. 13. The latter remembers mercy in judgement though it may not be discerned at the present Now if Mr. Nortons meaning bee that Christ suffered such a privation of the good of the promise as is real namely as it is contra-distinguished from privation in sense and feeling then the word sense might well have been left out because it being put in doth cast a mist before the eyes of the Reader But if he mean no more but such a privation of the good of the promise as consists only in sense and feeling and as it is distinguished from the said real privation thâ—n it is very improperly called a total privation and then the pain of losse doth contain much more in it than this for a godly man may meet with as much as this in his life time as Spira did if wee suppose him to be godly This Essential punishment saith hee in page 8 was that and only that which Christ suffered Reply 4. I cannot but wonder at his various delivery of himself For in his 5 Dist page 10. He saith That Christ suffered the pains of Hell due to the Elect who for their sins deserved to bee damned And in page 22. He makes it one branch of the death threatned Gen 2. 17. in Gen. 2. 17. to bee separated from the sense of the good things of the promise and calls it total in Christ and total in the Reprobates and all this flowing from the same Curse And in page 68. Hee calls it his total desertion in respect of sense upon the Crosse and presently after he saith The pain of losse and the pain of sense make up the full measure of the essential wrath of God and they both met together in full measure upon him on the Crosse Mark this Hee doth in both these places hold that Christ suffered the full measure of the pain of losse And in page 79. He saith That forsaking is either total and Psal 22. 1. Mat. 27. 46. final so God forsakes the Reprobate or partial and temporal as concerning the fruition and sense of the good of the promise so God forsook Christ Of this forsaking Christ complains in this place being a principal part of that punishment which Christ as the Surety
consequently saith he he would have been in a perpetual fear before his fall But saith 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 saith Vinditiae Legis in p. 129. he needed no Mediator nor comfort because his soul could not be terrified with any sin And so saith Austin in his Enchyrid to Lawrence chap. 32. When Adam was made a right man he needed no Mediator but when sin did separate â—ioâ— 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 Decâ—ees 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 be 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 redemption 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 him and 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 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 Romant p. 318. as differentia maketh the nature or kind so the righteousness 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 imputing to us righteousness and saith he this word Hitsadik is a word taken of the Law and appertaineth to Judgement 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
Bishops that held justification by works doth give the cleer sense of Lev. 18. 5. Dr. Barnes is joyned with Tinda's works p. 218. 240. Rule 293 294. and of Rom. 2. 13. and of Rom. 3. 31. according to the sense of the former his words I omit because they are long 7 Mr. Wilson in his Theological Rules for the right understanding of the Scripture cites this Rule from Luther Precepts saith Luther presuppose faith as where it is written Keep the Commandements that is by Christ or by faith in Christ also Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. that is in Christ or by faith in Christ also Do this and thou shalt live that is do it in Christ and so of the rest of this kind 8 Mr. Trap doth thus expound Lev. 18. 5. As the creature lives by his food so the spiritual life is maintained by an Evangelical keeping of Gods Commandements 9 The true sense of Lev. 18. 5. compared with the Context is this Do this and live is a general command and requires obedience to all the three sorts of Laws in Moses namely to the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws as well as to the Moral Law as the Context doth cleerly evidence by naming all the three sorts of Laws in these three termes Judgements Ordinances and Statutes wherein they were commanded to walk namely in sanctified obedience and then the promise is added Which if a man dâ— he shall live in them Lev. 18. 4 5 26 30. The like Command and Promise is given for their obedience to the judicial Laws Deut. 17. 10 11 19 Deut. 21. 9. and to all their Laws in general Deut. 5. 1 10 31 32. Deut. 6. 1. Deut. 7. 11 12. Deut. 12. 1. 28. Deut 30. 16. Luke 10. 28. And this Command in this form of words is often used to urge them to the observation of the Ceremonial Laws as Deu. 12. 14 32. Do the Feast of Weeks Exod. 34. 22. so it is in the Hebrew Do the Sabbath day Deut. 5. 15. Exod. 31. 16. compared with vers 13 14. Do the Passeover Deut. 16. 1. Mat. 26. 18. Do the Feast of Boothes Deut. 16. 13. Do Sacrifice Exod. 10. 25. 1 King 12. 27. Jer. 33. 18. Do thy Sin That is Do thy Sin-offerings Lev. 9. 7 22. Lev. 16. 9. Exod. 29. 36 39 41 42. But because the carnal Jews looked no further in the doing of all this but to an outward conformity their services were rejected whence it is evident that the Lord commanded the doing of all these things in the obedience of faith and so the Lord did expound his mind and meaning to Cain If thou do well shalt thou not be accepted intimating that well-doing did not consist in an outward form only nor only in the excellent quality of his offerings which he presented but in the qualification of his heart in the manner of his offering Heb. 11. 4. and because he wanted faith with his offering the Apostle concludes that his works were evill because his good sacrifices were done in an evill manner for lack of faith So that Gods Command Do this and live implies do it in faith and live as Christ saith in Matth. 7. 21. he that doth the will of my Father namely that doth it in faith and then the Promise is annexed This is the will of my Father that he which beleeveth in the Son should have life everlasting Joh. 6. 40. and sâ—â—d the Jews to him in vers 28. What shall we do that we may work the works of God Jesus answered This is the work of God that ye beleeve on him whom he hath sent vers 29. The like Question and Answer is in Act. 16. 30 31. and therefore beleeving is commanded in the Law as the chief work 1 Joh. 3. 23. Act. 17. 30. 1 Thes 1. 3. unto which we must give obedience Rom. 1. 5. and there are no good works that can proceed from any that will be accepted of God for good works but from those that are created in Christ Jesus unto good works Eph. 2. 10. Thus far I have made it evident that Lev. 18. 5. is to be undetstood of such a doing of the Law as belongs to the Covenant of grace and therefore it is no proof that the moral Law of nature was the condition of the first Covenant But saith Mr. Norton in his fifth Proposition in page 3. Adams obedience to the moral Law was by Gods free Covenant ordained to merit life by 2 Reply If Mr. Norton had proved as well as affirmed that God Adams obedience to the moral Law of nature was con-natural tohim and therfore it was not ordained to merit life by had ordained the moral Law by his free Covenant to merit life by then he had hit the nail upon the head but his proofs hitherto have failed and I beleeve it is past his skill to give any cleer proof of it True it is saith Mr. Ball page 133. that the promises run upon this condition If ye obey my Voyce and do my Commandements But saith he Conditions are of two sorts Antecedent or Consequent Antecedent when the condition is the cause of the thing promised or given as in all civill Contracts of justice where one thing is given for another The like may be said of the first Covenant made with Adam God by way of free Covenant did condition to confirm him in his created perfections for one act of obedience namely in case he had but first eaten of the Tree of life As I have shewed more at large in Sect. 1. 2 There is a Consequent condition when the condition is annexed to the promise as a qualification in the subject or an adjunct that must attend the thing promised And in this latter sense obedience to the Commandements was a condition to the promise not the cause why the thing promised was vouchsafed but a qualification in the subject capable or a consequent of such great mercy conferred Secondly I do further reply thus That the doing in Lev. 18. 5. is not the same for substance with the first Covenant of works as Mr. Norton affirms 1 Because it speaks only of the manner of obedience in the Covenant of grace 2 It is not the same with the moral Law of nature in respect of duties for the moral Law of nature is not a compleat rule for duties to us without some supply from the Gospel for the Law of nature doth not command us to worship God in Christ as the Decalogue doth the moral Law of nature doth not command us to beleeve to repent and to yeeld subjection to Christ as the Decalogue doth as Mr. Burges hath largely observed in Vindiciae legis neither doth the Law of nature forbid sins against the Gospel as unbeleef impenitency and contempt of grace as the Decalogue doth neither doth the Law of nature command us to sanctifie every seventh day as the Decalogue doth All these things are added by the Covenant
Christ to suffer Luke 24. 46. according to the Decree and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that so his obedience being made perfect he might bee fully consecrated to the execution of his Priestly office in making his Soul an acceptable Sacrifice to make Reconciliation for the sins of Gods people and thus hee became obedient to the death Phi. 2. 8. And thus it became God to consecrate and Christ to be consecrated through afflictions and therefore presently after the Fall God said to Sathan Thou shalt pierce him in the foot-soals and accordingly God is said not to spare his own Son but to deliver him up into the hands of Sathan for us all to try the combate Rom. 8. 32. So David said The Lord bade Shemei to curse David For saith Dr Preston in Gods All-Sufficiency There is no creature in heaven or earth that stirreth without a command and without a warrant from the Master of the house God sent Sathan to bee a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs false Prophets God is without all causes and the cause of all things no creature stirs but at his command and by his providence Eccles 3. 14. And thus Herod and Pontius Pilate the Devils Agents did unto Christ whatsoever God had before determined to be done Act. 4. and thus God declared his will to Sathan Thou shalt pierce the seed of the deceived Woman in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor but yet for all this he shall continue obedient and at last break thy Head-plot by his sacrifice of Reconciliation flesh and blood could not effect this way of consecration The Father delivered Christ to death saith P. Mart. not that the Father is bitter or cruel hee delighted not in evil as it is evil But I may adde he delighted to see him combate with Sathan not for the evil sake that fel upon Christ but for the good of his obedience in his consecration to his death and sacrifice And all this was done not from the row of causes as in Courts of justice from the imputation of the guilt of our sins but from the voluntary Cause and Covenant only But saith Mr. Norton in Page 130. The soul that sinneth shall dye Ezek. 18. 20. Good saith he man sinned ergo man dyed Christ was a sinner imputatively though not inherently And the soul that sinneth whether inherently or imputatively shall dye Reply 7. It is a plain evidence that the Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ as our legal Surety is a very unsound Doctrine because it hath no better supports hitherto than Scripture mis-interpreted The sense of this Text is this The soul that sins i. e. the very soul that sins namely the very same numerical and individual person that sins formaly and inherently shall die for the text speaks plainly of sin committed and it argues that Mr. Norton took little heed to the circumstances of the Text that did not mark that and the Text sheweth the effect that sin hath upon a sinner that repents noâ— namely he shall dye Now to this Exposition compare Mr. Nortons Answer Man sinned saith he mark his evasion for he doth not speak this of man numerically taken as the Text doth but he speaks it of man generally or of all mankind in Adam Ergo man died saith he here he takes the word man not for the particular individual sinner as the Text doth but for the individual person of Christ and so his meaning amounts to this Mankind sinned and Christ died By this the Reader may see that his Exposition agrees with the Text no better than Harp and Harrow Therefore unless Mr. Norton do affirm that Christ was a sinner formally and inherently he cannot from this place of Ezekiel gather that Christ was to suffer the second death neither can he gather it from Gen. 2. 17. because both these places speak of sin as it is formally committed and not alone of the effects of sin as guilt Neither of these Scriptures do admit of dying by a Surety neither doth the Law any where else admit of dying such a death as the second death is by a Surety to deliver other sinners from that death as these Scriptures do testifie Ps 49. 7 8 9. Job 36. 18 19. The Apostle saith the sting of death is sin but his meaning is plainly of sin inherent and not of such an imputation of sin as Mr. Norton makes to be the ground of Christs suffering the second death Adams first sin saith Bucanus was common to all mens nature but his other sins saith he were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. the soul that sinneth shall die But I wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Austin for the spiritual death of Christs soul from Gods imputing our sins to him Austin saith he in p. 130. calleth it a death not of condition but of crime it is as evident as the sun that Austins meaning is this Christ was not necessitated to die through any sinful condition of nature as fallen man is but that he was put to death as a criminal person by the Jews sinful imputations and that Austin in fers it was therefore just that seeing the devil had slain him who owed nothing the debtors whom he held in durance beleeving in him that was slain without cause should be set at liberty See Austins sense more at large in Wotton de Recon cpec par 2. l. 1. c. 21. Austins sense is no more like Mr. Nortons sense than an Apple is like an Oyster But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 41. If Christ had suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 8. If Mr. Norton from the Voluntary cause and covenant should undertake to strive with his opposite Champion for the All Christs sufferings were from the voluntary Covenant and not from Gods judicial imputation of our sins to him mastery according to the Rules of the said voluntary Law I beleeve that he should by experience find that he must bear many a four stroak and brush and it may be shed much blood which I think would be accounted a true punishment though it be not a vindictive punishment from the sense of an angry Judge and yet all this without any imputation of sin from the Superiors in the voluntary Covenant unless he should disobey their Laws in the manner of trial in like sort God told the Decree in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put enmity between Christ Gen 3. 1. and the Devil and that the Devil should drive hard at him all the time that he executed his Office and that at last the Devil should preâ—ail so far as to pierce him in the foot-soals as a sinful Malefactor and it pleased the Lord thus to bruise him and put him to grief Is 53. 10. even at the same time when he should make his soul a sin The Lord took much delight and pleasure to behold the knowledge and skil the valor and wisdom of this his
and by 4 Mr. John Goodwin in his Elaborate Treatise of Justification doth shew from the judgement of the orthodox that nothing in 2 Cor. 5. 21. is there spoken touching the imputation In Vindiciae fidei part 2. pag. 165. of our sins to Christ and saith he of all the Scriptures that men take up for the plea of the imputation opposed Mr. Gataker hath well observed that this Text is most cleer and pregnant against themselves But saith Mr. Norton in page 54. The Sin offering is so called because sin was typically imputed to it and it is said saith he to be for sin because it was offered for the expiation of sin Reply 2. Mr. Norton affirms it was called sin because sin was typically imputed to it but he brings no Scripture to prove it and therefore it must passe for no better than a fiction 2 The Dialogue shews in page 41. that Psal 40. 6. doth call the Sin-offering by no other addition but Sin but the Dialogue saith that the Apostle in Greek doth expound it for sin in Heb. 10. 6. the Apostle doth joyn the particle For to the word Sin by which means hee doth teach us that the Sin-offering was not typically made sin by confession of sin and by imposition of hands upon the head of it the particle For is not suitable to that sense and so the Hebrew Text doth sometimes explain it self by joying the word For to the word Sin The Sin shall be killed before the Lord it is most holy Lev. 6. 25. and then it is explained in verse 26. The Priest shall offer it for Sin hence I reason thus if it had been made sin typically by Gods imputation it Lev. 6. 26. could not have been called Most holy neither had it been accepted as a sacrifice for Sin Lev. 6. 26. and so also the word For is annexed in Lev. 9. 15. Lev. 4. 14. But saith Mr. Norton in page 54. If Christ be made sin for us in the same sense that the water of Purification and the Trespass mony is called Sin then Christ was made sin only figuratively consequently suffered for sin figuratively not properly Reply 3. A byassed spirit is apt to pick an exception against the cleerest expressions the Dialogue speaks plainly that the water of Purification was called Sin Numb 19. 9. not in respect of any sin that was typically imputed to it nor was it called Sin because it was imployed to any sinful use but because it was ordained in the prescript use of it to cleanse the sinner ex opere operato from all such ceremonial sins as he was defiled with See Ains in Num. 19. 9 12. c. it was called Sin-water as the Sin-offering was called Sin because it was the water of Purification from sin and because it sanctified the unclean to the purifying of the flesh Num. 8. 7 21. and because it figured the blood of Christ which only purgeth the conscience from dead works that is to say from moral sins Heb. 9. 13 14. Now the Heb. 9 13 14. Argument of the Dialogue is plain namely that as the water of purification was called Sin because it did truly cleanse the sinner from the outward contagion of his sins whether moral sins that were done unadvisedly or ceremonial sins for which chiefly the Sin-water was ordained that being cleansed therby they might then approach to Gods presence in his Sanctuary or else not upon pain of cutting off Num. 19. 20. The like Reply I might also make for the Levitical phrase taken from the Redemption-mony that was imployed or part of it at least to buy the publick Sin-offerings and Trespasse-offerings it was called Sin-mony and Trespasse-mony 2 King 12. 16. Neh. 10. 32 33. not because any sin or trespasse was imputed to the mony as if it had been sinfully gotten or sinfully imployed but because it was imployed to buy the said Sin-offerings and Trespasse-offerings and in this sense God made Christ to be sin and to be a trespasse not by imputing the sins of the Elect to him in a judicial way but by ordaining and constituting him to be the true Sin-offering and to end all Sin-offerings and to finish Trespasse offerings and to make Reconciliation for iniquity by the Sacrifice of himself and so by this means to bring in an eternal Righteousnesse or Reconciliation Dan. 9. 24. instead of the Ceremonial Secondly saith Mr. Norton Then Christ was only made sin figuratively and suffered for sin figuratively not properly Reply 4. Christ suffered for sin properly according to Gods declared Counsel Covenant and Decree in Gen. 3. 15. in entring the Lists with Sathan but at last hee was the only Priest in the formality of his Death and Sacrifice and in this Sin-offering he bare our sins not really by Gods judicial imputation but figuratively only he bare them from us by procuring Gods Reconciliation No Scripture faith Reverend Mr. Wotton doth make Christ to be a sinner properly But saith Mr. Norton in page 131. Wee distinguish between an inherent judicial guilt and an extrinsecal judicial guilt If Thomas saith he be judicially guilty of a capital crime inherently though Peter be guiltlesse thereof inherently yet if he be guilty thereof extrinsecally it seemeth to be no injustice for the Magistrate in case of Suretiship to put Peter to death for Thomas his crime And after these words Mr. Norton doth cite sundry instances to this purpose and at last he concludes thus in page 133. I dare almost say saith Grotius a man excelling in this kind of learning That where there is consent there is not any of those whom we call Pagans who would esteem it unjust that one should bee punished with the delinquencie of another Reply 5. By this last testimony of Grotius Mr. Norton thinks that he hath knocked the nayl home on the head and therefore he saith that Grotius was a man excelling in this kind of learning and truly so hee was though I find him to be very much out of the way in some things But in vain doth Mr. Norton labour to make Grotius his abettor for surely there is no greater opposite to Mr. Nortons imputation than he is For Grotius saith thus Some evil is sometimes imposed upon one or In his War Peace l. 2. c. 112 p. 398. some good is taken away By occasion indeed of some fault yet not so that the fault is the immediate cause of that action as to the right of doing He saith he who by occasion of anothers debt hath ingaged himself suffers evil Sponde Nâ—xâ— praesto est But the immediate cause of his obligation is his promise as hee who is become surety for a buyer is not properly bound by the bargain but by his promise So also hee who is bound for a Delinquent is not held by the delinquency but by his ingagement And hence it is that the evil to bee born by him receives its measure not from the fault of the
even the Redemption of all the Elect and thus hee broke the Devils Head-plot as our voluntary Surety but this kind of voluntary Surety is as far distant from Mr. Nortons legal Surety as a free Redeemer is from a delinquent Surety 8 Hence it follows also that in Grotius judgement there is a very wide difference between a Surety for mony-matters and a Surety in criminal cases but these kinds of Sureties are confounded by Mr. Norton without distinction or else hee would never have brought the instance of Pauls ingaging to Philemon verse 18. to exemplifie Christs obligation to his Philemon v. 11 punishments 9 Hence it follows That though a man may lay down his life for others as voluntary Sureties in divers cases as Mr. Weams shews in his four Degenerations page 358. yet not as legal bounden Sureties But saith Mr. Norton in page 223. The Doctrine of Imputation is not a doctrine of late dayes only The Reader that pleaseth may bee fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius who at the end of his defence of the Catholick Faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ against Socinus hath gathered together the Testimonies of many of the Ancients still extant to this purpose from Irenaeus Anno Christ 180. untill Bernard who lived 1120. Reply 6. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Grotius and the Testimonies of the Ancient Divines for the defence of his kind of legal imputation seeing they differ from him as much as truth doth from error Mr. Anthony Wotton doth learnedly dispute against that De Recon pec part 2. l. 1. c. 18. Sect. 10. kind of imputation which Mr. Norton holds and yet hee doth approve of that kind of imputation which the Ancient Divines held If saith he any man say That by accounting Christ a sinner they mean no more but that God deals with him as if he did account him to be a sinner this though it be true would not avail them for thereby they overthrow the foundation that they laid That Christ could not be a sacrifice for sin except hee were first made guilty of our sins such an imputation of our sins to Christ I think no Divine will deny I am sure saith hee it hath warrant enough from the Fathers And in Sect. 11. he cites some of the Fathers speaking thus He suffered him to be condemned as a sinner and to dye as one accursed For cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree Chrysost in Homil. 11. on 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Theophilact on 2 Cor. 5. 21. saith He made him subject to death for us and to dye as if hee had been a notorious offender And saith he in Sect. 12. Other imputation than this I find none in the Scripture for whereas it is said in Isa 53. 12. Isa 53. 12. Hee was numbred with the Transgressors This doth Mark expound of his bodily death at the time of his crucifying and it sheweth mens dealing with him and not Gods opinion of him And with him they crucified two Theeves the one on his right hand and the other on his left and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith And he was numbred with the Transgressors Mark. 15. 27 28. Mar. 15. 27 28 And saith he in Sect. 13. Neither can any man find any other imputation in the writings of the Ancient Divines than that hee took on him to expiate for our sins by his blood and sacrifice according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. Heb. 10. 10. Therefore wee may conclude that our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ might bee a sacrifice for sin or dye as a sinner although our sins were not so imputed to him that God accounted him to be guilty of them And saith he in Sect. 14. This also may yet further appear because his sacrifice was such as might bee without such imputation for it was the price of our Redemption as I shewed in part 1. lib. 2. cap. 10. n. 5 6. But there may well be and ordinarily is Redemption by a price without any kind of imputation And you may also see what hee speaks further to this point in Sect. 7. In these words of Mr. Wotton the Judicious may please to take notice that Mr. Wotton doth confidently affirm these two things 1 That there is no other imputation of sin to Christ in all the Scripture than such as he hath cited out of Chrysostome and Theophilact 2 That no man can find any other imputation in the wrirings of the Ancient Fathers 3 Let me adde this Testimony of Mr. Wotton both from my own knowledge and from the testimony of other eminent Christians that Mr. Wotton was a man of approved integrity one that suffered much for Christ through the iniquity of the times a man of great reading in all kind of Writers both Ancient and Modern and a man of deep judgement And his book of Reconciliation was printed in his old age after much debate and study and revising and therefore what hee saith in this point of imputation ought not and will not bee slighted of the Judicious The wise will understand 4 Hence it follows That the Reader that pleaseth may yet bee more fully satisfied by the labours of Grotius that this affirmation of Mr. Wottons is a manifest truth namely That our sins were no otherwise imputed to Christ but as hee bare our punishments in his body on the Tree according to 1 Pet. 2. 24. 5 Hence it follows That Grotius had good reason to produce such testimonies from the Ancient Divines against Socinus because as I perceive by several Writers Socinus denied Christs sufferings to belong to the meritorious cause of Christs satisfaction 6 On the other hand I do also beleeve that Grotius did as much oppose Mr. Nortons kind of imputation as hee did Socinus Tenent for I have shewed in my former Reply that Grotius held the obligation to legal punishments to arise from merit and that merit is personal Secondly It is further evident that Grotius did oppose Mr. Nortons kind of imputation because hee doth oppose the imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the formal cause of our justification for thus hee saith The righteousnesse Grotius in his Appendix to God and his Providence p. 83. 96. and in his War Peace part 1. ch 36. which they call imputative the meer devices of men are thrust upon us instead of divine Dictates And saith hee in his War and Peace The death of Christ was not determined by any Law but by a special Covenant But Mr. Norton holds that both the Incarnation and the Death of Christ was legal obedience quite contrary to Grotius These things considered I cannot but stand and wonder what Mr. Norton will now say to Grotius surely if he will still hold to Grotius then hee must first renounce his own Tenents for Grotius doth fully overthrow both Mr. Nortons comparative Arguments cited in the beginning of this Chapter 7 Hence also it followeth that the imputation of our sins to
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 justification 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 uncircumcision 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 meritorious 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 Context and Scripture these words The Righteousness of the Law only of the Righeousness typified by the Ceremonial Law Reply 4. Most vain is the shift of Mr. Norton endeavoring to avoid the strength of this place by interpreting the word Law and the righteousnes thereof of the righteousness of the moral Law both against the Text Context and Scripture as it is evident by what I have already said and as it is further evident by the context For the third verse hath a close dependance on Rom. 9. 31 32. Where the Apostle doth blame the Jews for trusting to their outward ceremonial works chiefly though they trusted also to their outward observation of the whole Oeconomy of Moses Israel which followed after the Law of righteousness hath not attained to the Law of righteousness namely they have not attained to the true righteousness that was typified by their legal righteousness because with the works of the Law they did not couple Faith to the Sacrifice of Christ as being the end of the Law Tindal on the word Righteousness in Rom. 10. 3. saith thus in pag. 381. The Jews seek righteousness in their Ceremonies which God gave unto them not