affirm most dangerously p. 315 307 A true description of the vital soul and so consequently of the death of Christs vital soul but not of his immortal soul for our Redemption p. 320 A true description of our natural fear of death p. 321 Christs soul-sorrows could not be lethal and deadly as Mr. Norton doth affirm most dangerously because they were governed by right reason p. 322 Add this Note to p. 322. Disorderly and irregular fear and grief doth sometimes prove lethal and deadly but it is dangerous to affirm the same of Christs regular fear and grief I find it recorded in the French Academy p. 34. That Herennus the Sycilian dyed with fear for he being found to be a Co-partner in the conspiracy of Caius Gracchus was so astonished and oppressed with fear in consideration of his judgement yet to come that he fell down stark dead at the entry of the prison And it is also recorded that Plautinus dyed of grief for upon the sight of his dead wife he took it so to heart that he cist himself upon her dead body and was there stifled with sorrow and grief But it is most dangerous to make Christs soul-sorrows to be lethal and deadly after this manner for saith Damasen His passions never prevented his regular will neither might his death be effected by natural causes but by his own Priestly power or else it could not be a Sacrifice Christ was not fully amazed in his Agony p. 323 By consequence Mr. Norton doth impute the sin of unmindfulness to Christ even in the very point of time when he was in the execution of his Priestly office p. 327 76 Mr. Norton stretcheth the word very heavy in Mark 14. 33. beyond the Context p. 328 Luke 22. 44. and Christs Agony explained p. 331 Natural death is the punishment of original sin but Christs humane nature was not by that Justice subjected to death p. 333 296 Ainsworth and others do make the earnest prayers of Christ in the Garden to be a cause in part of his Agony p. 334 * Fervency of spirit in prayer to be delivered from a natural fear and dread of an ignominious death may force out a bloody sweat p. 335. A true description of Christs Agony p. 336 * A Declaration of the Plot of the blessed Trinity for mans Redemption p. 341. at line 18. All Christs greatest outward sufferings were by Gods appointment to be from his Combater Satan p. 344 169 178 266 311 387 Satan did first enter the Lists with Christ at his Baptism when he was first exâ—râ—nsecally installed into the Mediators office though more especially in the Garden and on the Cros p. 346 Christ did not enter the Lists with Satan in the glorious power of his divine nature but in his humane nature as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities of sorrow and fear at his appoaching ignominious death p. 353 Some expressions of the Ancient Divines do cleerly evidence that they could not hold any such imputation of sin to Christ as Mr. Norton doth p. 356 * Some few of the Hebrew Doctors writings yet extant do speak of the sufferings of Christ from Satans enmity p. 357 at line 16. Adams first sin in eating the forbidden fruit was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death in sin and then our spiritual death in sin was the meritorious cause of Gods justice first in denouncing our bodily death and secondly in denouncing a judgement to follow to each departed soul p. 357 The Pelagians cannot be convinced That original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granâ—eâ— that God threatned a bodily death in Gen 2. 17. as the immediate effect of Adams first sin p. 358 Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath though in that nature he was able to conflict with Satan and his instruments p. 359 If it be true that Christ sweat clods of blood as Mr. Norton doth affirm then it must needs be a miraculous sweat and then no natural reason can be given as the cause of it p. 361 CHAP. XVII THe Hebrew word Azab hath not two contrary significations as Mr. Norton doth affirm to amuse his Reader about the manner of Gods forsaking Christ upon the Cross p. 371 All Christs greatest sufferings are comprised under the word chastisement p. 375 169 Our larger Annotation on Psal 22. 1. doth account Mr. Nortons way of satisfaction to be but bare humane Ratiocination which saith the Annotation is but meer folly and madness p. 377 God forsook Christ on the Cross because he did not then protect him against the Powers of darkness as he had done very often in former times p. 379 One main reason why God forsook the Humane nature of Christ upon the cross was that so his Humane nature might be the more tenderly touched with the feeling of our infirmities in all the afflictions that were written of him p. 383 174 The Humane nature was no true part of the divine person but an appendix onely p. 387 * Add this Note to the marginal Note in p. 387. Zanchy in his sixth and seventh Aphorismes to the confession of his faith p. 280. saith That the Humane nature was no true part of the person of Christ and saith he in his twelfth Aphorism at 4. Though the nature taken to speak properly is not a part of his person yet at 5. he saith It is acknowledged to be as it were a part of the person of Christ because without it we cannot define what Christ is and because of them both there is but one and the same Hypostasie Though the Humane nature of Christ ever had its dependance and subsistence in the divine after the union yet such was the singleness and the unmixedness of the divine nature in this union that it could leave the Humane nature to act of it self according to its own natural principles p 388 * Add this Note to p. 389. at line 6. In two things saith Pareus this similitude of Athanasius doth not agree and before him Zanchy said as much for in his sixth Aphorism he saith It is freely confessed by Justinus and by other Fathers that this fimilitude doth not agree in all things to this great mystery * The Geneva Annotation on Psal 22. 1. doth say That Christ was in a horrible conflict between Faith and Desperation and so by necessary consequence it makes Christ to be a true inherent sinner and this blasphemous Note hath been printed and dispersed in many thousand copies and yet where is the Boanerges to be found that hath vindicated Christ from this dangerous Tenent p. 393. God did not so forsake the soul of Christ on the cross as to deprive him of the sweet sense of the good of the Promises as Mr. Norton bolds most dangerously p. 394 Christ was often his owne voluntary afflicted with Soul-sorrows p. 404 178 Christ was the onely Priest in the formality of his own death and sacrifice But
to be angry with Christ because of sin imputed to him as to our Mediator in both his Natures and so all along he makes Christ as God Man to be our Surety and so sin to be imputed to him in both his Natures But Mr. Burges on Justific p. 176. saith That Christ as God Man was not bound by any imputation of ourguilt And he cites Zanchy for this The fore-quoted Author saith he makes this objection to himself How Christ could be said to be freed from the guilt of sin who had no sin He answereth the person of Christ is considered two waies 1. In it self as God Man and so Christ was not bound by any guilt 2. as appointed Head and so representing our persons in this respect God laid our iniquities upon him Isa 53. My drift in citing this is to shew That such learned Divines as Zanchy and Mr. Burges is do deny that the guilt of our sins were imputed to Christ as God Man contradicting Mr. Norton therein Christ in his obeying saith P. Martyr in his Ser. on Phi. 2. became not less than his Father as touching his God-head he obeyed as a friend towards a friend and not as an inferior unto death The Lord of life submitted himself to death and being immortal he died How contrary is this of P. Martyr to Mr. Nortons kind of imputation Surely by Mr. Nortons imputation of sin to the Mediator in both his Natures the God-head of Christ did not obey as a Friend to his Friend to the death as P. Martyr saith but as a Delinquent to the supreame Judge to the death iâ— not this kind of imputation good Divinity Now let the judicious Reader judge whether some of these expressions do not exceed the bounds of his said third Distinction for there he makes the imputation of guilt to be the obligation to punishment But in sundry of those speeches of his which I have repeated he goes further than I beleeve most men could imagine by his said Distinction and he doth all along make Christs sufferings to be from the imputation of sin that so he might deserve â—ell torments and the second death according to the exact order of Courts of Justice in their proceedings in criminal causes Some Philosophers saith Mr. Traheron do teach that all things come to pass by the copulation of causes wrapped up one in another In Rev. 4. p 49. Christs sufferings were not inflicted on hâ—m according to the natural order of justice by imputation of sin But from the voluntary cause and so they make God subject to the order and row of causes depending upon each other But saith he we say that all things come to pass because God through his secret will and purpose hath ordered them so to be done as they are done Ibidem saith he the latter Schoolmen say truly that all things come to pass necessarily not by the necessity of natural causes but by the necessiâ—y of Gods Ordinance which they call necessitatem consequentis And saith P. Martyr in Rom. 5. p. 124. God is not to be compelled to order neither ought he to be ordered by humane Laws But Mr. Norton doth all along put Christs sufferings into the order of Justice according to the order of humane Courts and Laws namely by infliction of punishment from the imputation of sin And saith P. Martyr in p. 111. It is much to be marvelled at how the Pelagians can deny that there is original sin in Infants seeing they see that they daily die but saith he here ought we to except Christ only who although he knew not sin yet died he for our sakes But death had not dominion over him because that he of his own accord suffered it for our sakes And the like speech of his I have cited in chap. 10. at Reply 2. By which speechs it is evident that Peter Martyr could not hold the imputation of our sins to Christ as Mr. Norton doth but he held that Christ bore our sins namely our punishments according to the antient Orthodox and no otherwise and that phrase and sense is according to the Scriptures 1 Pet. 2. 24. but that sense is very far from the sense of Mr. Nortons imputation for the first sort agrees to the voluntary cause but Mr. Nortons kind must be ranked with the compulsory cause of Christs sufferings according to Courts of justice But I would fain know of Mr. Norton what was the sin that God imputed to Isaak for which he commanded Abraham to kill his Son for a sacrifice did not God command it rather for the trial of Isaaks obedience as well as of Abrahams for in that act of obedience Abraham was the Priest and Isaack was the Sacrifice and in that act both of them were a lively type of the obedience of Christ who was both Priest and Sacrifice in his own death and Sacrifice doubtless if Abraham had killed Isaack it had not been from the imputation of any sin to him but in obedience to a voluntary positive command of God and not to a moral command from sin imputed for then it had been grounded on the copulation of causes wrapped one in another as Mr. Norton would have Christs death to be but the Scripture imputes no sin to Christ but makes him the Holy one of God in all his sufferings In our judging of the ways of God saith Dr. Preston in his Treatise of God without causes p. 143. we should take heed of framing a model of our own as to think that because such a thing is just therefore the Lord wills it The reason of this conceit saith he is because we think that God must go by our rule we forget this That every thing is therefore just because the Lord doth first will it and not that God doth will it because it is first just but we must proceed in another manner we should first find out what the will of God is for in that is the rule of Justice and Equity So far Dr. Preston And it is now manifested that the Rule of God from eternity was that Christ should be the seed of the woman to break the Devils head-plot by his blessed Sacrifice and that he should be such a High Priest as is holy and harmless and separated from sinners and that he should be a Lamb without spot and blemish and therefore without all imputation of sin in the sight of God and of his Law and that he should be consecrated through afflictions Heb. 2. 10. and 5. 9. and 10. 20. and to this end should as a voluntary Combater enter the Lists with Satan c. as aforesaid And all thiâ— may be further cleared if we consider what kind of cause Christs death is to take away our sins it is saith M. Burges a meritorious cause in his just p. 190. which is in the rank of moral causes of which the rule is not true Posâ—â causâ sequitur effectus This holdeth in natural causes which produce their
his divine nature and doubtlesse as his humane nature was most perfect in spirits so it was to the utmost touched with the sense of our infirmities much more then our corrupt natures can bee But I shall have occasion to speak more of this in the Passion of Christ and in respect of his ineffable union his divine nature did leave his humane nature to act in his moral obedience and natural actions But saith Mr. Norton in page 39. The Curse is not only bodily but spiritual as we were delivered from our sin so bee bare our sin But wee were delivered not only from the bodily but also from the spiritual punishment of sin Therefore c. Reply 11. I suppose that Mr. Norton by this speech Wee were delivered from the spiritual punishment of sin doth mean that Christ hath delivered us from the spiritual death of Hell But I have shewed in Chap. 2. in Sect. 3. That the first death threatned to Adam and his posterity in case hee did eat of the forbidden fruit was a spiritual death in sin and that bodily death and eternal death was threatned after this as a just punishment for Adams death in sin and hence I reason thus That seeing Christ hath delivered us from our first spiritual death in sin without bearing it in kind and from our bodily diseases in Mat. 8. without bearing them in kind hee may as well deliver us from our spritual and â—ternal death in hell without bearing it in kind But saith Mr. Norton in page 40. Whilst you so often affirm that obedience of Christ to be meritorious and yet all along deny it to bee performed in a way of justice you so often affirm a contradiction the very nature of merit including justice for merit is a just desert or a desert in way of justice Reply 12. The way of justice is either the way of vindicative justice or else it is the way of justice according to the voluntary Covenant The Dialogue indeed doth oppose the way of The true nature of merit and how Christ did merit our Redemption vindicative justice but yet it makes all Christs sufferings to be performed in a way of justice according to the order of justice in the voluntary Cause and Covenant but it is no marvel that Mr. Norton cannot see into this ground-word of merit because he is so much prejudiced against the Dialogue scope or else he could not have said that it affirms a contradiction Indeed I should have affirmed a contradictioni f I had at any time affirmed as Mr. Norton doth that the meritorious cause of all Christs sufferings and death was from Gods judicial imputing our sins to Christ But the Dialogue goes another way to work it shews from Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. That the Devil must combate against the seed of the deceived woman and that Christ in his humane nature must combate against him and break his Head-plot by continuing obedient to the death and that therefore his sufferings and death were meritorious because it was all performed in a way of justice namely in exact obedience to all the Articles of the voluntary Covenant as I have shewed also in Chap. 10. And it is out of all doubt that the Articles of the Eternal Covenant for mans Redemption are comprised in that declaration of our Redemption in Gen. 3. 15. 1 God doth there declare by way of threatning to Sathan doubtlesse in the hearing of Adam and for his instruction that he would put an enmity between him and the woman and between the devils seed and her seed hee shall enter the Lists and try Masteries with thee and hee shall break thy Head-plot and to this conflict doth the word Agony agree in Luke 22. 44. And Thou Sathan shalt bear an utter enmity against him and thou shalt have liberty to enter the Lists with this seed of the deceived woman and have liberty to do what thou canst to pervert his obedience as thou haddest to pervert the obedience of Adam and in case thou canst disturb his patience by ignominious contumelies or by the torture of a painful death and so pervert him in his obedience then thou shalt by that means hinder this seed of the woman from making his soul a sacrifice and so from the breaking of thy Head-plot and so from winning the prize and therefore thou shalt have free liberty to tempt him to sin as much as thou canst and thou shalt have liberty to impute as many sinful crimes against him as thou canst devise and so to put him to an ignominious and painful death like to wicked male factors But in case he shall continue patient without disturbance and continue obedient to the death without any diversion and at last make his death an obedient sacrifice by his own Priestly power then I will accept his death and sacrifice as full satisfaction for the sins of the Elect and so hee shall break thy Head-plot and win the prize which is the salvation of all the Elect and doubtless this death and sacrifice of Christ was exemplified to Adam by the sacrifice of some Lamb presently after his Fall Lo here is a true description of Christs merit according to the order of justice as it was agreed on in the voluntary Covenant For wee may gather from the threatning First That there was such a voluntary Covenant Secondly That Christ did covenant to continue constant in his obedience through all his temptations and trials And thirdly that upon the performance thereof God would reward him with the salvation of all the Elect Pbi 2. 9 10 11. Es 53 10 c. Mr. Wotton De Reconciliatione peccatoris part 1. cap. 4. doth thus explain the meritorious cause That the meritorious cause of Reconciliation saith hee is a kind of efficient there needs no other proof then that it binds as it were the principal efficient to perform that which upon the merit is due As if a man in running a race or the like so runneth as the order of the Game requireth by so doing hee meriteth the prize or reward and thereby also hee bindeth the Master of the Game to pay him that which he hath deserved This is a true description of the true nature of Christs merit according to the order of justice in the voluntary Covenant better and more agreeable to the Scripture than Mr. Nortons is from the legal order of Court-justice by a legal imputation of sin for the Scripture is silent in this way and plain in the other way And from this description of merit from the voluntary cause and Covenant These Conclusions do follow 1 That the wounds bruises and blood-shed of such as did win the prize cannot be said to be inflicted upon them from the vindicative wrath of the Masters of the Game caused through the imputation of sin and guilt against their Laws for none can win the prize that is guilty of any such transgression against their Law as the Apostle doth
there is a differing sense hee that shall point to a Priest making a sacrifice for sin may say there is a sin and he that shall point to Cain killing Abel may also say there is a sin the word Sin therefore must bee taken in each place where it is used as the Context shall direct sometimes in a proper sense and sometimes in a metaphorical And for the want of this observation a man may make a contrary signification of Piaculum or else not The word Sin in Exod. 30. 10. is there put for the Sin-offering and that sin is by the Seventy called the purgation of sin and in 2 Chron. 29. 24. they render it the expiation of sin and in Exod. 29. 36. the cleansing of sin and in Ezek. 43. 22. the Propitiation or Reconciliation and in Ezek. 44. 27. the appeasing for sins and in Num. 19. 12 13 19. the Purification And the reason why sin is named by these several names is because the Sin-offering was ordained to appease Gods anger to expiate to purge and to cleanse the sinner from his sin yea the word sin is rendred by the Seventy the change or the exchange in Zach. 13. 1. and that most fitly because the sin namely the Sin-offering doth cause a true change in the sinner from unclean to clean and from enmity to Reconciliation These and such like phrases given to sin by the figure Metonymia shews the word to have a differing sense but not a contrary sense as Mr. Norton affirms to amuse his Reader the like happily may be said to his other Instances But for further light See what I have replied to the signification of Aâ—ab in Psal 22. 1. 4 I will now return to speak further of the Hebrew word Pagah take it without the conjugation Hiphil and then it signifies only to meet but the particular occasions of every meeting must bee sought out by the circumstances of each place where the word is used As for example 1 It signifies the meeting of the bounds of the Tribes in this or that place 2 It may signifie the meeting of time as when the Forenoon doth meet with the Afternoon or the meeting of words or the meeting of persons for this or that end either in mercy or in wrath 3 Pagah to meet is applied to Gods meeting with man or to mans meeting with God in his worship Moses and Aaron said unto Pharaoh The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us and commanded us to go into the wildernesse to offer sacrifices to him therefore wee pray thee let us go three dayes journey to sacrifice to the Lord our God lest hee meet us with Pestilence c. Exod. 3. 18. and Exod. 5. 3. So also in Numb 23. 3 4 5 15. 16. Balaam did mee the Lord with sacrifice and the Lord was pleased to meet him with words of advice what he should say to Balack In these places Pagah is put for Gods meeting with man and mans meeting with God And in Gen. 23. 8. Abraham said to the people of the land If it bee your mind that I should bury my dead meet with Ephron for mee namely meet him by way of intreaty the Seventy say Speak for mee And so Ruth said to Naomi Meet mee not to leave thee that is to say Meet me not by thy earnest intreaties to leave thee Ruth 1. 16. So Jacob met Esau namely with an acceptable present to cover his face that is to appease his anger Gen. 32. 20. as we see it did in Gen. 33. 8 10. These Instances shew that Pagah is used for a meeting in divers respects And after this manner God ordained Christ to bee our High Priest to meet the Lord with that most acceptable gift of himself Christ attoned his Fathers wrath with the Sacrifice of his body blood in a Sacrifice for it is of necessity that every Priest that meets with God to mediate his reconciliation to sinners must have such an excellent thing to offer unto God as hee will accept and therefore it must bee that which is constituted by a mutual Covenant Heb. 8. 3. and the thing appointed was the â—est thing that Christ had to meet God withal and that was his vital soul with his body and blood offered in perfect obedience to Gods will notwithstanding Sathan endeavoured to disturb his obedience with this present Christ did meet his offended Father that was most justly provoked by Adams sin and by our sins and so according to Covenant God accepted this Priest and Sacrifice for the attoning and the appeasing of his wrath as the word Attonement doth signifie Of which word see more in Chap. 14. pag. 142 143. In this sense I say the Father made or caused the Mediator to meet him for the iniquities of us all 1 He met his Father in his eternal Council and Contract And 2 In the execution of it Pagnin renders this verse two wayes indifferently 1 Occurrere fecit ei poenam 2 Vel rogere fecit eum pro iniquitate And both these readings may well agree to the same sense 1 He made the iniquities of us all to meet upon him namely hee made him to undertake our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice to make Attonement for them and in this sense the Dialogue hath expounded this verse 2 The Lord made him to meet for the iniquities of us all or caused him to meet him as our Priestly Mediator with the Sacrifice of his body for the iniquities of us all And thus both readings do agree to the same sense but because the last is more exact according to the Hebrew therefore now I follow that The Chaldy Paraphrase of this verse speaks thus And the So Mr. Clendon in Justification justified p. 11. Eternal is well pleased to remit the sins of us all for his sake And Tindal translates it thus But through him the Lord pardoneth all our sins From these Translations and Expositions it follows 1 That the Doctrine of Gods imputing our sins to Christ in Mr. Nortons sense was not held forth by these Translators neither can it be proved from this verse nor from any other when the right interpretation is given and Mr. Norton himself consesseth thus much in general That the guilt of ouâ— sins could not bee imputed to Christ unlesse unlesse he did first become our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam in Gen. 2. 17. But I have shewed in Chap. 2. and elsewhere with the concurrence of sundry eminent Divines that Christ was not our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam and therefore by his own consession untill hee prove that Christ was Adams Surety Gen. 2. 17. his Doctrine of Imputation is without a foundation and thence it follows that it must needs bee an unsound Assertion to hold that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his death and sufferings But yet though I deny Christ to bee our legal Surety I do
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
have heard expounded thus cut off in this world and cut off in the world to come 3 Dr. Hammon in his Annotation on Rev. 20. 6. saith this phrase the second Death is four times used in this book and it seems to be taken from the Jews who use it proverbially for finall utter irreversible destruction So in the Jerusalem Targum Deut. 33. 6. Let Ruben live and let him not dye the second death by which the wicked dye in the world to come 4 Mr. Broughton saith That the ancient godly Hebrew Doctors that lived after Ezra seeing the increase of Sadduces In his Reduct on Dan 9. they did frame divers terms to express the world to come both in relation to the godly and to the wicked Epicurean Sadduces and those terms in their sense doth the New Testament approve and follow and they made the term Second-death to express the immortal misery that belongs to the soul of the wicked in the world to come they made the spiritual death of the soul by original sin and the death of the body to be the death of this world And Austin speaks just as the Dialogue doth as I have cited him in Chap. 16. Reply 20. All sorts of death that men do suffer in this world is counted but the first in relation to the Second death in the world to come That the spiritual death of sin and the death of the body is the First-death because it belongs to all men in this world and so doth Zanchy in his Sermons page 162. and that the Second-death belongs only to the wicked after this life is ended But Mr. Norton opposeth this division of death in page 115. and page 120. and makes a threefold death to confound the Reader about the term Second-death in Rev. 14. and so hee evades his answer to the main scope of the Dialogues Argument against Christs suffering of the Second-death which is this namely That the Second-death cannot be suffered in this life where the First-death only is suffered by Gods appointment But on the contrary he labours to maintain that Christ suffered the Second-death in this world by Gods extraordinary dispensation But I have formerly answered that the Papists may in like fort maintain the Miracles that they ascribe to their legion of Saints if they may but flye to Gods extraordinary dispensation 8 Mr. Anthony Wotton denied Mr. Nortons Tenent though for some respects best known to himself he was sparing to publish De Recon pec par 2. l. 1. c. 11. n. 8. and more cleerly in c. 18. n. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. his judgement and yet he hath left enough in print to witness what I say and it is also further evident in this that hee denied that God imputed our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of his sufferings as I have shewed in the former Chapter 9 I find by conference with such as have been wel read in the Ancient Divines that nothing in them without wresting their sense can be found that doth evidence that they held that God did legally impute our sins to Christ as the meritorious cause of inflicting Hell-torments on him 10 The Dialogue hath cited some eminent Divines both for Learning and Piety that have denied that Christ suffered Hell-torments like the two witnesses of Gods truth even when that doctrine bare the greatest sway as Mr. Robert Smith that suffered much for the truth being silenced through the iniquity of the times and Mr. Robert Wilmot a man eminent for learning and the power of godliness and Mr. Christopher Carlisle a judicious Expositor and Mr. Nichols a student of the Inneâ—-Temple All which were far from siding with Popish Tenents as some to blast the truth are apt to say that scarce any deny Christs suffering of Gods vindicative wrath but Papists 11 I have on Psal 22. 1. cited our larger Annotation that goes quite contrary to Mr. Nortons strain 12 I have cited other eminent Divines in Chap. 2. Sect. 2. that do hold much differing from Mr. Norton And it is a known thing among the Learned that sub judice lis est It is a controversie not yet unanimously resolved and therefore I presume I shall meet with some judicious Readers that will be able to judge whether the Dialogue and the truth therein contained hath been rightly censured by Mr. Norton and by those that set him on work This Proposition saith Mr. Norton in page 96. Cursed is every one that hangs on a Tree is a typical Proposition and contains in it these two truths 1 That every one that hangeth upon a Tree in Judea from the promulgation of that Curse to the Passion of Christ inclusively is ceremonially accursed i. e. All that are hâ—nged are so infamed that the carkass of uch in case they be not buried before Sun-set shall defile the land 2 That Christ in testimony that he redeemed us by bearing the moral curse should be hanged on a Tree Reply 10. Neither of the two Propositions are true in themselves much lesse are they deducible from the Text in Deut. 21. 23. 1 I have sufficiently shewed already That this exhortation defile not the land is not connexed but separated from the former sentence by a colon or by a full prick as the Geneva and Tindal make it and that it hath reference to the execution and exact justice upon Malefactors as in verse 21 22. 2 That no Ceremonial sin did defile the whole land 3 That hanging on a Tree longer than Sun-set did not defile the land and that sometimes hanging many dayes together did not defile but cleanse the land from moral sins 4. Therefore seeing all Mr. Nortons Arguments laid together have not strength enough to prove his first typical exposition of Deut. 21. 23. much lesse have they strength sufficient to prove his second Proposition which cannot bee true unless the first be true But yet Mr. Norton makes a great shew for his exposition by citing Junius Piscator Parker and Mr. Ainsworth as concurring with his sense therefore I will make a short Reply Reply 11. The two first I perceive by conference with such as have perused them speak very moderately and sparingly and not so full as Mr. Norton doth but suppose they were fully of his mind yet that could not prove no more but this That Mr. Norton is not alone in his exposition and collections and so much may the Dialogue say but all that are judicious do know that it is not mans consent but Scripture rightly interpreted and Arguments drawn from a right interpretation that must determine the point 3 I have not yet examined what Mr. Parker saith 4 As for Mr. Ainsworth he is a little too bold to make him full of his judgement let his mind and meaning be examined by conferring with his own words in his Annotations in Gen. 3. 15. in Num. 21. 9. in Exod. 32. 32. in Lev. 6. 21. in Psal 69. 4. Besides I received some letters
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
rather did he not pull it upon himself This speech in Gen. 2. 17. said he is no other then if it were said whensoever thou dost wickedly thou shalt become wicked for what is it else to be spiritually dead but to be devoid of goodnesse or whensoever thou killest thy self thou shalt be dead besides saith he it is against the nature of God to deprive a creature of Holinesse and Righteousnesse and so to make it unholy unrighteous wicked evill These considerations I confesse did amuse me at the present my conscience I blesse God being tender of truth and not being able to satisfie my self at the present to the contrary I durst not oppose it and therefore I did at that present manifest my self to be convinced But since then I blesse God I find sufficient light to satisfie me that my first Exposition in the Dialogue was right Though I confesse I have found it a point of great difficulty to find out the true nature of that death in Gen. 2. 17. and to distinguish it from bodily death and I see that Mr. Baxter doth also make it a Query Whether Adam cast away Gods Image or whether God took it away from him in his Aphorismes page 75. but in page 34. he seems to hold that after Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit he dyed spiritually by being forsaken of God in regard of holinesse as well as in regard of comfort and so he was deprived of the chief part of Gods Image but so was not Christ saith he And I was the more inlightned and supported in my Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. by P. Martyrs Answer to Pigghius See P. Martyr in Rom. 5. 18. Original sin is the essential punishment of Adams first sin though in the issue the Elect according to Gods eternal counsel are redeemed from it by Christ Pigghius makes the corruption of our nature to be the natural effect of Adams sin P. Martyr doth answer thus The ground and reason thereof is rather taken from the justice of God whereby the grace of the Spirit and heavenly giâ—â— wherewith man was endowed before his fall were removed from him when he had sinned and this withdrawing of grace came of the justice of God Although the blame saith he be ascribed to the Transgression of the first man lest a man should straitway say that God is the cause of sin for when he had once withdrawn his gift wherewith Adam was adorned straitway vices and corruptions followed of their own accord Tindal also saith in page 382. The Spirit was taken away in the fall of Adam This of Peter Martyr and sundry others to the same purpose did much sway with me then also I considered that Adams perfections were created to be but mutable untill he should take a course for the confirmation of them by eating of the Tree of life and therefore they were but lent him for a triall for in case he should first eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evill he should dye the death and so lose his created perfections and therefore as soon as he had sinned by eating that forbidden fruit God in justice took them away But it hath pleased God by his free promise to make himself a debtor to the Elect for the confirmation and continuance of their faith and grace because it was purchased for them by the blood of Christ to be of a lasting and permanent nature but God made no such promise to Adam when he created him after his own Image for he created him to be but of a mutable condition and therefore his graces were to be continued no otherwise but upon condition only of his obedience in eating of the Tree of life in the first place so that when the condition was broken on his part by eating the forbidden fruit it was just with God to take away those gifts and graces wherewith he had endowed his nature at first In like sort at the first God gave unto Saul the Spirit of Government as a new qualification added to his former education 1 Sam. 10. 6. 9. But afterwards it pleased God to take away this Spirit of Government from him because he gave it no otherwise but upon condition that he should use it for the doing of his will and command And had he continued to use it for that end and purpose he should still have enjoyed it but when he abused the same to the fulfilling of his own will in sparing of Agag then God took away this spirit of Government from him and then Saul grew wicked 1 Sam. 16. 14. And why might not God as well take away his created qualifications from Adams nature for his disobedience against his positive command as well as from Saul for disobedience to his positive command Conclusions 1 Hence it follows that in case this Exposition of the word Death in Gen. 2. 17. be sound and good as I conceive it is Then Mr. Nortons second Proposition and all his other Propositions that affirm that the death threatned in Gen. 2. 17. is the inviolable rule of Gods Relative Justice do fall to the ground 2 Hence it follows that the bodily death of the Elect and Eternal death in hel is but an accidental punishment to the first plritual death both the bodily and eternal death of the Reprobate are but accidental punishments to the first spiritual death of mans nature in sin and therefore that the first spiritual death in sin was the essential and substantial curse that was first threatned in Gen. 2. 17. or thus Adams disobedience was the meritorious cause of the death of mans nature in sin the spiritual death of mans nature in sin was afterwards the meritorious cause of bodily death though God was pleased to sanctifie that punishment to all that do beleeve in the Promised Seed and now through faith they have hope in their death to change for the better but the said bodily death was ordained for a further degree of misery to all that beleeve not in the Promised Seed for when God ordained death he ordained judgement to succeed it Heb. 9. 27. and this is the distribution of his judgement He that beleeveth on the Son bath everlasting life and he that beleeveth not the Son shall not see life But the wrath of God abideth on him Joh. 3. 36. 3 Hence it follows that the inviolable rule of Gods relative Justice for mans Redemption is not to be fetched from Gen. 2. 17. but from the voluntary cause of Gods secret will not yet revealed to Adam till after his fall and that secret will but now revealed was that the formality of Christs death in seperating his soul from his body by his own Priestly power should be a sacrifice and the formality of all satisfaction as it is explained in Heb. 9. 15 16. and Heb. 10. 4 I desire the Reader to take notice that I defer my Examination of Mr. Norton Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. to Chap. 10. His fifth
justice inflicted on all mankind for Adams Covenant-sin And Mr. Norton himself saith thus in page 118. in that Proposition God punisheth sin with sin the futurition of sin is to be distinguished from sin it self The infallible and penal futurition of sin is an effect of justice The Reader will see cause to take his meaning to be an Essential effect of justice and for this see also Dr. Ames in his Marrow l. 1 c. 12. n. 45 46 47. And sundry others of the Learned do say That God is not permissive but active also as a just Judge in some sins of men from these and the like Scriptures 2 Sam. 16. 10. 2 King 22. 22 23. Rom. 1. 26. Ezek. 14. 9. His third Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That the Elect though they suffer no part of penal justice yet they are left unto sin for a time Reply 3. I have said oft that original sin was penal justice in The punishments that the Elect suffer are de jure penal justice but in the issue de factâ— are not Adam till it please God to make an alteration by revealing the Covenant of Grace And so also the punishments that the Elect do suffer since the Covenant of Grace was revealed are de jure penal justice though in the issue de facto they are not To be under the power of sin though but in part and so likewise to be under temptations afflictions bodily death c. are the due wages of sin effects of the Curse flowing from it as such in themselves and by their own nature though God is pleased by the Covenant of Grace to alter the nature of them to the Elect and Mr. Nortons own words do testifie that the Elect do suffer that de jure which is penal justice for in Page 10. Argument 1. he saith thus This sentence namely Gen. 2. 17. was universal given to Adam as a Gen. 2. 17. publick person and holds all his posterity whether Elect or Reprobate in case of sin guilty of death His fourth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That sinful qualities are a defect not an effect they have a deficient not an efficient cause and therefore of them God cannot be the Author Reply 4. I may say the same of natural death it is a defect therfore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause and darkness also is a defect therefore it hath a deficient and not an efficient cause Now let Mr. Norton shew how either of these have God for their Author and when that is done he may see the weaknesse of his reason If he be unwilling to answer then Dr. Ames doth answer the former in these words Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from God as taking vengeance on sin And Dr. Willet doth answer the latter hee first Death is not from God as he did ordain nature but it is from Gods justice as a punishment for original sin The like may be said of eternal death it is from Gods justice as a punishment of original sin to such as do not repent and beleeve in the promised seed See Dr. Ames Mar. l. 1 c. 12. n. 31. Dr. Willet in â—o 5. Q 22. in Ans to Obj 2. Bar. Traheron on Rev. 4. P. Mar. in Com pl. part 1. p. 190. makes this Objection If Death be the punishment of sin then God should be the Author of death because he is the Author of punishment He answers thus As God created light darknesse he created not but disposed of it so he made not death but as it is a punishment God as a disposer rather and a just judge than an Author inflicted it And Bar. Traheron answereth his Objecter thus Will you say That death came into the world by the envy of the Devil ergo it was not ordained of God Did God as Isaiaâ— teacheth Chap. 30. 33. ordain Gehenna from yesterday that is to say from eternity and not death and so saith he Sin came not into the world besides Gods Ordinance And to this purpose speaks Peter Martyr of the Privation of Gods Image in Adam and of Original sin as I have cited him in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. ult So then sin as it is a punishment hath an efficient as well as a deficient cause His fifth Reason examined Mr. Norton saith That Christ suffered the Essential punishment and yet was without sin Reply 5. Christs sufferings do all arise from the voluntary cause and not from natural causes as ours do namely from a voluntary positive Law and not from the moral Law But whether Christ suffered the essential punishment or no is the great businesse of this dispute The Dialogue denies it all along let the judicious Reader judge whether this be fair disputing to bring in such a Proposition as is in controversie and which hee knows before-hand will be denied as a reason to confirm another doubtful point this is no better than a begging of the Question And now I leave it to the judicious Reader to judge whether his five Reasons have weight sufficient in them to prove that sin as it is vindicative from God flows not from the curse Essentially and his own words on Gen. 2. 17. which I have cited in my former Reply to his third Reason do affirm as much and his words also in page 37. Judicial punishment saith he of sin with sin but in his Manuscript copy it is penal punishment of sin with sin is an act of vindicative justice The Reader may understand him to mean it of the essential part of justice 6 I will examine that passage in page 118. The sinful qualities of the damned saith he proceed not from Hell-torments as an Effect from the Cause Reply 6. It is worth examination what he means by the sinful qualities of the damned whether such as they carry with them to Hell or the multiplication of sin when they come there flowing from that sinful habit which they brought with them thither The former may properly be called sinful qualities the latter sinful acts proceeding from that sinful habit of original sin And of these latter Dr. Ames doth tell us That they have more respect of punishment than sin In like sort the Summe of Divinity In his Mar l. 1. c. 16. n. 10 11. set forth by John Downame page 254. makes hatred against God in the damned and final desperation to be a great part of their punishment as the Dialogue doth See also Peter Martyrs Answer to Piggbius in Chap. 2. prope finem SECT 7. Still Mr. Norton explains his first Distinction in these words Duration for ever and the place of punishment are adjuncts as the nature of them sufficiently shews Reply IT is beyond my capacity I confesse to judge whether the eternal estate both of Elect and Reprobate after this life do come within the compasse of a Physical adjunct of time all things are called Eternal that were before the Creation of the world because
more truly said because Christ did not deserve the Essentials Let the unpartial Reader judge between us CHAP. VI. Mr. Nortons third Distinction in Page 9. examined which is this Distinguish concerning Imputation of sin Imputation of sin is either of the commission of sin or of the guilt of sin guilt taken not for the commission of sin but for the obligation to punishment for sin committed sin is imputed to Christ in the latter sense Reply 1. I Grant that Gods imputation of sin is either of sin it self or of guilt or rather of both for they are correlates and therefore Gods imputation whether it bee understood of sin it self or of sin and guilt jâ—yntly It doth alwayes in Scripture-language refer to the same subject But saith Mr. Norton in Page 41. Guilt and Punishments are Relates Reply 2. I grant they are alwayes Relates according to the order of legal proceedings in Courts of justice and in this way and order of satisfaction doth Mr. Norton go all along But in point of Christs satisfaction I go all along in the All Christs suâ—â—eâ—iâ—gs were from the voluntary cause and covenant and not from the legal Court-order of the guilt of our sins impuâ—ed way and order of Voluntary causes and according to the way and order of those causes the suffering of punishments is not a Relate to the imputation of sin preceding As for example in the point of tryal of Masteries there the suffering of punishments is meerly and only from the voluntary Cause and Covenant both in the Law-makers and in the undertakers and such wâ—re all the sufferings of Christ they were all from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and all his outward sufferings were from his voluntary undertaking to enter the lists with Sathan according to Gods declaration in Gen. 3. 15. and not from the imputation of the guilt of our sins according to the order of Court-justice I grant also that when ever God doth punish any one in See Burges on Justif p. 27. anger it is alwayes from the imputation of sin in the subject and so saith Mr. Burges God afflicts none namely in anger but where there is sin in the subject and in that sense guilt and punishment are Relates but yet from the Voluntary cause and Covenant punishments may be suffered without judicial imputation and so consequently without judicial anger But of this see more in my Reply to 2 Cor. 5. 21. The guilt of Adams sin saith Dr. Reynolds is inseparable from In his siâ— fulnesse of sin p. 35. the sin it self being the proper passion of it Lo in this short sentence how he doth connex guilt and punishment inseparably to Adams first sin he makes his guilt to be the proper passion of his first sin And hence it follows necessarily according to Mr. Norton That the guilt of Adams sin being imputed to Christ he must be spiritually dead in sin for spiritual death in sin is the proper guilt and proper passion of Adams first sin This I hinted at in the Dialogue And of this see more in Chap. 2. in R. 2. ult If original sin had not been ordained in Gods justice to bee the proper guilt and punishment of Adams first sin then it would follow that Adams eating of the forbidden fruit had been no sin And now compare Mr. Nortons distinction to the guilt of Adams sin Imputation of guilt saith he is the obligation to punishment By this Doctrine it follows that Christ did suffer the guilt and punishment of Adams first sin namely a spiritual death in sin Truly it makes my heart tremble at this inference God indeed God imputes the guilt of Adams first sin to all men because all mankind were true sinners in Adam by vertue of Gods Covenant touching mans nature in general imputes the guilt of Adams first sin to all the natural posterity of Adam because Gods Covenant was made with Adam and the nature of all mankind in general as I have shewed in Chap. 2. And in this respect all men are true sinners in Adam and therefore truly guilty of the punishment threatned but so was not Christ hee was not of Adam by ordinary Generation Our guilt saith Mr. Baxter in his Preface to Mr. Ayr page 7. was Reatus culpae poenae propter culpam nostram ex obligatione leg is Christs guilt is bat Reatus poenae propter culpam nostram ex voluntaria susceptione Christ was Obliga 〈…〉 s ad eandem the same in value but noe Eâ—dem obligatione And in his late Reply to Molianaeus page 224. he doth justly taxe this kind of Imputation to bee the very root and master veyn of all Antinomianism And in page 225. saith hee Bee it known to you therefore that Christ did obey and suffer in the person of a Mediator and not in persona delinquentis though for the sins of the Delinquent being obliged to suffer by his voluntary undertaking and therefore his sufferings or obedience are none of ours as performed by him But Mâ— Norton in the point of imputing our sins to Christ doth go beyond his said Distinction as I apprehend For in page 79. ult Hee saith That Christ was a notorious Malefactâ—r having upon him the guilt of the sins of the Elect by imputation and that justly before God In page 98. Whom wee have already proved to be the greatest offender as being imputatively guilty of all the sins of the Elect both hanged upon the Crâ—sse and others In page 103. He was the greatest Malefactor imputatively in Gods account Reply 3. In these and other like places he makes our sins as wâ—ll as our guilt to be imputed to Christ But saith Peter Martyr It cannot beshewed out of the Scripture that any man is called a In Rom 5. p. 121 b. sinner but either he hath sin in himself or else undoubtedly hâ—e hath before committed sin unlesse wee will say that God maketh men guilty without any sin committed by them P. Martyr I confess speaks this of Infants that dye before they have committed any actual sin but yet it is a four square truth in general Turn it on which side you will and it will lye fast he tells Piggâ—ius that God could not impute the guilt of Adamâ— sin to Infants unlesse Infants had been first truly guilty of Adams sin and it is evident that all Infants and all the world are truly guilty of Adams sin because all mankind were in Adam not only naturally but also legally in regard of the stipulation and covenant between God and him as the head of mans nature in general So that by the force of that Covenant concerning mans nature in general all mankind had an interest in the good of the promise of that Covenant in case of Adams obedience and in the evil of the Curse of that Covenant in case of his disobedience and therefore seeing all had this equal interest in the Covenant of nature it follows that wee had an interest in his
16. and then the Devils Head-plot had not been broken but because hee continued obedient through all his sufferings on the Crosse and at last made his Sacrifice by his own Priestly power even by the joynt concurrence of both his Natures he hath through that kind of death destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil Heb. 2. 14. and all this was declared unto Adam in Gen. 3. 15. and exemplified in the sacrifice of a Lamb the Law maketh men High-priests which have infirmities Heb. 7. 28. namely sinful infirmities But the word of the Oath to David which was since the Law maketh the Son who is consecrated for evermore namely made perfect by his obedience in all his sufferings and so hee had no sinful infirmity but continues a perfect High-priest for us for evermore But this kind of voluntary Sarety doth differ as much from Mr. Nortons bounden Surety in the same Obligation with Adam as a free Redeemer doth differ from a bounden Surety I grant therefore that Christ was our Surety as he was our free Mediator and Redeemer but no otherwise and so in an unproper sense he may be called our Surety but not in a proper legal sense according to Mr. Nortons Court-language This way of satisfaction first declared in Gen. 3. 15. is the foundation upon which all after Prophecies touching satisfaction by Christs death and sufferings must have dependence and as it was first exemplified to Adam in the sacrifice of a Lamb as I have shewed in the Institution of the Sabbath and therefore all those positive Laws touching Priest and Sacrifice declared afterwards to Moses are but the further opening of the manner of Christs satisfaction and indeed those types were but the Picture of what was agreed on in the Eternal Covenant to bee performed in due time by the seed of the Woman 4 It may hence be gathered That God ordained no other afflâ—ctions for Christ to suffer but either from Sathans enmity in piercing him in the foot-soals meaning thereby his outward afflictions Or else secondly they were from himself in the inward man for as he was true man of the seed of the Woman so he must be inwardly touched with the feeling of our infirmities and therefore as often as objects of fear or sorrow c. did present he was to be touched as our merciful High-priest with a greater measure of these infirmities than any other man can be but no Scripture doth speak a word in Mr. Nortons Dialect that his soul was pressed under the sense of Gods immediate wrath for in case his Fathers immediate wrath had pressed those sorrows from his soul as Mr. Nortons term is then those sufferings had not been voluntary from his own will but constrained but say all sound Divines nothing was constrained in Christ by any supreme power and therefore not by Gods immediate wrath though the Devil had liberry to use what force hee could to his outward man yet hee had no liberty to force his soul but himself was the only voluntary Agent in all the affections of his soul hee feared hee sorrowed c. when hee would and as much as hee would and therefore was often touched with the feeling of our infirmities in a larger measure than any other mans soul can bee and thus hee was our voluntary Mediator and Surety Mr. Norton still makes Christ to bee our legal Surety in the same obligation with Adam on the contrary I do still affirm that Christ suffered our punishments not from Gods judicial imputation of sin for then indeed he had suffered from Gods wrath but that he suffered our punishments only from the voluntary Cause and Covenant and such sufferings might be and were undertaken by Christ both without any judicial imputation of sin and also without wrathâ— as in the trial of masteries with Sathan Enmity upon Adams fall was proclamed and the seed of the Woman was commanded but not in wrath to enter the lists with Sathan and try masteries with him and the Devil must do his worst to disturb his patience and so to pervert his obedience and Christ must exemplifie the perfection of his obedience by the perfection of his patience even in that ignominious and painful death of the Crosse untill hee had finished all his sufferings for his consecration to his Priestly office and then at last make his soul a sacrifice for sin But this way of satisfaction Mr. Norton dams for heresie The Lord open his eyes to see better and the eyes of those that are misled by him 5 It was ordained in the Eternal Decree and Covenant that Christ should be consecrated to his Priestly office for the better making his death a sacrifice by afflictions Heb. 2. 10. Heb. 5. 9. Heb. 2. 10. God ordained all Christs greatest sufferings in his Passion to be for his consecration to his sacrifice To consecrate is interpreted by the Seventy to make perfect As for example when the people had worshipped the Golden Calf Moses by Gods special positive command in Exod. 32. 27. 29. commanded the Levites to consecrate their hands by doing perfect and exact justice upon the Idolaters without respect of persons not sparing their own sons or neer kindred and this act of theirs is recorded to their praise in Deut. 33. 9. and by this impartial act of perfect justice their hands were consecrated to God 2 The consecration of Aaron and his sons to the Priestly office was to bee effected by continuing seven dayes under the observation of certain particular Rites before their consecration could bee finished Exod. 29. 9. and Lev. 8. 22. and then the very next day after their consecration was finished Moses bid them draw near to the Altar to execute the Priests office by offering a sacrifice both for themselves and for the people Lev. 9. 7. But Christ needed not to offer any sacrifice for himself and therefore it was only for his people 3 As Moses is said to consecrate Aaron and his sons through many particular Rites exactly observed whereof one was no small affliction though willingly born by them at the Lords appointment namely Yee shall abide at the door of the Tent of the Congregation day and night seven dayes and shall keep the charge of Jeâ—ovah that ye dye not Lev. 8. 33. This exact watch for that space of time being separated from their wives and families under the penalty of death was doubtlesse a time of affliction to them though as I said before willingly born at the Lords appointment 4 It is said in Heb. 2. 10. It became him namely it became God the Father that hee should consecrate the Prince of our salvation through afflictions And it is also said in verse 17. That it behoved Christ to bee made like unto his brethren that he might bee a merciful and a faithful high Sacrificer in things concerning God and that hee might make Reconciliation for the sins of the people 5 In these two verses
we may observe the execution of some of the Articles of the Eternal Covenant touching Christs Priesthood both on the Fathers part and on Christs part 1 It is said of the Father That it be came him to consecrate the Prince of our salvation through afflictions that is to make his obedience perfect through afflictions or else if the Devil had not had full liberty to try his obedience by afflictions hee would have objected thus against Christ In case I might have had full liberty to try his obedience as I had to try Adams obedience this seed of the Woman would have been disobedient to God as Adam was Therefore it became so perfect a Work-man as God was to declare that Sathan had full liberty to enter the Lists with the seed of the Woman and to do his worst to pervert his obedience Gen. 3. 15. And secondly It behoved Christ to be made like unto his brethren and to enter the Lists with Sathan not in his divine nature but in our nature and to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities and therefore it is also said That it behoved Christ to suffer Luke 24. 46. according to the Decree and Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. that so his obedience being made perfect he might bee fully consecrated to the execution of his Priestly office in making his Soul an acceptable Sacrifice to make Reconciliation for the sins of Gods people and thus hee became obedient to the death Phi. 2. 8. And thus it became God to consecrate and Christ to be consecrated through afflictions and therefore presently after the Fall God said to Sathan Thou shalt pierce him in the foot-soals and accordingly God is said not to spare his own Son but to deliver him up into the hands of Sathan for us all to try the combate Rom. 8. 32. So David said The Lord bade Shemei to curse David For saith Dr Preston In Gods All-Sufficiency There is no creature in heaven or earth that stirreth without a command and without a warrant from the Master of the house God sent Sathan to bee a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs false Prophets God is without all causes and the cause of all things no creature stirs but at his command and by his providence Eccles 3. 14. And thus Herod and Pontius Pilate the Devils Agents did unto Christ whatsoever God had before determined to be done Act. 4. and thus God declared his will to Sathan Thou shalt pierce the seed of the deceived Woman in the foot-soals as a wicked Malefactor but yet for all this he shall continue obedient and at last break thy Head-plot by his sacrifice of Reconciliation flesh and blood could not effect this way of consecration The Father delivered Christ to death saith P. Mart. not that the Father is bitter or cruel hee delighted not in evil as it is evil But I may adde he delighted to see him combate with Sathan not for the evil sake that fel upon Christ but for the good of his obedience in his consecration to his death and sacrifice And all this was done not from the row of causes as in Courts of justice from the imputation of the guilt of our sins but from the voluntary Cause and Covenant only But saith Mr. Norton in Page 13â— The soul that sinneth shall dye Ezek. 18. 20. Good saith he man sinned ergo man dyed Christ was a sinner imputatively though not inherently And the soul that sinneth whether inherently or imputatively shall dye Reply 7. It is a plain evidence that the Doctrine of imputing our sins to Christ as our legal Surety is a very unsound Doctrine because it hath no better supports hitherto than Scripture mis-interpreted The sense of this Text is this The soul that sins i. e. the very soul that sins namely the very same numericâ—l and individual person that sins formaly and inherently shall die for the text speaks plainly of sin committed and it argues that Mr. Norton took little heed to the circumstances of the Text that did not mark that and the Text sheweth the effect that sin hath upon a sinner that repents noâ— namely he shall dye Now to this Exposition compare Mr. Nortons Answer Man sinned saith he mark his evasion for he doth not speak this of man numerically taken as the Text doth but he speaks it of man generally or of all mankind in Adam Ergo man died saith he here he takes the word man not for the particular individual sinner as the Text doth but for the individual person of Christ and so his meaning amounts to this Mankind sinned and Christ died By this the Reader may see that his Exposition agrees with the Text no better than Harp and Harrow Therefore unless Mr. Norton do affirm that Christ was a sinner formally and inherently he cannot from this place of Ezekiel gather that Christ was to suffer the second death neither can he gather it from Gen. 2. 17. because both these places speak of sin as it is formally committed and not alone of the effects of sin as guilt Neither of these Scriptures do admit of dying by a Surety neither doth the Law any where else admit of dying such a death as the second death is by a Surety to deliver other sinners from that death as these Scriptures do testifie Ps 49. 7 8 9. Job 36. 18 19. The Apostle saith the sting of death is sin but his meaning is plainly of sin inherent and not of such an imputation of sin as Mr. Norton makes to be the ground of Christs suffering the second death Adams first sin saith Bucanus was common to all mens nature but his other sins saith he were truly personal of which Ezek. 18. 20. the soul that sinneth shall die But I wonder that Mr. Norton doth cite Austin for the spiritual death of Christs soul from Gods imputing our sins to him Austin saith he in p. 130. calleth it a death not of condition but of crime it is as evident as the sun that Austins meaning is this Christ was not necessitated to die through any sinful condition of nature as fallen man is but that he was put to death as a criminal person by the Jews sinful imputations and that Austin infers it was therefore just that seeing the devil had slain him who owed nothing the debtors whom he held in durance beleeving in him that was slain without cause should be set at liberty See Austins sense more at large in Wotton de Recon â—pec par 2. l. 1. c. 21. Austins sense is no more like Mr. Nortons sense than an Apple is like an Oyster But saith Mr. Norton in pag. 41. If Christ had suffered death without guilt imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 8. If Mr. Norton from the Voluntary cause and covenant should undertake to strive with his opposite Champion for the All Christs sufferiâ—gs were from the vâ—luntary Covenant and not from Gods judicial imputation of our sins to
Reply 2. If Mathew had known that such a Tenent would have been broached he would doubtlesse if the Spirit of God had permitted have shewed that he must not have suffered the wrath of God but it had been for Mr. Nortons honor if he could have shewed that Christ told his Disciples That bee must go to Jerusalem to suffer many things there from the immediate wrath of God as well as from Sathans instruments and then the Reader might have been satisfied The third Scripture cited by the Dialogue is in Luke 24 25 26 44. 46. Mr. Norton Answers Toese words saith he conclude that Christ was to suffer But the word All saith he in vers 26. includes the suffering of Divine Justice Reply 3. In the two former Scriptures he could not find any particle for the proving that Christ suffered divine Justice but now in Luke 24 26. he finds it in the word All and yet there is no All in that verse Mr. Norton will rather coyn Scripture-words than want a proof of Christs suffering from Gods immediate wrath The fourth Scripture cited by the Dialogue is Act. 13. 27 28. He Answers thus The word All in this text saith he is to be taken in a limited sense for all things that were written of him to be fulfilled by the Romans and the Jews as the instruments thereof Reply 4. In this Answer he doth but repent the full and true sense of the Dialogue and in so doing he justifies the sense of the Dialogue Now let the Reader judge how well he hath confuted the Dialogues proofs for the stating of the case And whether this Answer of his be not rather a confused shuffling of an Answer than an Answer to satisfie any judicious Reader CHAP. X. The Examination of Mr. Nortons Exposition of Gen. 2. 17. in page 21. For the true understanding whereof saith Mr. Norton consider these three things 1 What is here intended by Death 2 The Distribution of Death 3 The Application of that Distribution SECT I. Saith he The Commination Thou shalt surely dye is not particular concerning some kind of death but indefinite therefore equivalent to an universal comprehending all kinds of Death Reply 1. I Have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 3. from two circumstances in this Text of Gen. 2. 17. that the death there threatned is limited to a spiritual death in sin only 2 In his Distribution And 3 In his Application of this Death he brings Christ within the compasse of it two wayes 1 By separation of his soul from his body which he makes to be a temporal and penal death in Christ 2 By the separation of his soul from the sense of the good things of the promise and the presence of the evill things in the commination which he calls Total Temporal and properly Penal in Christ Reply 2. I deny that the death of Christ namely the separation of his soul from his body was a proper penal death for The death of Christ could not be a penal death because Gods Law threatens none with a penal death but sinners themselves In his Common places part 2. p. 244. the Law of God threatens no man with a penal death nor yet with any other true curse but sinners themselves Sin and Death saith Peter Martyr is compared as cause and effect But saith he here we must exempt Christ only who notwithstanding he knew no sin yet for our sakes he dyed But saith he Death had no dominion over him because he of his own accord did suffer it for our salvation The like speech of his I have cited in page 54. Had not Christ dyed voluntarily saith Bernard ad milites Templi cap. 11. that death had not been meritorious how much more unworthily he dyed who deserved not death so much more justly man liveth for whom he dyed what justice thou wilt ask is this that an innocent should dye for a malefactor It is no justice it is mercy If it were justice then should he not dye freely but indebted thereto and if indebted then indeed he should dye but the other for whom he dyed should not live yet though it be not justice it is not against justice otherwise he could not be both just and merciful These Testimonies of the Orthodox and more to this purpose I might bring do point-blank oppose Mr. Nortons Tenent that Christs death was inflicted on him from Gods penal justice through the meritorious cause of sin as our death is on us But it is no such matter Christs death is of another nature The true nature of Christs death was to be a sacrifice because he undertook it from the voluntary Cause and Covenant onely upon condition of meriting the destruction of Satans Head-plot and the redeeming of all the Elect thereby and in this respect his obedience in giving his life was covenanted to be accepted by the Father as a free gift and as the richest Present that the world could afford namely as a sacrifice of Attonement or Reconciliation smelling like a most sweet savor in the nostrils of God and in this respect his death is the ground of merit but had it been inflicted on him from Gods penal wrath as deserved through the imputation of sin it had merited nothing as Bernard speaks above When conditions are made by a voluntary Covenant for the winning or meriting of a rich prize he that will strive for the mastery with his opposite Champion for the winning of the said Prize must strive lawfully that is to say in obedience to those Laws and he must be willing to undergo all the hardships that he must meet withall from his opposite Champion it may be to the forcing of his body into an Agony it may be to the breaking of his body and to the shedding of much blood all this he must do from the voluntary cause from the voluntary Covenant for the Masters of the Game do not compel any man to undertake these difficult services neither do they out of anger and wrath inflict any of the said punishments though the opposite party may happily do what he can in anger to pervert the Combaters obedience and to provoke him to some miscarriage against the Laws of the prize that so he may not win the prize from him Even so Jesus Christ the author and finisher of our Faith for the joy that was set before him indured the cross despising the shame and is now set down as a Victor over Satan and all his potent Instruments at the right hand of God having first endured the cross and the contradiction of sinners and hath spoyled Principalities and Powers in it namely in his death on the cross which by Gods appointment did strive for the mastery with him and the Devil did in anger provoke him what he could to spoil his obedience and so to hinder him from destroying his head-plot and so from winning the prize namely from the salvation of the Elect and the Devil proceeded so far in
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
acceptation of their praises and therefore their laying on of hands on the head of their Sin-offering did likewise signifie their faith of dependence on Christ typified Mr. Norton doth thus answer in page 51. We have already said that we make not this act a type of Gods laying sin upon Christ Reply 15. This is a good confession and I wish that others would take full notice of it namely that there is not a suffient ground from the typical act of imposition of hands on the sacrifice with confession of sin to typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ and therefore it follows hence that the translated phrase The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all in Isa 53. 6. is not a sufficient proof of it though it be alleaged for that purpose 2 Seeing Mr. Norton doth at last make this confession why then hath hee laboured to defend the imputation of sin from the said imposition of hands with confession of sin as he hath done But saith Mr. Norton in page 51. Sin was laid upon the Scape-goat not after but before its escape Reply 16. If sin was imputed at all to the Scape-goat it is sure enough that it must bee done before its escape for after it was escaped it was too late to lay on hands upon the head of it But saith the Dialogue It escaped with that act of imposition upon the head of it and therefore that act of imposition did typifie that Christ doth still bear our sins by Gods imputation in heaven as much as on earth But saith the Dialogue The Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition to typifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ but on the contrary they understood it to bee a typical sign of their faith of dependence depending upon Christs sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement for the sins they had confessed over the head of it and so much the prayer of the high Priest doth import for when he imposed his hands upon the live Scape-goat hee said thus O Lord make Attonement now for the sins and for the iniquities and for the trespasses of thy people Israel See Ains in Lev. 16. 21. And in this sense the Lord made the iniquity of us all to meet upon him because his once offering was sufficient to procure Gods Attonement for all our iniquities Mr. Norton answers thus in page 52. Mr. Ainsworth on this very place saith That this act shewed how our sins should be imputed to Christ It is not likely therefore that he so understood the Hebrew Doctors otherwise we might well think hee would have forborn a needlesse citation Reply 17. The studious in Mr. Ainsworth cannot but take notice that Mr. Ainsworth doth often cite the Hebrew Doctors in a differing sense from himself and so leaves the Reader to his choice 2 The Dialogue did not cite Ainsworth in Lev. 16. 21. for his own judgement but for the judgement of the Hebrew Doctors cited by him as I shewed in the Dialogue page 39. and in the Epistle to the Reader page 3. I have shewed that Mr. Broughton who was well read in the Hebrew Doctors did often affirm that the Jews generally do stumble at these two Positions of ours 1 Because we make Christ to stand before God as a guilty sinner by his imputing our sins to him And secondly Because wee make the Messiah to suffer the vindicative curse of the Law for our Redemption But if the Hebrew Doctors had held that imposition of hands with confâ—ssion of sins upon the head of the sacrifice had typified Gods imputing our sins to the sacrifice they could not have so stumbled at our said Tenents as they do they despise the imputed tighteousnesse of Christ saith Mr. Weams in his four Regenerations page 318. and they jest at this that one should bee punished in a legal way for anothers fault 3 It may be worth the while for such as are able to search into the Hebrew Doctors to see how they do understand the signification of this Imposition with confession of sin 4 Saith the Dialogue If Gods imputing the sins of the Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much by Gods imputation as ever he bare them upon earth Elect to Christ was the meritorious cause of Gods extreme wrath upon him then by the same reason Christ doth still bear the said wrath of God for Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven as much as ever he bare them here upon earth according to the type of the Scape-goat Mr. Norton Answers thus in page 52. Christ on earth suffered the wrath of God that is The execution of Divine Justice because he then stood as a Surety to satisfie the curse due for sin Isa 53. 10. but having satisfied it Joh. 19. 30. Col. 2. 14. the same Justice that before punished him now acquits him Rom. 8. 34. If the Debtor be discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free Reply 18. I shall not need to examine the particulars of this Answer at this time because it is no answer but a plain evasion to the Dialogues Argument which is this Christ by his Intercession is still satisfying the justice of God for the sins of the Elect even as long as the Elect are under sin in this world and thence the Dialogue infers that in case Christ bare our sins here on earth by Gods imputation then hee doth still bear our sins in heaven by Gods imputation for hee doth still bear away our sins by his intercession in heaven according to the type of the Scape-goat This Argument Mr. Norton hath not answered but evaded with a by-answer but saith Mr. Norton If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled doubtlesse the Surety is free I have oft replied That seeing Mr. Norton doth hold that Christ as our legal Surety hath made full satisfaction in kind both by fulfilling the Law of Works and suffering the eternal curse thence it follows according to his own conclusion That the Surety having paid the full debt and cancelled the Bill the finner is free from all sin ipso facto and so not liable to ask any pardon for sin at Gods hand nor liable to any temporal plague no more than Adam in his innocency But say I because his satisfaction was but the tantidem therefore it is otherwise even as I have shewed in Chap. 4. 2 This conclusion of Mr. Nortons If the Debtor bee discharged and the Bill cancelled then doubtlesse the Surety is free seems to bee drawn from Col. 2. 14. as hee hath cited it above Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us he took it out of the way nayling it to the Crosse I say his conclusion from this Scripture is a grosse abuse of this Scripture for though Christ hath blotted out the hand-writing of the Ceremoaial Laws that was against us yet for all that the moral Law doth still continue against us and doth
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
sight 4 From the said righteousness of Christ to Gods positive Law in making his soul a Sin-Sacrifice it follows That as by one mans disobedience to Gods mâ—er positive Law in eating Rom. 5. 19. the forbidden fruit the many as well as the Reprobates are made sinners by the meritorious cause of his disobedience So by the obedience of one namely of Christ to a meer positive Law in undertaking to combate with Satan and to continue obedient to the death of the cross and at last to make his Soul a Sacrifice the many are made righteous Rom. 5. 19. for by this obedience of his to the said positive Law and Covenant he hath merited not onely their conversion by the Holy Ghost but also the Fathers reconciliation for their justification by not imputing their sins to them So then the comparison that is made between the first Adam and the second lies in the meritorious cause for as the first Adam merited the death of sin to all his posterity by his disobedience to Gods positive Law and Covenant so the second Adam merited the life of Gods Spirit and of Gods forgiveness by his obedience to Gods positive Law in making his soul a sacrifice 5 Hence it also follows that the obedience of Christ to the moral Law is not here spoken of namely not in Rom. 5. 18 19. and accordingly Mr. Wotton Mr. Forbs and divers other eminent Divines do expound ver 18 and 19. to relate onely to his positive righteousness in his death and sacrifice and not to his moral obedience no otherwise but as it made him to be a Lamb without spot or blemish fit for sacrifice And therefore Mr. Nortons proof of Heresie from Rom. 5. 19. in p 268. doth fail him as well as all his other proofs 6 My former Exposition of Gods righteousness to be his reconciliation in not imputing sin is further evident by the Rom. 3. 25. words of the Apostles in terminis in Rom. 3. 25. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past For the better understanding of the sense of these words I will propound these three Questions and Answers First Whose righteousness doth the Apostle say is here declared but God the Fathers Secondly Wherein is God the Fathers righteousness declared but by the remission of sins that are past Thirdly How else doth God declare this righteousness of his by remission but by setting forth Christ to be his propitiatory or his Mercy-Seat through faith in his blood And thus you see that this Text doth in terminis make Gods righteâ—eousness consist in remission of sins as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5. 21. 7 Daniel doth make Gods righteousness whereby he makes sinners righteous to consist in his reconciliation by not imputing sin in Dan. 9. 24. he saith that Christ by his death was to Dan 9 24. finish Trespass offerings and to end Sin offerings and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in an everlasting righteousness Mark this his death and sacrifice was to procure Gods reconciliation for iniquity and this reconciliation he calls an everlasting righteousness to sinners And thus you see that Daniel doth make Gods reconciliation to be an everlasting righteousness to beleeving sinners as I have expounded 2 Cor. 5 21. 8 David doth also confirm this exposition of Gods righteousness in Psal 51. 14. Deliver me from blood guiltiness O God Psal 51. 14. then my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness First How else doth he mean that God should deliver him from his bloodguiltiness but by his reconciliation in not imputing that sin to his condemnation according to that desire and prayer in Deut. 21. 8. Secondly What righteousness of God doth he else mean that his tongue should sing aloud of but Gods Attonement in not imputing his blood-guiltiness to him for the sake of Christs Sin-Sacrifice Thus you see that the Exposition given of Gods righteousness in 2 Cor. 5. 21. and so consequently of the same term in Rom. 3. 21 22 25 26. and in Rom. 10. 3. and in Phil. 3. 9. is confirmed and strengthened by an eight-fold cord which I beleeve Mr. Norton will not be able to break But Mr. Norton in p. 260. stumbles at the Dialogue because it follows Mr. Wotton in making Justification and Adoption to be the two parts of Gods Attonement or Reconciliation And at last in p. 162. he opens himself thus But whether Justification precisely considered be a part of or a necessary antecedent or means of reconciliation it is freely left to the judgement of the Reader But saith he the Leiden Divines say it is rather a consequent and effect of Justification And then he concludes that the Analogy of Faith may as well bear an interpretation agreeable hereunto as any other thus God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself How By not imputing their trespasses to them so as the not imputation of sin saith he may seem to be an antecedent and means rather than a part of Aâ—tonement or Reconciliation Reply 1. It is now apparent why Mr. Norton did stumble at the Dialogue for giving two parts to Reconciliation according to Mr. Wotton It was to introduce his conjectures quite contrary to Mr. Wotton namely that Gods non-imputation of sin is an antecedent and means rather than a part of attonement or reconciliation But because he expresseth himself to be somewhat uncertain in his notions in this point therefore he cannot be thought to be a fit Judge to censure the Dialogue nor to determine this controversie But the Scriptures are most plain in this point if they be not intricated by such uncertain conjectures 1 The Scripture speaks plainly that when the Bullock for sin was offered by the Priest to make attonement for sins of ignorance then the promise annexed saith It shall be forgiven him Levit 4. 20. Any man from hence may see plainly that Gods forgiveness is not an antecedent but a true part of his attonement if it be not the whole The like is said of the Rulers sin in v. 26. and the like is said of the sins of any of the people in ver 31 35. namely that when Gods attonement is procured by their said Sin-Sacrifice then thereupon their sin is said to be forgiven them 2 The Burnt-offerings And Thirdly The Trespass-offerings were ordained to procure Gods gracious forgiveness as a part of his attonement as in Levit. 5. 10 13 16 18. and in Lev. 6. 7. and in Lev. 19. 22. and in Numb 15. 25 26 28. In all these places Gods promise of his forgiveness by his attonement did openly proclaim in the ears of all Israel and in the ears of all others that have ears to hear that when Gods attonement is obtained by sacrifice then and not till then sin is forgiven and then and not till then that person is actually justified either he is ceremonially justified as a person fit to stand before Gods holy presence in his Sanctuary
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
have resisted his pursuers 6. Austin speaks very much to this sense That Christ overcame the Devil by justice namely by combating justly according to the Laws of the voluntary Covenant declared in Gen. 3. 15. and not by force namely not by the power of his God-head any man may see that his discourse sounds to this sense His discourse is long but Mr. Worton hath abbreviated his method De Reconciliatione peccatords part 2. lib. 1. c. 21. and there he cites Bernard also to the same sense and thither I refer the Reader 7. Saith Dr. Willet on Dan. 9. 26. the justice of Christ is meritorious of eternal life for us because by it he overcame death and subdued the Devil none of all which Adams righteousness could do And it was one great part of the righteousness of Christ to agonize himself with the dread of that ignominious usage which his Combater was to inflict upon him And thus you see that the ancient Divines do agree That Christs greatest sufferings were from Satans malice by Gods permission and I perceive by conference with such as have been well read in the ancient Divines that they did not hold as Mr. Norton doth That Christ was a guilty sinner by Gods legal imputation nor that hee was pressed under the wrath of God but on the contrary they affirm that there was no sign of sin in him and that the Devil held him by no law of sin and that he was no way guilty of sin 8 Those few Hebrew Doctors that speak of the death of the Messiah do speak of his sufferings with his Combater Satan as I have noted their speeches in the Epistle to the Reader 9 The Apostle makes a like kind of reasoning in Heb. 2. 14. For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood hee Heb. 2. 14. also himself took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the Devil Here two Questions may bee propounded and answered 1 How came the Devil to get the power of death 2 How came his power to be destroyed Adams first sin caused by the Devil was the meritorious cause of our spiritual death by original sin and that was the meritorious cause of Gods justice in appointing a bodily death and judgement To the first Question the Geneva Note doth answer because he was the author of sin none but the Devil was the author of Adams first sin in causing him by his deceitful reasoning to eat the forbiden fruit which sin brought in the spiritual death of original sin And then secondly The spiritual death of original sin was the meriting cause of Gods justice in denouncing a bodily death in Gen. 3. 19. bodily death therefore was not the immediate effect of Adams first sin as most Expositors do carry it though I think they miss it for if bodily death had been the immediate effect of Adams first sin then the Pelagians cannot The Pelagians cannot be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants if it be granted that bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin be convinced that original sin is the cause of the death of Infants for they may say as most Expositors say That bodily death was the immediate effect of Adams first sin and then the Pelagians may still hold that the death of Infants is not the punishment of original sin traduced from their Parents But the Apostle doth make the death of Infants to bee the immediate effect of original sin in Rom. 5. 12. and the Devil was the author of original sin because it was the immediate punishment of Adams first sin whereof the Devil was the author and so consequently it occasioned God in justice to denounce not only a bodily death to all the fallen sons of Adam but also to denounce eternal death by necessary consequence to so many of the fallen sons of Adam as did not beleeve their Redemption by the promised Seed for when God did first denounce a bodily death he did at the same time implicitly denounce a judgement as the Apostle shews in Heb. 9. 27. and to this sense of death doth Austin speak There is a first death Heb 9. 27. See Austin in Ser. 129. and a second death Of the first death saith hee there are two parts One when the sinful soul by offending departed from her Creator The other whereby the soul for her punishment was excluded from the body by Gods justice And the second death saith hee is the everlasting torment of body and soul And thus the Devil got the power of death The second Question is this How came this power of the Devil to bee destroyed The Answer is by the second Person in taking upon him the Seed of the woman in the fulness of time and by entring the Lists according to his Covenant in that nature as it was accompanied with our natural infirmities of fear sorrow c. and so by his constancy in obedience through all Satans conflicts he compleated his victory and it last hee made his vital soul a propitiatory sacrifice which was agreed and covenanted between the Trinity to be accounted for full satisfaction for the redemption of all the Elect And thus hee destroyed him that had the power of death The Devils plot was by some stratagem or other to make Christ a Transgressor as he had made Adam but because this Seed of the deceived sinful woman continued obedient to the death through all Satans malicious stratagems even to the death of the Cross and at last made his soul a sacrifice therefore hee got the victory and won the prize even the salvation of all the Elect. And thus through this kind of death he hath destroyed him that had the power of death that is the Devil But saith Mr. Norton in page 70. Christ in his Agony was pressed under the sence of the wrath of God and conflicted with eternal death Reply 23. This compulsary term of being pressed under the wrath of God is no way sutable to the voluntary obedience of a voluntary Covenanter I have shewed in Chap. 9. that the voluntary cause is never over-ruled by a supreme compulsary power When grapes or any other thing is pressed it is therefore pressed to force some thing from it Is this a fit speech to be applied to the voluntary Covenanters and to the voluntary undertaker of obedience to the Articles of the voluntary Covenanters Satan indeed did labour to oppress him to force him to impatiency but not God by his immediate wrath And the like strange expression I find also in the Sum of Divinity set forth by John Downame in page 317. By reason of the Christ as man was not able to conflict with his Fathers wrath guilt of our sins saith hee there fell upon him sorrow trouble of mind astonishment and heaviness to death Matth. 26. 38. when hee was to enter the Lists
this ignorance both of the Jews and Romans did no whit exempt them from being the true murderers of the Lord of life in as high a degree as if his God-head had not interposed to hinder their killing power as we may see by that eminent example of Justice that was done by Darius upon such like murderers of Daniel for after that Darius was come to the Lyons Den and perceived that God had interposed his power between the fierce devouring nature of the ravenous Lyons and their executive power and that Daniel was not formally killed by them he did not in that respect excuse Daniels accusers from being the true murderers of Daniel but on the contrary he did adjudge them to be Daniels true murderers and therefore he commanded them to be thrown into the Lions Den and to be killed as the true murtherers of Daniel in Laws esteem Dan. 6. 22 23 24. Dan. 6. 22 23 24. 4 In case Mr. Norton will still deny this Priestly power to Christ in the formality of his death and sacrifice then why hath he not hitherto made it evident by Scripture rightly expounded how else Christ was the onely Priest in the formality of his death and sacrifice seeing the Dialogue did give him just occasion to clear this point more fully than as yet he hath done I find that some eminent Divines do make his own submission to be put to death formally by the Devils Instruments to be his onely priestly act in his sacrifice But for the reasons fore-alledged from Job 10. 17 18. and from Heb. 7. and Heb. 9. 14 15 16. It is still evident to me that his act of submission to be put to death by the Devils Instruments is not sufficient to demonstrate his active priestly power and authority for the making of his death to be a mediatorial sacrifice for then the submission of Martyrs to be put to death by Tyrants might as well be called their Priestly power to make their lives a sacrifice But I have formerly shewed First That no other death can No other act of a Priest doth make a sacrifice but such an act as doth-formally take away the life of the sacrifice properly be called a sacrifice but such a death onely as is formally made by a Priest namely by such a Priest as God hath designed for that work Secondly That no other act of that Priest can make it to bee a sacrifice formally but such an act as doth formally take away the life of the appointed sacrifice 5 Saith Mr. Trap on Heb. 2. 10. The Priest was first consecrated Heb. 2. 10. compared with Lev. 8. 30. with oyle and then with blood this I do the rather mention for the better consideration of the nature of Christs Consecration to his Priestly Office First He was annointed with the oyl of gladness when he was first extrinsecally installed into the Mediators Office at his Baptism by the apparition of the Holy Ghost in shape like a Dove Matth. 3. Secondly After this he was Consecrated with blood in all his bloody sufferings Heb. 2. 10 17. with Heb. 5. 9. 6 Every consecrated Priest must have some good thing to offer to the offended party for his reconciliation to the offender Heb. 8. 3. and none knows what good thing will be acceptable to our offended God but himself and therefore he onely must both ordain the Priest and the manner of his consecration and the good thing that he will accept and the manner of the offering it And therefore it pleased God in the first Covenant to ordain typical Priests that had sinful infirmities and typical cleansings by the ashes of an Heifer and by the blood of beasts for the cleansing and purifying of the flesh from Ceremonial sins And these beasts he appointed to be First of the gentle and harmless kinds and such as would continue patient under ill usage Secondly To be such as were without spot outwardly And thirdly To be such as were without blemish inwardly that so they might be types of the perfection of Christs humane nature and of his sacrifice 1 Pet. 1. 10. as the onely good things which he had ordained to be offered by his Priestly power to purge the conscience from all our moral sins and so to bring us again to God as the Dialogue hath shewed in p. 91 c. Therefore when he came into the world he said Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldest not have but a body hast thou prepared me God that was offended knew best what good thing would be most acceptable unto him for the procuring of his reconciliation prepared a body for Christ that so it might be that worthy thing that from eternity he had appointed to be offered in the fulness of time And therefore in the fulness of time Christ said Lo I come to do thy acceptable will O God and so he took away the first typical Priests and sacrifices that he might establish the second to stand for ever Heb. 10. 5. 6 7 c. By which will of God thus performed by Christ in making his prepared body a sacrifice we are sanctified or made holy and righteous again Heb. 10. 10. namely set into a state of favour Heb. 10. 10. The word Sanctifie and make holy in the Law is often ascribed to Gods attonement and forgiveness procured by sacrifice and therefore sinners that are so made holy are justified and righteous persons in Gods sight as we were in our first creation for so we must understand the word sanctified and so the legal phrase in the word sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh in vers 13. doth teach us to carry the sense and how else did the offering of Christs body sanctifie or purge the conscience as the word is in ver 14. from dead works that is to say from original and actual sin But because God was pleased to ordain that offering to be the onely meritorious procuring cause of his reconciliation attonement pardon and forgiveness So then it is Gods Attonement so procured that did sanctifie the sinner or make him holy and righteous in Gods sight in respect of his state in relation to Gods favor even as Adam was in his first Creation and the reason is so plain that he that is but observant of the typical phrases may run and read it namely because originally God created the nature of all mankind in holiness and righteousness after his own image for in case Adam had but first eaten of the Tree of life all his children should have been holy but in case he did first eat of the forbidden fruit then he and all his posterity should with him forfeit their creative purity and instead thereof become dead in sin and so be in a state of enmity with God but by Gods reconciliation and attonement procured through the sacrifice of Christ all their sins should be forgiven and so they should be again restored into their former estate of holiness and righteousness
may live c. Reply In that Christ did dye for the Elect it did not come to passe from a necessity of justice in respect of that first threatning But because it pleased God out of his infinite wisdome and free grace in the voluntary Covenant between the Trinity to will it and to accept of his death and sacrifice as the price of their Redemption Heb. 10. 5. 7. Eph. 1. 7 8. And Mr. Norton himself in his answer to his first Query doth acknowledge that vindicative justice hath no necessary connexion with the being of God but is an act of Gods good pleasure Secondly He takes it often for grace which is as often denied that Christ was Adams Surety in the same obligation to the first Covenant Thirdly His conclusion that God could not avoid in respect of his power now limited to proceed by this Rule namely that man sinned man must dye in the man Christ Jesus I have shewed in Chap. 6. and Chap. 10. that this kind of reasoning is a meer Prologisme namely a deceitful Sylogisme which seemeth true when it is not CHAP. III. The Examination of Mr. Nortons third Query in Page 5. which is this Wherein consists the sufficiency and value of the obedience of Christ as our Surety Ans In three things 1 In the dignity of his person obeying 2 In the quality or kind of his obedience 3 In the acceptation of this obedience SECT 1. Reply 1 THere is no need to say any thing to the first branch of his Answer But to the second branch touching the qulity or kind of his obedience there is need of examination for Mr. Norton makes all the obedience of Christ to be legal obedience in opposition to the Dialogue that doth distinguish between his Legal and Mediatorial obedience In page 6. Mr. Norton saith His obedience was legal obedience the same in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto But I have shewed in Chap. 2. Sect. 1. That the true nature of the first Covenant did not stand in Adams obedience or disobedience to the moral Law of nature but in his obedience or disobedience to a positive Law about things indifferent in their own nature and from Mr. Rutherfurd that the Command of God for Christ to dye was not from the moral Law but from a positive Law only Reply 2. Mr. Norton doth also contradict himself touching the quality or kind of Christs obedience For first he saith It The kind of Christs obedience as Mediator was to a peculiar positive law But Mr. Norton doth 1 affirm that the quality or kind of Christs obedience was legal and 2 he doth contradict that and saith it was more also was legal the same in nature and measure which we by the firsT Covenant stood bound unto But secondly he contradictâ— this for in page 201. he saith That the will of God concerning the Mediator was that he should obey the Law of Works more This last word more is a contradiction of what he said formerly If his obedience was more then Legal obedience then his obedience was not the sAme in nature and measure which we by the first Covenant stood bound unto for he understands the firsT Covenant to be made according to the moral Law and to confute himself the more manifestly he brings in Pareus and Rivel in the former page to prove that Christs obedience as Mediator was more then legal Pareus asserting a special obedience imposed on the Mediator alone and Rivet a singular command of laying down his life from Joh. 10. 18. Now let the Reader judge especially such as are acquainted with Pareus judgement whether that special obedience which was imposed on the Mediator alone be no other then legal obedience or whether it be the same in nature and measure which we in the first Covenant stood bound unto according to Mr. Nortons sense of that Covenant And secondly let the Reader also judge whether it be possible for Mr. Norton to make a true description of the true nature of Christs satisfaction while he is thus confounded in the nature of Christs obedience as Mediator SECT 2. In page 140. He calls the Dialogues distinction of Christs Legal and Mediatorial obedience A new Law and a new Mediatorly obedience conformable to that new Law And in page 108. He calls this distinction An erroniâ—us and mis-leading distinction Reply WHether Mr. Norton will own this distinction or no the matter will be the lesse with a judicious Reader because it hath the approbation of many eminenâ— orthodox Divines besides Pareus and Rivet who do ground the said distinction on these and the like Scriptures Joh. 10. 18. Joh. 14. 31. Joh. 17. 4. Heb. 10. 7 9 10. Psal 40. 7 8. Rom. 5. 19. Phil. 2. 8. Es 53. 10. Heb 10 7. In Vindiciae legis lect 1. p. 13. See also Blake on the Covenant p. 25. 1 It is disputed saith Mr. Burges Whether Christ had a command laid upon him by the Father strictly so called and howsoever saith he the Arians from the grant of this did infer Christs absolute inferiority to this Father yet saith he our orthodox Divines do conclude it because of the many places of Scripture which prove it 2 Mr. Gataker doth place the merit of Christs obedience and satisfaction wholly in this kind of Mediatorly obedience Bartho Wegil Sangalensis â—n his Ans to the 5 Reason of the 13 Thesis and not in his legal obedience for thus he answers to Bar. Wegiline that holds to Christs legal obedience for merit as Mr. Norton doth Non est necesse ut Christus legis moralis sive naturalis placita implendo vel sibi vel nobis quiâ—quam fuerit promeritus non magis quam ut Angeli qua creatura rationalis unaquaequae creationis ipsius nomine Deo creatori ex essicio debeat quicquid lex illa à quiquam exigit In English thus It is not necessary that Christ in fulfilling the moral and natural Law should desErve any thing for himself or us no more then the Angels seeing every rational creature in the very name of its creation ows all things on duty to its Creator whatsoever the Law requires of any and he doth fully manifest his judgement in his Elenchtick Animadversions upon Gomaâ—us p. 1. Thes 1. p. 15. Thes 8. p. 17. Thes 9. p. 19. Thes 11. p. 25. Thes 15. p. 49. Thes 32. And in his Animadversions upon the disputes betwixt Piscator and Lucius in the meritorious cause of our justification Part is prmae Sect. 1. p. 2. 12. Sect. 4. p. 18. Sect. 6. numero 4. p. 19. Sect. 7. numero 1. Partis secundae p. 57. Sect. 2. numero 16. 70. Sect. 8. numero 6. And there he gives this reason because Christ performed moral obedience for himself and not for us 3 Pareus saith That those that ascribe the merit of righteousnesse De Justiâ—iâ— Christi activâ passiâ—â p. 101 102. and in his
Heb. 2. 17 18. But this bearing will not serve Mr. Nortons turn it is an amazing kind of bearing which Mr. Norton makes all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be Hell-pains Mr. Norton mantains namely That all Christs bodily sufferings were born as Hell-pains For saith he in page 107. the penal wrath of God or Hell-pains were either outward viz. such as hee suffered in body or inward viz. such as he suffered in soul Reply 3. By this Tenent of his it necessarily follows that Christ bare all his outward sufferings as a Porter bears a burden from his birth to his death as Hell-pains It is just with God that he that keeps not close to the Context when hee doth expound the blessed Scriptures especially when the sense is already made by conference of one Scripture with another as Isaiah is by the Holy Ghost in Matthew which is a sure rule of true Exposition that God should leave them to wander after their own vain fantasies Sentences of Scripture saith Peter Martyr must not bee more largely understood than the place it self wherein they are written may bear for otherwise saith he Wee may bee soon lead into error in his Com. pl. part 1. pag. 208. It is equally dangerous saith another Reverend Divine to add to the truth and to take from it yet saith hee men do more generally offend in adding to the truth being naturally inclined to foster those brats which their own fantasies have conceived and brought forth CHAP. XII SECT 1. Isa 53. 5. Examined He was wounded for our transgressions bruised for our iniquities c. THese words saith the Dialogue do plainly prove that Christ did bear divers wounds bruises and stripes for our peace and healing But the Text doth not say That hee bare those wounds and bruises from Gods wrath Mr. Norton answers true But yet saith hee Christ was wounded not onely by Sathan and his instruments God is the universal Efficient Rep. 1. All that he speaks to this point namely That God is the universal efficient is to little purpose except it bee to blind the Reader to make him beleeve that the Dialogue doth make the Devil to be the universal efficient without Gods appointment but any one that pleaseth to peruse the Dialogue may see that it makes all Christs sufferings to bee from Gods appointment as the universal efficient for the Dialogue propounds this Question Who did wound him and bruise him and then it makes this answer It was Sathan by his Instruments according to Gods Prediction in Gen. 3. 15. for God said thus to Sathan Thou Sathan shalt pierce him thou Sathan shalt put the promised Seed to Death as a wicked Malefactor by thy Instruments the Scribes and Pharisees and the Roman Souldiers thou shalt peirce his hands and feet by nayling them to the Crosse according to the determinate Counsel of God and in this respect God may bee said to wound him Thus farre I have repeated the words of the Dialogue and now I leave the judicious Reader to judge whether Master Norton had any just cause to except against the Dialogue as if it did not make God to be the universal efficient in all Christs sufferings The like flourish he makes against the Dialogue in other Master Norton doth often wroug the sense of the Dialogue points thereby labouring to make the simple Reader beleeve That the Dialogue doth hold that which it doth abhor as in Psal 103. 114. 130 c. See my Reply in Cha. 14. Repl. 4. so also in p. 40. after he had drawn a false inference from the sense of the Dialogue then he concludes with this scoff Sure you mistake your self in arguing out of this text from the word Nasa against concluding the Doctrin of imputation there-from because Nasa is not in the text Repl. 2. The Dialogue doth not say that Nasa is in that text of Es 53. 6. but the Dialogue doth frame its Argument from the translated tearm in Es 53. 6. thus If you will build the common Doctrin of imputation upon this translated phrase The Lord hath laid our iniquities upon Christ as many Interpreters do then by the same phrase you must affirm That the Father laid all our iniquities upon himself by imputing the guilt of our sins to himself for the Father is said to bear our sins in Psa 25. 18. and in Psa 32. 1. as well as Christ and Psal 25. 18. Psaâ— 32 1. Kirkâ—roes Hebrew Greek Concordance tells me that Nasa is in both those places and in many other places and Reason tells me that the tearm of laying any thing upon a mans self or upon another is to bear it and so the tearms He hath laid our iniquities upon him Es 53. 6. and He hath borne our iniquities in Psal 32. 1. Psal 25. 18. Exo. 34. 7. c. are tearms in English that are Synonima and therefore the Argument of the Dialogue is sound and good against such as maintain the Doctrin of imputation from the translated tearm in Es 53. 6. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all and I beleeve that any indifferent judicious Reader will judge it so to be The like un just quarrel Mr. Norton makes against the Dialogue about the word Attonement for saith he in p. 260. The Dialogue throughout all its Discourse concerning attonement seemeth to understand pardon of sin by Attonement but here saith he it seemeth by Attonement to understand Reconciliation Rep. 3. What can Mr. Norton mean else by this speech but to make the Reader beleeve that I did not in all my Discourse concerning Attonement till now make reconciliation to bee meant by Attonement the vanity of this unjust quarrel the Reader may please to see by the words of the Dialogue in the beginning namely in p. 14. there I explain Attonement by Reconciliation in these words of the Apostle in 2 Cor. 5. 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself or saith the Dialogue by way of explanation making attonement between the World and himself and so in p. 32. I call the Judges Attonement a reconciliation but I passe over several other such like unjust exceptions because I will spend my time the more in the substance of the main Controversie SECT II. The Conclusion of the Dialogue Discourses is this That God did not wound Christ as an angry Judge for our sins but it was for the trial of his Mediatorial obedience and therefore he is said to learn obedience by thâ— things that he suffered Heb. 5. 8. IT seems that Mr. Nortons great exception is at this conclusion for he answers thus Sathan and men were Instruments of such a stroke therefore it is no stroke of Divine vindicative Justice This saith he is no good Consequent Rep. 4. It seems that Mr. Norton by this answer holds that all Master Norton makes all the bodily sufferings of Christ to be Hell paineâ— and every stroke of any
Affliction that Christ suffered from the Devil and his Instruments was from the revenging Justice of God and therefore hence it follows that when the Devil stirred up Herod to seek the Childes life which also did occasion his Parents to carry him into Aegypt it was from Gods Vindicative wrath although to prevent it God in mercy warned Joseph to take the Child and to fly into Aegypt It seemeth by Mr. Nortons distribution of the Curse in Gen. 2. 17. that he holds this for a firm conclusion That all the outward afflictions of Christ were from Gods Vindicative wrath and therefore he calls them the outward penal Torments of Hell as I formerly noted in Chap. 11. But yet Mr. Norton in the same Page doth acknowledge That The true nature of all Christs greatest Sufferings was Chastisements therefore they cannot be called the Essential Torments of Hell from Gods vindicative wrath all the afflictions which God inflicteth upon the Elect from the same Curse are but Chastisements and not Vindicative punishments and so that affliction of their flight into Aegypt was but a Chastisement to Joseph and Mary but it was a Vindicative punishment to Christ But I would fain know a little more of Mr. Nortons skill how he can call the Afflictions and Punishments which Christ suffered Hell Torments from Gods Vindicative wrath seeing the Holy Ghost doth comprehend them all under the word Chastisement in this very fifth Verse for the Prophet speaks here of all the greatest Sufferings of Christ which he indured in that long action of his Passion from his Apprehension to his Death I say all these sufferings hee comprehends under the word Chastisements but it seems that Mr. Norton hath an Art beyond the Holy Ghost to distinguish them from Chastisements and to rank them under Gods Vindicative Justice let the Reader judge if he do not undertake to be learned above the Holy Ghost in the sense of the word Chastisement The Learned observe that the Hebrew word Musar derived from Jasar doth properly signifie the correction of a Father towards his Son as all these places do testifie Prov. 3. 11 12. Prov. 19. 18. Deut. 8. 5. Psal 94. 12. Jer. 31 18. and in Heb. 5. 6. Heb 5 6 the Apostle doth concur with the Prophet Isaiah That the true nature of all Christs Sufferings were but Chastisements for he saith thus Though he were the Son yet learned he obedience by the things he suffered his learning of obedience is the subjection of a Son to his Fathers chastisement and therefore it follows necessarily That seeing all his Sufferings were but Chastisements they were not inflicted on him from Gods Vindicative wrath and I beleeve that this is a sound truth that will hold water if the Scripture hold Secondly It is further evident that the Sufferings of Christ are farre from being inflicted on him from Gods Vindicative wrath because all his sufferings and all the sufferings of the Saints are founded alike in Gods fatherly love and in that respect there is a reciprocal communion between Christ the Head and all his members in all their sufferings 1 The Elect do partake with Christ in all his sufferings I mean in respect of the kinde of them as these Scriptures do testifie Phil. 3. 10 11. 2 Tim. 2. 11. Col. 1. 24. 1 Pet. 4. 13. 1 Pet. 2. 21. Rom. 6. 2 Cor. 1. 5. Mar. 10. 39. Luk. 22. 28. and therefore hence it follows necessarily that if the sufferings of Christ were from Gods Vindicative wrath that then all the sufferings of the Elect must likewise be from Gods Vindicative wrath seeing they do communicate with Christ in the kinde of his sufferings Secondly These Scriptures do testifie that Christ the Head doth communicate with all his Members in all their sufferings Heb. 2. 18. Heb. 4. 15. Es 63. 1 2. And hence it doth necessarily follow that if all the Sufferings of the Members of Christ bee but Chastisements then the Sufferings of Christ must not be ranked in any other form of Justice but where Gods Chastisements are Thirdly It is evident that all the Sufferings of Christ are called but temptations of Trial Heb. 2. 18. Heb. 4. 15. and Christ himself at the upshot of his life doth call all his former Afflictions but such temptations of Trial wherein his Apostles had been sharers with him Luk. 22. 28. and therefore it doth hence follow that they were not inflicted on him from Gods Vindicative wrath unlesse M. Norton wil prove that the Apostles also did suffer Gods Vindicative wrath which in another place he seems to deny SECT III. But it may be some will here object That though Christs Sufferings were but Chastisements yet they were inflicted on him from Gods Wrath for even Gods Fatherly Chastisements are inflicted from his wrath 2 Sam. 24. 1. therefore if Christ did partake with his people but in their kinde of punishments his suffering must also be from Gods wrath Reply 5. IT doth not follow for Christ might truly partake with them in their punishments in respect of sense Christs Sufferings may justly be called punishments such as the godly suâ—â—er and yet not from Gode wrath as theirs is and feeling and yet from a differing cause and for a differing end as for example The godly may suffer wounds in their body for sin inherent in a judicial way both from God and Superiours and Christ also may suffer such like wounds and yet not in a judicial way from sin imputed but as a voluntary Combater with Sathan and his Instruments for the winning of the Prize even for the Redemption of the Elect and all this without any wrath from the voluntary Covenanters and Masters of the Prize and in this sense only Christ did suffer wounds and bruises namely as a voluntary Combater for in Gen. 3. 15. God declared his Decree that he would put an utter enmity between Sathan and the Seed of the deceived Woman and that the Devil should have full liberty to wound Christ and to bruise him and to peirce him as a Malefactor in the foot-soals and to do what he could to disturbe his patience and so to hinder his death from being a Sacrifice but because Christ continued obedient to the death even to the ignominious and painful death of the Crosse and at last made his Soul a Sacrifice he overcame Principalities and Powers in it namely in the manner of his death on the Crosse so that the cause of Christs Wounds was not from Gods judicial imputation of our sin and guilt nor from Gods judicial wrath but from his undertaking to be a voluntary Combater with Sathan for the breaking of his Head-plot by his constant obedience even to the death of the Crosse for mans Redemption so that the sufferings of Christ do arise from a differing cause and are for a differing end from the sufferings of the Saints and so consequently not from Gods wrath as theirs is But I shall inlarge this point
witnesse in 2 Tim. 2. 5. and peruse also Dr. Hammonds Annotations on 1 Cor. 9. 24. and on Heb. 12. 1 2. Imputation of sin in the voluntary combate doth lose the prize and on 2 Tim. 4 8. and take notice that the Greek in 2 Tim. 4. 7. is the same by which the Seventy translate Gen. 30. 8. With excellent wrastlings have I wrastled namely for the mastery and victory and so also our larger Annotations on 2 Tim. 4. 8. 2 Hence it follows That the said wounds bruises and blood shed ought not to bee accounted as any vindicative Punishments may be suffered without the imputation of sin punishments from the Masters of the prize but as voluntary trials of their man-hood of their patience and obedience to their Laws 3 Hence it follows That the wounds and bruises mentioned in Isa 53. 5. 10. c. which Christ suffered were no other but the very same that God had declared hee should suffer from Sathan God did wound and bruise Christ no otherwise but as hâ—e gave Sathan leave to do his worst unto Christ in Gen. 3. 15. I consess that the Hebrew word for bruised or peâ—rced in Gen. 3. 15. is different from the Hebrew word in Isa 59. 5. 10. but yet in both places it is plainly spoken of the bruising of Christ by Sathan and his instruments Isaiaâ— saith He was wounded and bruised for our transgiessions namely by Sathan at Gods appointment and because Christ did voluntarily undertake this combate with Sathan therefore God did also covenant that his bruises should bee for the chastisement of our peace and for our healing And so in verse 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise hiâ— and to put him to grief namely according to Gods prediction in Gen. 3. 15. but God did not bruise him by his immediate wrath hee was not pressed under the sense of Gods wrath as Mr. Norton affirms for to bee pressed under the sense of Gods wrath is to bee forced to suffer by violence Job did acknowledge when the Devil destroyed his cattel and children that it was the Lord that took these things from him Job 1. 21. and saith when the Devil smote him full of boyls The band of the Lord hath touched me Job 19. 1. and yet it was Sathan that did smite him with boyls Job 2. 7. So God is said by Isaiah To delight to bruise Christ and to put him to grief because God delivered Christ into the hands of the Devils Instruments to combate for the victory Act. 2. 23. and so it is said That God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all namely to Sathan and his Instruments to combate with him Rom. 8. 32. And so in like sort God is said To give power to Pilate to condemn Christ Joh. 19. 11. And so God delivered him into the hands of sinners Matth. 27. 45. to do unto him whatsoever the council of God had determined Act. 4. 28. And his Father gave him the cup of all these afflictions Job 18. 11. because hee declared that Sathan should have this liberty and power Gen. 3. 15. Yea Christ delivered himself into the hands of sinners Job 18. 4. 8. And Christ did often foretel his sufferings to his Disciples saying Behold wee go up to Jerusalem and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief Priests and unto the Scribes and they shall condemn him unto death and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles and they shall mock him and scourge him and spit upon him and shall kill him Mat. 16. 21. Mar. 10. 33 34. Luke 18. 31 32 33. Luke 24. 7. 25 26 44 46. Act. 13. 27 28 29. And all this Christ did undergo from the voluntary Cause and Covenant as it was declared in Gen. 3. 15. and therefore not from Gods wrath 4 This doth cleerly exemplifie how and in what respect the obedience of Christ in all his sufferings was meritorious 5 This doth also cleerly exemplifie how all the sufferings of Christ may be called punishments without the judicial imputation of our sins to him by God 6 This also doth exemplifie how God is said to bee just to sinners in 1 Ioh. 1. 9. Rom. 3. 26. namely because hee had from all eternity covenanted with Christ the Mediator that upon the performance of his combate with Sathan according to the Laws of the combate that then hee should thereby obtain his reconciliation to beleeving sinners As soon therefore as Christ had performed this combate and made his soul a sacrifice according to the eternal Covenant God is said to declare his righteousness in remitting their sins that so he might be just and the justifier of him that beleeveth in Iesus Rom. 3. 26. But still Mr. Norton objecteth in page 41. thus Had Christ suffered death without sin imputed his death could not have been called a punishment Reply 13. In the former description of punishment suffered from the voluntary Cause and Covenant hee may see an instance to the contrary But Mr. Norton saith in page 140. Though the notions of a Mediator and a Male factor are cleerly distinct in themselves yet your distinguishing between Christs dying as a Mediator and as a Malefactor is unfound Reply 14. Though it bee unsound in Mr. Nortons sense yet it is not unsound in the Scripture sense let the former Scripture in Gen. 3. 15. be judge in the case 1 He must dye as a Malefactor for God had armed Sathan with authority to use him as a vild Malefactor and to crucifie him in the Foot-soals And yet 2 As soon as Christ had finished all those sufferings in obedience to the Laws of the combate he must make his soul a sacrifice of Reconciliation taught by the death of some Lamb by his Priestly power even by the joynt concurrence of both his natures or else he could not have been the Mediator of the New Testament through death if hee had not as soon as hee had finished all his sufferings offered his vital soul for a sacrifice by his eternal Spirit both his natures did concur to make his death a sacrifice and in that respect only hee was the Mediator of the New Testament through that kind of death As the Apostles argument lyes in Heb 9. 14 15 16. And thus the Dialogue doth make the notions of a Malefactor and a Mediator to bee cleerly distinct 7 Hence it is evident that all the outward sufferings of Christ were from the voluntary Cause and Covenant in entring the Lists with Sathan not in the power of his God-head but in his humane nature which he received from the seed of the deceived woman and as it was accompanied with our infirmities And in this respect he is said by Isaiah to be wounded or tormiented for our transgressions and to bee bruised for our iniquities And thus Peter must bee understood when he saith He bare our sins in his body on the Tree that is to say Our punishments in his combate with
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 So say I of this Text of Heb. 9. 28. except Mr. Norton can make it appear That the manner of Christs bearing our sins was fully intended by this Text to be by Gods legal imputation he concludes nothing he saith that the Greek word here for bearing and in 1 Pet. 2 24. is the same I grant it but yet it hath a several sense in those two places as I have shewed in the Dialogue 1 I have shewed that Christ in his conflict with Sathan bare our sins as a Porter bears a burthen as it is in 1 Pet. 2. 24. according to Gen. 3. 15. But secondly in Heb. 9. 24. Hee bears our sins as our Priest and Sacrifice when hee died formally by his own Priestly power by this sacrifice hee procured Gods Attonement by which our sins are formally born away from us And saith the Apostle Vnto them that look for him shall hee appear the second time without sin unto salvation namely Hee shall appear the second time without being made a Sacrifice for sin unto salvation which is thus opened by the coherence of the Chapter in vers 12. Neither by the blood of Goats Bucks and Bulls but by his own blood hee went once for all into the holy place having found eternal Redemption for us and therefore hee comes not the second time to bee offered in sacrifice for sins but hee shall come without a Sin-sacrifice unto eternal salvation as I have shewed in Ch. 3. in expounding Gal. 4. 4. But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. The person that brought his sacrifice was to put his hand upon the head thereof yet living Lev. 1. 4. as confessing his guilt and putting or imputing it upon the Beast to bee sacrifised Compare Exod. 29. 10. Lev. 4. 4 29. and 5. 5 6. and 16. 21. By the like Ceremony of Imposition of hands sin was charged both for the testifying of the accusation and the stoning of the offender Deut. 17. 7. Guilt thus typically imputed to the beast it was slain and laid upon the Altar Reply 6. The Dialogue hath cleerly shewed in page 33. That the act of imposing hands on the head of the sacrifice did typifie Prov 28. 13. the owners faith of dependance on the true Sacrifice that hee confessing and forsaking his sins should have Gods mercy namely through the true Sacrifice he should have Gods merciful Attonement and Reconciliation But saith Mr. Norton in page 234. It is disproved that their laying on of hands did typifie their relying upon the Sacrifice of Christ for such Attonement Reply 7. I cannot as yet find it disproved and I have shewed in the Dialogue That the laying on of hands did typifie their faith of dependance in relying on the Sacrifice of Christ as the meritorious procuring cause of Gods Attonement If so then it did not signifie Gods imputing our sins to Christ and therefore that inference is a false inference and no disproving of the Dialogue But saith Mr. Norton in page 45. By the like Ceremony of Imposition of hands sin was charged both for the testifying of the accusation and the stoning of the offender Deut. 17. 7. Reply 8. This is another false inference for the accusation The Imposition of hands upon the head of the condemned person by the witnesses was to testifie their faith that the evidence they had given in against him was true Deut. 17. 7. was testified before his condemnation or else he could not have been condemned and that was done without any imposition of hands therefore this act of the witnesses in laying on their hands on the head of the condemned person was rather to testifie their own personal faith and confidence to the Throwers of stoner that the testimony they had formerly given was true And thus Mr. Nortons Instance is a strong confutation of his kind of legal imputation as to the point of condemnation for this Imposition was not ordained to signifie the imputation of his sin before his sentence of condemnation 2 As for the Imposition of hands upon the Beast to bee slain in Sacrifice together with confession of sin It is cleer by that confession that sin was imputed to him that confessed it and not to the Beast and in that respect he presented his clean Beast to be sacrificed to reconcile God to him for his sin which he had confessed and his imposition of hands testified his faith of dependance on his typical sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement for his Ceremonial sins and typified his faith of dependance on Christ the true Sacrifice for the procuring of Gods Attonement for his moral sins But I will not inlarge further here because the Dialogue is full in this point where the impartial Reader may find satisfaction The Dialogue saith thus If you will build the common Doctrine of Imputation upon this phrase The Lord hath laid all our iniquities upon Christ then by the same phrase you must affirm that the Father laid all our sins upon himself by imputing all our sins to himself because the Father is said to bear our sins as well as Christ in Psal 32. 1. and Psal 25. 18. Mr. Norton doth thus answer in page 46. This is but one place of very many whereupon the doctrine of Imputation is builded Reply 9. The Reader may please to take notice of this confession but why then doth himself make so much use of this Scripture to prove his kind of Imputation seeing now at last he grants it to be no sure proof for saith he This is but one place of very many whereon the doctrine of Imputation is builded and yet I find it as much used for that purpose as any Scripture except 2 Cor. 5. 21. 2 The Dialogue doth not deny but affirm that Christ bare our sins both as a Porter bears a burden in his conflict with Sathan according to Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. and also as our Priestly Mediator in procuring Gods Attonement for our sins by his propitiatory Sacrifice The Dialogue also affirmeth that God the Father bears or bears away our sins as a reconciled supreme by acquitting us of our sins upon satisfaction received by the said propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ But Mr. Norton makes a wrong sense of the Dialogue in this point as if the Dialogue held that the Creditor paid the debt because he is said to discharge the Debtor But I refer the Reader for satisfaction to my Reply to what Reconciliation is in Chap. 14. c. But saith Mr. Norton in page 46. Sure you mistake your self in arguing out of this Text from the word Nasa for Nasa is not in the Text. Reply 10. I never said that Nasa was in this Text of Isa 53. 6. I cited Nasa only from Psal 32 1. and from Psal 25. 18. where the Father is said to bear our sins
so called by a certain similitude but not properly the wounds received in the trial of Masteries from the opposite Champion are improperly called punishments no sufferings are properly punishments but such as are legally inflicted for Delinquency 5 Hence it follows That the punishments which Christ suffered were not inflicted on him from Gods legal and vindicative wrath but hee suffered them from his voluntary combate with Sathan and his Instruments as I have at large shewed in Chap. 16. and in divers other places 6 Hence it is evident That Christ could not in true propriety of speech bee our legal Surety in Grotius judgement joyntly bound with us to fulfill the Law and suffer the Curse and so to pay our full debt in kind as Mr. Norton holds 7 I grant notwithstanding that Christ may improperly be called our Surety because hee did of his own accord undertake the combate with Sathan and his Instruments for our redemption and by his constant patience and obedience to the death he overcame them all and at last in the perfection of his obedience he made his soul a sacrifice by which he obtained the prize even the Redemption of all the Elect and thus hee broke the Devils Head-plot as our voluntary Surety but this kind of voluntary Surety is as far distant from Mr. Norton 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. 13. 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. 6. 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 Thecphilact 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 theweth 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 sulfilled which saith And he was numbred with the Transgressors Mark. 15. 27 28. Mar. 15. 17 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 I 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 hee 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
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
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
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
had prayed saith he he greatly feared Or let us go meet my Combater Satan He speaks these words after the manner of a couragious Champion that is going to strive with his Antagonist for the mastery and the sequel shows that from this time forwards he resisted his Combater Satan unto blood for it was counted a shame for such as undertook to be Combaters to yeeld before any blood was drawn and indeed such combats as were undertaken for the tryal of the mastery were seldom determined without blood And accordingly he that did overcome his Antagonist without transgressing the voluntary Laws of the Combat was reputed by the Masters of the game to be a lawful victor and he did thereby merit the prize and unto this oustom the Apostle doth allude in Heb. 12. 1 2 3. Ye Heb. 1 2. 1 2 3. have not yet resisted unto blood striving against sin Look therefore unto the example of that Combater Jesus Christ who is the Captain and conservator as Ains renders the word in Lev. 8. 22. of our Faith Who for the joy that was set before him indured the cross and despised the shame and is now seated with honor as a conqueror at the right hand of the Throne of God for he indured as the godly many times do a great combate or fight of afflictions Heb. 10. 32. Such voluntary Laws and Covenants as were usually made by the Masters of the Olympick and Roman Combates and such voluntary Combaters as did consent to obey the said Laws and Covenants do somewhat exemplifie my meaning when I do so often speak of the voluntary Covenant between the Trinity and of the voluntary undertaking of the seed of the woman to enter the Lists and to combate with the arch-enemy of mankind in obedience to those positive Laws and Covenants that were made between the Trinity for winning the prize of mans redemption 4 An agony may be either inward by conflicting affections against the fear of evil and such was Christs agony in the Garden from the fore-sight or fore-apprehension of his ignominious usage by his cruel Combater Satan Or secondly An agony may be outward in conflicting with the smarting sense of the blows of the opposite Champion Dr. Hammon in 2 Tim. 4. 7 8. saith That these two verses are 3 Tim. 4. 7 8. wholly Agonistical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he is any of the four famous Games Olympick c. And of that as it signifies the suffering afflictions See 1 Thes 2. 6. and there saith he the 1 Thes 2 2. word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strife or contention may be taken in an active or in a passive sense i. e. either for labor or sufferance both in a high degree In the first sense saith he Christ doth command us to enter in at the strait gate And in the latter sense saith he see Phil. 1. 30. Col 1. 29. 1 Tim. 4. 10. Heb. 12. 1 2. Phil. 1. 30. Col. 1. 29. where striving is bearing or suffering afflictions and so in 1 Tim. 4. 10. there the K. M. reads we combate i. e. suffer persecutions and there is the combate of sufferings in Heb. 10 32. and Phil. 4. 3. the women that Heb. 10. 32. Phil. 4. 3. combated or contended i. e. that suffered persecutions with me See more of the Agonistical Games in his Annotations on 1 Cor. 9. 24 25 26 27. And see Goodwin in his Roman Antiquities l. 2 1 Cor. 9. 24 25 26 27. p. 100 101 103 104. of the several sorts of combating and he concludes with a reference to Lipsius who treateth largely of the combate of Fencing And into this double kind of agony did Darius cast himself in Dan. 6. 14. He labored till the going down of the Sun to deliver Daniel Dan. 6. 14. The Seventy translate this word labored by Agonizomenos that is to say he labored as those that strive or contend for the mastery with Daniels opposite Combaters to deliver Daniel from the Lions Den He so contended with Daniels adversaries as he did agonize himself to deliver him till the going down of the Sun and this agony of his was not onely extended to his outward laboring with Daniels adversaries to get a Release of the Decree but it was also an inward agony with his own conflicting affections of sorrow and fear for the cruel death of his dearly beloved Daniel And yet in vers 16. he had some hope that God would miraculously deliver Daniel and when the King sealed the stone with his signet that the Decree should not be changed he had some hope of his escape for he knew that the Lions did not presently seize upon his body and therefore after hee was returned to his Palace hee remained fasting and suffered no instruments of musick to bee brought before him and his sleep went from him vers 18. all this doth evidence the greatness of his inward agony with his own conflicting thoughts and affections of fear and sorrow for the great danger of Daniels life These and such like instances do somewhat direct us how to understand the true ground and cause of Christs agony both of his internal agony in his sensitive soul in the Garden and of his external agony by his combate of sufferings from Satan and his instruments from his apprehension to his death on the Cross and how he was to conquer them by his constant patience and by his perseverance in all obedience to the positive Laws of the combate before he could make his soul an acceptable sacrifice 5 I will yet more largely open Christs agony by opening the plot of the Trinity for mans redemption as it is declared in Gen. 3. 15. First In proclaiming enmity between the seed Gen. 3. 25. of the Serpent and the seed of the Woman And secondly In declaring the victory to go on Christs side by his obedience to the Laws of the Combate even when the Devil by his malicious stratagems should peirce him in the foot-soals 1 God told the Devil in the Serpent in Gen. 3. 15. that he would put an utter enmity between him and the seed of the deceived woman and that he should have his full liberty to use him as a sinful Malefactor and at last to peirce him in the foot-soals and that hee should have his full liberty to enter the Lists and try masteries with his humane nature as it was accompanied with our true natural infirmities to the end that he might try the best of skill if by any means he could bring this seed of the woman into any disobedience to the Laws of the Combate as he had done with Adam in his Innocency But Mr. Norton in page 19. and in page 218. doth spoyl the true sense of this word Seed of the woman called Hee and Him in Gen. 3. 15. by interpreting it in a collective sense of Christ and his members whereas it should bee interpreted only of the individual person of Christ as he is
now seeing he held this as a Principle he could not hold that Christ suffered Gods penal and vindictive wrath except he had also held that the Elect do suffer Gods penal and vindicative wrath in this life But seeing all the punishments of the godly are called but chastisements even so the greatest of Christs sufferings on the cross are also comprised under Isa 53. 5. All Christs greatest sufferings are comprised under the word chastisements in Isa 53. 58. the word chastisement Isa 53. 5. But yet I grant also that Mr. Ainsworth held that as the Elect do often suffer Gods wrath so did Christ and in this last point I differed from him for though I hold that Gods chastisements on his own people are from his fatherly wrath yet I also beleeve that Christs chastisements were not from Gods wrath for correction to amendment as ours are But from the conditions of the voluntary Burges saith well that Jobs afflictions were to him as a storm or tempest is to a skilful Pilot or what a valiant Adversary is to a stout Champion on justif p. 28. and such was the nature of all Christs chastisements Covenant Christ was to suffer chastisements from the rage of Satan for the tryal of the perfection of his patience and obedience and because he continued constant in his obedience through all his sufferings from Satans rage therefore his sufferings have the condition of merit Besides this in all Mr. Ainsworths five Books on Moses and the Psalms which were published before this intercourse of Letters I find nothing in any of them that Christ suffered the Essential torments of Hell And therefore Mr. Ainsworth was not sound in the sense of these words Why hast thou forsaken me according to Mr. Nortons Tenent though he was far more sound than Mr. Norton is 2 I can instance the like in several other eminent Divines that held satisfaction by suffering Gods wrath in some degree and yet were far from holding as Mr. Norton doth that Christ suffered the very essential Torments of Hell both of loss and sense as Mr. Weams in his portrature p. 208. saith thus Because some things were unbeseeming to the person of Christ as the Torments of Hell the compensation of it was supplied by the worthiness of the person and to this purpose I could cite Ball on the Covenant p. 200. and others also 3 Our larger Annotations on Psa 22. 1. speak thus Christ as man did suffer partly in his body and partly in his soul but more in his soul than in his body more than can either be expressed by man or be imagined I do not see how any reasonable man can question that reads the story of his passion from his bloody swear unto the end and considers Christs own expressions recorded to us that we might know how much he hath suffered for us But saith the Annotation I will not say that there was a necessity that he should suffer so much just so much both in Body and Soul to make his sufferings available to our Redemption both of our bodies and of our souls This I dare not say because I have no warrant for it in the Scriptures and bare humane Ratiocination in these things is meet folly and madness This wary and judicious Annotation is quite opposite to Mr. Nortons Tenent for Mr. Norton holds no suffering to be available to our Redemption but a just satisfaction to 〈◊〉 namely Christs suffering of the Essential punis 〈…〉 ments both of loss and sense both in body and 〈…〉 this Annotation I will not say there was a necessity 〈◊〉 he should suffer so much just so much both in body 〈…〉 make his sufferings available to our Redemption 〈◊〉 our bodies and soul This saith the Annotation I dare not say because I have no warrant for it in the Scripture But Mr. Norton heaps up abundance of Scriptures to prove that Christ suffered the very essential torments of Hell both in Our larger Annotation on Psa 22. 1. doth account Mr. Nortons way of satisfaction to be but bare humane ratiocination which is but meer folly and madness body and soul and therefore according to this Annotation they must needs be wrested from their right sense for this Annotation accounts all that can be said for it to be but bare humane ratiocination and calls it meer folly and madness But Mr. Norton on the contrary doth boldly damn this denial in this Annotation to be Heresie such an antypathy there is between his Tenent and this Annotation But the Lord hath his time when truth shall prevail against Mr. Nortons most dangerous Scripture-less Tenent But saith Mr. Norton in p. 78. Psal 22. hath amplification of griefs caused by man instrumentally and by Gods anger as the efficient cause Reply 5. Mr. Norton affirms that Gods anger was the efficient cause of all the griefs that Christ suffered from his Cradle to his Cross But the Dialogue goes in another strain the Dialogue makes all Christs sufferings to be founded efficiently in the eternal Council and in the voluntary Covenant that was made between the Trinity for mans Redemption and therefore he was to perform all as a voluntary Covenanters and was not to be over-ruled by Gods judiciall imputation of our sins to him and by his supreme compulsory power in pressing him under the sence of his immediate wrath namely that Christ should take on him the seed of the deceived woman and in that nature should enter the Lists and Combate with Satan as I have often expounded Gods declared will in Gen. 3. 15. for it pleased God to put an utter enmity between the Devill and the seed of the woman even from the foundation of the world Gen. 3. 15. to try masteries and Isay fore-told that Christ should by his obedience to the death get the victory and divide the spoil Isa 53. 12. But saith Mr. Norton in p. 78. Anger in Scripture is sometimes taken for the hatred of God unto a person sometimes for the execution of vindicative Justice in this latter sense God was angry with Christ not in the former Reply 6. In Chapter 5. I have shewed from Dr. Ames that the essential torments of Hell are inflicted from Gods hatred And thence it follows That if Christ did suffer the essential torments of Hell then he suffered them from Gods hatred But saith Mr. Norton in p. 79. Christ doth complain in Psal 22. that God had forsaken him in anger for our sin Reply 7. I shall not need to make any other Reply to this than his own words in p. 42. To complain against God saith he is a sin and sheweth grudging But saith Mr. Norton in p. 79. Gods forsaking is either total and 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 and of this forsaking Christ complaineth in this place Reply 8. The punishment of loss is variously and
do but he willingly yeelded up his life when he could have lived longer if he would Joh. 10. 18. 24 Dr. Ames in his Marrow on the death of Christ c. 22. comes near unto the former for in Sect. 27. he saith That Christs death was in a certain manner supernatural and miraculous because Christ did keep his life and strength as long as he would and when he would he laid it down Joh. 10. 18. And in Sect 2. he saith it was an act and not a meer suffering c. out of power and not out of infirmity onely 25 Calvin on Joh. 10. 18. saith These words may be expounded two manner of wayes First That either Christ putteth his life from him himself remaining perfect as if a man should put off his cloathes Or else secondly That he died of his own accord The first of these two ways is active and the similitude as if a man put off his cloaths I conceive is borrowed either from Austin or from Bernard for both of them use this similitude to set out the active separating of the soul of Christ from his body 26 John White of Dorchester in his Way to the Tree of Life page 186. saith at lastly When he was nailed to the Cross hee voluntarily breathed out his soul into the bosom of his Father as it is evident both in that he was dead a good space before the two Theeves that were crucified with him whereas by reason of the strength of the natural constitution of his body he might have subsisted under those torments longer than they and besides by yeelding up his life when it was yet whole in him as it evidently appeared by his loud cry which he uttered at the very instant of his death as it is testified by Mar. 15. 37 39 and by Luk. 23. 46. All which are undeniable evidences of our Saviors voluntary resigning up Luk. 23. 46. and laying down his life according to the will of his Father for his peoples sins And Mr. Perkins on the Creed p. 141. agreeth thus far That the state and condition of our Saviours body on the Cross was such that he might have lived longer yet saith he by the Council of God he must to die at that place at that time and at that hour where and when he died And saith the Dialogue in p. 97. The Angel Gabriel was sent to tell Daniel at the time of the Evening Oblation that from that very hour to the death of Christ should be 490 yeers exactly cut out Dan. 9. 24. 27 John Trap in Matth. 27. 46. saith thus Jesus cried with a loud voyce therefore saith he he laid down his life at his own pleasure for by his loud out-cry it appeared that he could have lived longer if he had listed for any decay of nature under those exquisite torments that he suffered in his body but much greater in his soul And saith Trap in Joh. 19. 33. He took his own time to die Joh. 19. 33. and therefore in vers 30. it is said He bowed his head and gave up the Ghost Whereas other men bow not the head until they have given up the Ghost And saith he he cried also with a loud voyce and dyed which shewes that hee wanted not strength of nature to have lived longer if it had pleased him 28 I might cite the words of Dr. Williams to this purpose in his Seven golden Candlesticks pag. 492. in Quarto And I could also cite divers others that speak to this effect But I hope the Judicious will think that these are sufficient to vindicate the Dialogue from Mr. Nortons over-bold and false charge But saith Mr. Norton in p. 171. Such as hold that Christ died of himself do also hold that Christ made satisfaction by suffering the essential curse the one opposeth not the other Reply 24. I grant that about four or five of the last cited Divines did hold so No full satisfaction was made by any thing that Christ suffered before his death was com But I say also that had they been put to answer this Question Whether did the formality of Christs satisfaction lie in his greatest sufferings before he gave up the Ghost or in the formality of his death by giving up the Ghost They would soon have answered That no formality of satisfaction was made by any thing that he suffered until he gave up the ghost in perfection of obedience by his own Priestly power and the reason is plain because his death must be made a sacrifice for the procuring of Gods attonement and there can bee no formality of a sacrifice but by giving up the ghost or in case any shall deny this Answer I beleeve they will intangle themselves in other inconveniences that they cannot escape as long as they deny the said Answer 2 I say further That the one doth most evidently oppose the other namely in the formality of satisfaction for in case Sometimes Mr. Norton doth place the formality of satisfaction in Christs spiritual death as it accompanied his bodily death and sometimes contradicts that and affirms that Christ made full satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell before he suffered his natural death Christ had made full and formal satisfaction by suffering the essential Torments of Hell before his death was compleated as Mr. Norton doth sometimes most unadvisedly affirm then the formality of his death and sacrifice was altogether needless as to the point of satisfaction which is high blasphemy to affirm Sometimes indeed Mr. Norton doth joyn his spiritual death and his bodily death together in the point of satisfaction as if his bodily death was caused by his spiritual death as in pag. 122 153 174 213 c. And thus he makes Christ to dye in a cloud for he makes the soul of Christ to depart out of his body under the cloud of Gods vindicative wrath when he said Father into thy hands I commend my spirit But in page 32. he doth contradict this for there he saith That Christ suffered the essential penal wrath of God which saith he doth answer the suffering of the second death before he suffered his natural death And saith he in page 150. Christ offered himself before his humane nature was dissolved by death In both these places you see that he doth hold That Christ made full satisfaction before he suffered his natural death for so he doth falsely call the death of Christ And hence it follows that he doth most dangerously affirm that his bodily death in the formality of it was altogether vain and needless as to the point of satisfaction as I have once before noted it in Chap. 4. page 79. And saith another learned Divine This reason drawn from the final cause of Christs sufferings is most derogatory to the infinit worth of Christs bloody sacrifice On the other hand when hee makes him to dye formally under the immediate vindictive wrath of God Hee makes the Father to be the